Loading...
2019, 02-28 Agenda Packet Omne Valle y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. February 28, 2019 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2019 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.60.050, proposing changes to duplex and townhome development standards. ii. Public Hearing: Proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — only new information has been added to this agenda packet. Each of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments is posted separately on the Planning Commission website. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City Hall February 14,2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:59 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley arrived late at 6:01 p.m. Karen Kendall, Planner Robert McKinley Martin Palaniuk, Planner Michael Phillips, absent- excused Colin Quinn-Hurts, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent-excused Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioners Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the February 14, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 24, 2019 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson thanked Secretary Horton for going above and beyond in providing him the materials he needed in preparation for the meeting due to his absence. Commissioner Johnson advised he attended the City Council meeting February 5, 2019 regarding the Planned Action Ordinance for the Centennial Business Park that the Commission forwarded. The Council unanimously moved the item forward for a second reading and Chair Johnson congratulated the Commission on their work. He added that he attended a lecture put on by YWCA at Gonzaga and the speaker was Jackson Cats, PHD "What does it mean to be a strong Man". The lecture was regarding gender equality and was eye opening. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow had nothing to report, but commented that she would update the advanced agenda prior to the next meeting. VIII. P UBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard advised that her public comment from the January 24, 2019 meeting was not accurately reflected in the minutes. She stated her comment regarding East Rich was mistaken to be East Ridge. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 i. Deliberations: CTA 2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.060.050, proposing changes to duplex and townhome development standards. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized that the amendment would modify the Permitted Use Matrix in SVMC 19.60.050. This amendment would change the Matrix to add supplemental regulations to the requirements for duplexes and would eliminate townhomes in the R-3 zone. This would also add supplemental regulations restricting duplexes to one duplex per acre, they would be required to be on separate lots with separate parcel numbers. This amendment would also add regulations dictating duplex location and proximity to each other. Lastly, this would modify Cottage Development standards by requiring that the development have more than one owner. Ms. Barlow explained that the Commissioners asked if the City had employment projections or information relative to rental verses owner occupied housing at the previous meeting. Ms. Barlow noted that she was unable to identify employment projections for the City, but she was able to collect data from the 2018 census regarding owner occupied housing units. Ms. Barlow provided a map depicting housing units at the Census tract level identifying the percentage of homes that are owner occupied within each tract. Ms. Barlow explained the Census counts each dwelling unit as well as each single family home highlighting that anything considered to be a"dwelling unit"was captured. For example, each unit within a multi-family complex is a unit that would be counted. Ms. Barlow concluded that the closer the areas are to corridors or the freeway the higher the rental rates, moving further south and east of the City the owner occupied rate increases in those lower density zones. Commissioner Kelly requested clarification asking if the percentages listed are owner occupied or rentals. Ms. Barlow explained the percentages reflect owner occupied homes. Commissioner Kelly asked how the map depicts rentals. Ms. Barlow explained that the census identified these percentages by counting everything (single family, duplexes, apartments, manufactured homes, etc.)that constitutes a dwelling unit. Continuing that some of the tracts have very dense single family residential neighborhoods, but also have a high number of apartment complexes. When these land uses are combined in the tract, the results are skewed by the high number of apartments within the complexes. The rentals are concentrated in one area; while if you look closer in the neighborhood the single family areas have a very high percentage of owner occupied homes. Commissioner Johnson stated he was surprised to see 84 % rental occupied units east of Pines Road and south of the freeway. Ms. Barlow advised that the area in question has 900 housing units and 148 of them are owner occupied. Commissioner Walton asked if the City has any current applications for new duplexes or townhomes pending. Ms. Barlow stated she does not have information on current construction permits. Information on the number of platted lots or plats under review could be compiled, but it's problematic due to the length of time that it may take a developer to record a plat following preliminary review. She continued to explain the three step process for approving a plat She concluded that it is difficult to know how many lots may be developed with duplexes versus how many lots are large enough to allow a duplex. Commissioner Johnson asked about a letter received in the packet from Leonard and Nancy Percell, stating there was no date stamp on the letter and asked when it was received. Ms. Barlow explained the letter was forwarded to the City via an email from Ms. Pete Miller who was aware that it was not provided to us in time for the public 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 hearing. After discussion with the legal department it was determined it could be provided for consideration as the public hearing was still open. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the number of duplexes that would be reduced. Ms. Barlow explained that table three of the staff report captures how many duplexes would be allowed under the current regulations verses how many duplexes would be allowed if this code text amendment were to be passed. Ms. Barlow explained that should you have a lot size of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet you would be allowed one duplex under the current regulations. She continued that the code text amendment as proposed insinuates you would have to have at least one acre of land and would not allow any duplex development on 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Johnson clarified that the 161 vacant lots that were 15,000 to 39,930 square feet would allow one to three duplexes or two to six dwelling units under the current code. Commissioner Johnson stated that under the proposed amendment up to one duplex could be developed, and that was agreed upon by Ms. Barlow. Commissioner Johnson stated that the amendment could potentially reduce up to 600 dwelling units. Ms. Barlow concluded that this amendment does not affect our land capacity analysis to due underlying minimum lot size being the same for a single family dwelling as it is a duplex. Commissioner Johnson asked about developmental rights. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the City regulates land use and restrict rights through zoning. Mr. Lamb added that the duplex portion of this proposed regulation limits the number of duplexes,but does not necessarily limit the number of dwelling units in total. The applicant would not be prohibited from constructing and using the land for residential purposes with the same number of dwelling units. Mr. Lamb added it may be cheaper to build duplex dwelling units, and the developer may see a different return on investment but no total loss of units allowed would occur and thus no substantial injury incurred. Mr. Lamb added that from a taking standpoint staff isn't overly concerned, but it is something to consider. Ms. Barlow concluded that if the Planning Commission recommendation is for approval, staff requests the Planning Commissioners provide specific direction as to how to rewrite the proposal making it implementable to alleviate staff's concerns. Commissioner Johnson asked about a concern heard during public comment regarding the feasibility of cottages as a viable development. Ms. Barlow explained that if this were to be implemented as written, cottage development may not be allowed. Commissioner Walton stated his concern was intent verses interpretation regarding owners selling after development and if they would be in violation. Mr. Lamb added the City does not regulate who purchases a property, since that is a private transaction between two parties. Mr. Lamb added that if the application indicated multiple owners the City would have no recourse. Commissioner Walton asked if the City has determined an interpretation on converting a single family to a duplex and how that would be regulated or impacted and the answer was no. There was discussion regarding a dwelling that could be developed as duplex and the permit review process to determine if it can be done. Ms. Barlow added that for the record the addition of accessory dwelling units(ADU)is different than converting a home to a duplex. This happens frequently and the ADU does not require a 5,000 square feet lot per dwelling unit. Hearing no further questions Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:40 PM During deliberation Commissioner Kelley stated the testimony from public comment was excellent and understands their passion; however, he cannot see how to implement this as presented. Commissioner McKinley added he agreed with Commissioner Kelley and had 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 nothing further. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated that she understands the desire to protect the neighborhood character and the traffic concerns, but did not feel the proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added she is concerned with the availability of affordable housing and is not in favor. Commissioner Walton expressed his worry in trying to find a solution to the problem. He noted he has seen the uptick in apartments and duplexes. Commissioner Walton stated he understands the community character is changing and gave the elimination of the open space requirement in the Mixed Use zones as an example He finds it concerning to see a more urbanized Valley. He continued with his concerns regarding the language and how difficult it would be to achieve while keeping in line with the Comprehensive Plan and concluded that he could not support this proposal as presented. Commissioner Johnson stated he understands the feelings surrounding the quality of life as he grew up here and gave examples of his childhood. Commissioner Johnson asked what the Valley would look like if it had been decided back then that they didn't want growth. He added that change happens. He applauded the applicants for their work on the amendment and effort to impact change in a positive manner. He went to state, that as a government entity we have to consider the common good and the common good does not necessarily mean what is best for a few. He went onto explain that he agrees that owner occupied is much more desirable environment and encourages more investment into the community. Commissioner Johnson felt if there was a moratorium on development of duplexes there could be litigation. He concluded that he could not support this proposal. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend denial of CTA 2018-0005. Commissioner Walton stated there is still opportunity for residents to engage moving forward and encouraged citizens that have concerns to come forward to the City Council or member of the Commission to voice their opinions. The vote on the motion was five in favor and zero opposed and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: Proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Ms. Barlow gave some background and introduced the 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Ms. Barlow explained that the deadline for applications was October 31, 2018 at which time the City had received three privately initiated and seven City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City Council approved the docket on November 20, 2018 and the City began notification requirements and review. Ms. Barlow advised the Commission will conduct the study session and that the public hearing is scheduled February 28, 2019 with deliberations to be held on March 14, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the information provided and public comments. She noted that public comment had not been closed and the Commission would receive additional comments up to the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that these proposals will be addressed individually but will be forwarded to the Council as a group. Ms. Barlow explained that yes, during the public hearing stage each proposal would be discussed individually to allow for ease of public comment. Each item will be addressed individually by the Commission and can be modified, approved or denied. Finally, the recommendations will be forwarded to the council as a complete package. Mr. Lamb added that the law requires these items to be considered collectively to ensure that the impacts are considered cumulatively. 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 a. CPA-2019-0004: A City Initiated Amendment to update implementation strategies to remove completed strategies, update timelines, and add new strategies consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0004. Ms. Barlow explained that this will modify some strategies in Chapter 2 to refresh some language and bring it into sync with the City's objectives. This will remove strategies that have been completed, update timelines and modify with new information. Ms. Barlow gave an example of strategies to remove such as pursuing funding for the Barker Grade separation since the money has been procured and the City is moving forward. b. CPA-2019-0006: A City Initiated Amendment to Annexation and policy additions. Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow explained that this amendment would be to modify the existing annexation policies and add one additional policy. The proposed amendment would require the City to develop criteria for processing annexation requests and would develop framework for regulations in the future. This amendment would also identify land use designations in our unincorporated urban growth area. Lastly, a policy would be modified to include that the City looks at fiscal impacts to utilities when considering annexation. c. CPA-2019-0008 A City Initiated Amendment to create a new map appendix of the most recently adopted maps. Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0008. Ms. Barlow explained that this introduces a new map appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The maps are not new to the City but the appendix is new to the Comprehensive Plan. The appendix will capture the maps and attached them to the Comprehensive Plan making them more accessible to the public at a manageable size. d. CPA-2019-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to update pedestrian and bicycle component of the Transportation Element and related goals and policies. Transportation Planner Colin Quinn-Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0004. Mr. Quinn-Hurst explained that this amendment updates the pedestrian and bicycle components in completing the pathway and trail network. This will add language to support consideration of Complete Streets. Mr. Quinn-Hurst explained that the bicycle and pedestrian plan was first established in 2011 and the updates will revise the components to reflect changes in the network based on current conditions and practicalities. The 2011 recommendations included a network of 156 miles of sidewalk, 38 miles of bike lanes and 28 miles of new pathways. Mr. Quinn-Hurts explained that with 156 miles at$600.00 per foot for a new side walk the cost is a substantial amount of money adding up to half a billion and decades of time. Mr. Quinn-Hurst stated the City conducted a public involvement process that included attending community events and an online survey. Through the survey it was determined that the top priority for improvements was a completed sidewalk system the second priority was good pavement, and third priority was pathway and bikeway improvements followed by crosswalks. The City administered a technical evaluation looking at crashes and safety, congestion and travel patterns,to find"hot spots"where improvements would have the largest impact and fit in line with public 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 comment. In conclusion adding text to Chapter 5 would outline these priorities, add language to support the goal of connecting the pathway network by linking the Appleway Trail to the Centennial Trail. Lastly this amendment would add language supporting eventual consideration of a Complete Streets ordinance to leverage existing funding. e. CPA-2019-0007 A City Initiated Amendment to update Figures 26, 27 and 46 to reflect changes and amendments to pedestrian and bicycle facility recommendations. Mr. Quinn-Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0007. Mr. Quinn -Hurst advised this proposal is to update the Sidewalk, Bicycle and School District Maps to reflect completed projects and updated networks. f. CPA-2019-00010 A City Initiated Amendment create a new appendix of transportation projects for a 20-year period that is informed by existing studies. Mr. Quinn -Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0010. Mr. Quinn -Hurst advised this amendment will create an appendix showing a list of 20- year transportation projects. This will be regularly updated as a resource for vetting and developing our transportation projects to make them eligible for grant opportunities Commissioner Kelley asked about the implementation of a sidewalk in R-3 residential zones on private property and how the setbacks are addressed with the homeowner. Mr. Quinn -Hurts advised that is one of the largest challenges of constructing sidewalk as property owners often have landscaping in the City right-of- way. It was discussed that the City has the authority to construct the improvement within public right-of-way and that the City pays for all sidewalk improvements when it is a City initiated project. The resident has no cost to them. g. CPA-2019-00001:A Privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I)to Single Family Residential(SFR) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I)to Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Planner Karen Kendall introduced CPA-2019-0001 a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment, located 300 feet south of the intersection of Park Road and Broadway Avenue. This site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I) to Single Family Residential (SFR) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I)to Single Family. Ms. Kendall went on to explain the potential incompatibility of rezoning the site to R- 3 from Industrial as it would reduce the allowable uses from a broad range of industrial uses to single family, duplex, cottages, townhomes, daycares, school and church uses. The R-3 zone would allow six dwelling units per acre and up to 12 units per acre with cottage development. Changing the land use designation and zoning of the subject parcel will impact adjacent industrial properties as future development will be subject to transitional regulations, limiting ability for full site development. The transitional standards include greater setbacks, screening requirements and various other restrictions. Ms. Kendall explained that if approved, the transitional regulations would apply to any new development on the four parcels adjacent to the subject parcel located 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 to the west and south. Ms. Kendall went on to explain that two of the surrounding parcels have recent activity. One parcel has an active building permit and the other has gone through a pre-application meeting-both for industrial development. Commissioner Kelley asked questions regarding adding borders to residential and industrial properties and how this would affect the size of each parcel. Ms. Kendall explained that yes that would be the case, if this were to be changed to R-3 zoning it would impact the future development of the four adjacent parcels as the land surrounding the properties would become larger reducing the size of the existing. She referred to the graphic highlighting the areas affected by the transitional regulation. Commissioner Johnson asked for confirmation that one of the current parcels has development occurring. Ms. Kendall explained, one property has an active building permit and the other has completed a preliminary application meeting inquiring what they can develop on the property. The site does not have an active permit, however they are contemplating development. Ms. Kendall concluded the proposed amendment is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Walton confirmed that if this were to pass this change would isolate two parcels from the industrial zone bordering north Park Road. Commissioner Walton asked how this change would impact existing use of surrounding property's? Ms. Kendall advised the property would remain the same. If the amendment were to be approved and if the property owners choose to redeveloped the property to a nonresidential use in the future, they would have to comply with the transitional regulations. h. CPA-2019-0002: A Privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Planner Marty Palaniuk presented CPA-2019-0002, explaining this is a privately initiated amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Neighborhood Commercial(NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Palaniuk stated that the property is located at 8th Avenue and Sullivan Road. 8th Avenue is a minor arterial, and Sullivan Road is a principal arterial with approximately 20,000 vehicle trips per day. This is directly across the street from Central Valley High School which creates significant traffic. North of the high school there has been substantial multifamily developments creating significant density. Mr. Pal aniuk stated that this site consists of two properties, one owned by the Genesis Church and one residence. There is an irrigation district located to the west of the property and a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement. The easement encumbers both of the properties along the east boundary and does create some issues. Mr. Palaniuk explained the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for these properties is to have single family residential units. If approved this would change the land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial intended to provide neighborhood scaled commercial developments to serve the neighborhoods. Mr. Palaniuk explained the current zoning of R-3 limits the uses, changing the zoning would allow several additional uses to include retail, office and convenience stores. He added the 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 development restrictions to the Neighborhood Commercial zone would keep the scale of the development to fit into the neighborhood. For example, height requirements would be the same and setbacks would be designed to be consistent with the adjacent residential lots. Mr. Palaniuk concluded that this proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. i. CPA-2019-0003 A Privately Initiated Amendment Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multi Family Residential (MFR) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Multi Family Residential (MFR) Mr. Palaniuk presented CPA-2019-0003, a privately initiated amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3)to Multifamily Residential (MFR). Mr. Palaniuk stated the property is located near the Mullan Road and Argonne Road corridor which are both principal arterials that are heavily traveled. Mr. Palaniuk added that this corridor is mostly commercial uses with a large retail center located northeast of the site. Mr. Palaniuk continued that this site is situated on the northwest corner of Sinto Avenue and Marguerite Road within an older neighborhood. The site is a single parcel with two duplexes and a single family home constructed on site. Current regulations would not permit the numerous dwellings on one lot. Mr. Palaniuk continued explaining the current uses adjacent to the site are commercial. The intent of this amendment it to change the current land use designation of Single Family Residential to Multifamily Residential. The change would allow multifamily development and low impact commercial development, and would change the zoning regulations significantly, the density would allow additional units. Mr. Palaniuk continued adding that the most significant change would be increasing the height requirements from 35 feet to 55 feet, and the setback requirements. Mr. Palaniuk concluded this is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Walton asked how would this be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan as it is essentially creating a Multifamily Residential "island". Mr. Palaniuk explained that normally if this were a site specific rezone it would not meet the criteria. Due to this being an amendment this is considered to be an area wide rezone, looking at the plan it seeks to situate multifamily near transportation corridors and retail centers. Ms. Barlow added that the review of the Comprehensive Plan is just as Mr. Palaniuk stated however, if this were a site specific rezone this would meet the criteria as the commercial zone located across the street is a higher intensity zone; multifamily is a less intensive zone and would meet the criteria. Commissioner Johnson asked if the development directly north was a duplex development. Mr. Palaniuk advised that there are five duplexes on the lot. It was believed the applicant approached the owners asking if they had interest in the amendment, and they declined at this time. j. CPA-2019-0009: A City Initiated Amendment Proposal to change Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Planner Karen Kendall introduced CPA-2019-0009 a City initiated Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. Ms. Kendall explained the property involved is 18.7 acres and includes 12 parcels of land north of Mission Avenue between McDonald Road on the west and Mamer Road to the east. Ms. Kendall explained that there is a 150-foot-wide Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 crossing the properties and noted that the properties were largely developed as the Whimsical Pig with other various owners and uses. Ms. Kendall went on to explain the surrounding uses of the site include single family residence, multifamily, professional offices, assisted living and retail. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is to provide land that will allow light manufacturing,retail, multifamily and offices along transpiration corridors -the uses in the area currently fit the intent. Ms. Kendall explained that should this change occur; the amendment area would be allowed to further develop consistently with the adjacent land uses. Ms. Kendall continued that the zone change would allow uses that align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan along the major transportation corridor being Mission Avenue. Ms. Kendall concluded that there is limited development opportunity for these properties. This proposal would allow development along the corridor consistent with the corridor and would not be create any nonconforming use with the change. The Corridor Mixed Use designation has no height limitations; in comparison the current Multifamily Residential zone is limed to 50 feet in height. However, there are not many buildings that currently push or exceed the 50-foot height limit. Ms. Kendall added the Corridor Mixed use has no density limits and the change may allow an increase in the density. Ms. Kendall concluded that the amendment would make the location consistent with the surrounding area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Johnson asked if parking can be located within the easement. Ms. Kendall advised that yes there can be parking however, no buildings can be constructed in the easement. Commissioner Johnson asked if the lots to the far east were single family homes. Ms. Kendall advised they are single family residences and there would be no transitional standards as transitional standards only apply between zones. Ms. Barlow addressed the Commission regarding procedural process and the next step will be the public hearing scheduled for February 28, 2019. Commissioner Johnson asked about public hearing notification. Ms. Barlow advised the notification went out and the City increased the notification requirement area from the 400 feet to 800 feet around the site specific requests. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton was appreciative to the community for their civic duty and applauded them for taking action. He stated it was with regret that he had to vote as he did. He stated the purpose of the Commission is to maintain the Comprehensive Plan in looking out for the citizens and the future in keeping the Valley vibrant. Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the staff and the public for their comments. Commissioner Johnson thanked the public for their comments and understands the difficulties in loss for the quality of life. He explained the Commission is here for the common good and that is the only way it works. If it is narrowed to serve the few,that is when it fails. He thanked the Commission for their hard work. Commissioner Kelley commented on the Planned Action Ordinanc amendment the Commission passed. He noted that an article in the paper noted the council was looking at approving the amendment, but that there wasn't going to be a requirement for any environmental study. Mr. Lamb advised that the article misstated the details. It was determined that there may be an environmental review, but, the City will have already undertaken the environmental review. The Council is considering allowing developers to rely on the environmental review that has already been done. Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification that should someone propose a project to the industrial zone that may need additional study they will have to conduct further testing, Mr. Lamb advised that yes, that would be the case. 02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10 XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary PC ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only As of February 21,2019 ***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative and subject to change*** To: Commission& Staff From: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings March 14,2019 Findings of Fact: Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Lori Note: Additional meetings scheduled as necessary. March 28,2019 Study Session: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards—Karen (Tentative) April 11,2019 Public Hearing: CTA-2018-000X - Addressing Standards—Karen April 25,2019 Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards—Karen Draft Advance Agenda 2/21/2019 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2019 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0005 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact - Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40 and 19.60. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately-initiated code text amendment (CTA) to 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC to add regulations within the R-3, Single-Family Residential Urban zone (R-3) that limit duplex development, prohibit townhomes, and preclude single ownership of a cottage development. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150. 19.40, 19.60; and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the January 8, 2019 meeting. On January 24, 2019 the Commission conducted a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The public hearing was continued at the February 14, 2019 meeting, and closed after staff presented Census information regarding owner-occupied housing. The Commission deliberated and voted five to zero to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2018-0005 be denied. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation for CTA-2018-0005 or provide staff further direction. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. PC Findings and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 RPCA Public Hearing continued for CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0005—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2018-0002 is a privately initiated code text amendment(CTA)to chapters 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC to add regulations within the R-3, Single-Family Residential Urban zone (R-3) that limit duplex development,prohibit townhomes, and preclude single ownership of a cottage development. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on January 24,2019 and conducted deliberations on February 14, 2019. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council deny the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria a. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the following provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Goal LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types Goal H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. Goal H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Policy H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre-fabricated homes, co-housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Policy H-P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 2 Policy H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. b. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment based on the following reasons. The Applicant has not identified how the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. The sole basis identified by the Applicant for the proposed amendment is to"mitigate excessive duplex/rental buildout detrimental to homeowners." The proposed amendments create regulations that are in conflict with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would create barriers to providing alternative and affordable housing options in the R-3 zone. Further,it creates unclear and difficult to implement regulations. The amendment does not bear a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. 3. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council deny CTA-2018-0005. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0005 Approved this 28th day of February, 2019 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0005 Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED Exhibit 1 - CTA-2019-0005 Proposed Amendment NOV 1 6 2014 SPGKar'E '.'2LLL' . 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space • R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling P Animal raising and/or keeping SSS S S S Animal shelter S P P Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S Community garden SS S S S S S Greenhouse/nursery. commercial P P P Kennel S S S S P P Orchard, tree farming, P P commercial Riding stable P P C Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility PPP P P P P P Small cell deployment S SS S S S S S S S S Telecommunication wireless S SS S S S S S S S antenna array Telecommunication wireless SSS S S S S S S S support tower Tower, ham operator SSS S S S S S S S Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P Church, temple, mosque, PPP P P P P P synagogue and house of worship .Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC lMU I POS Crematory P P P P Funeral home P P Transitional housing C Day Care Day care, adult PPPP P P P P P P Day care, child (12 children or PPPP P P P P P P fewer) Day care, child (13 children or CCCP P P P P P P more) Eating and Drinking P P P P P P S Establishment Education Schools, college or university P P P Schools, K through 12 PPPP P P P P Schools, professional, vocational P P P P P P and trade schools Schools, specialized P P P P training/studios Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S Casino P P P Cultural facilities P P P P Exercise facility S S S S Off-road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Racecourse - P P P P Racetrack P P Recreational facility P P P P P P Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU 'CMU NC RC IMU 1 POS Theater. indoor P P P Group Living Assisted P P P P living/convalescent/nursing hone Community residential facilities P P P P P P (6 residents or less) Community residential facilities P P P (greater than 6 and under 25 residents) Dwelling, congregate P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Hazardous waste treatment and S S storage Manufacturing. heavy ` P Processing, heavy • P Mining S Industrial, Light Assembly. light P P P P P Manufacturing. light P P P Processing, light P P Recycling facility S S S S Industrial service p p Lodging Bed and breakfast P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle I S park/campground Marijuana Uses Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space T R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU l POS Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Medical S P P P P P Office Animal clinic/veterinary S S S S S Office, professional PPP P P P 1' Parks and Open Space Cemetery P P P Golf course P P P P P P P P Golf driving range C C C C' P C P P P Parks PPP P 1' P P P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPP P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities RRRR R R R R R Public utility local distribution SSS S S S S l' P P S facility Public utility transmission facility S SS S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S SS S Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S SS Dwelling, caretaker's residence S SSS S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex PS P P P Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Dwelling, industrial accessory S S dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily P P ,P Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S Retail Sales and Service P P 5 P P S S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations S S S P P P P P P P S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop t. C P Parking facility—controlled P P P P P access Railroad yard, repair shop and P roundhouse Transit center P P P P P Vehicle Services Automobile impound yard P P _ Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and P P P P P tires Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle P P P P painting, repair, body and fender works Car wash P P S P P P • Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P 5 P P P A 19.40.060 Development standards -- Duplexes. Duplexes shall be limited to I duplex per acre. Du slexes shall have se+crate .arcel numbers .er each dwelling unit, be non-adiacent, across the street from or on opposite corners. Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit. setback standards, maximum lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70-1. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.40.050 Development standards—Cottage development. A. Site. 1. The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage development: 2. The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone; 3 Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry andior covered porch oriented to the common open space; 4 Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards: a. Twenty-foot front yard setback; b. Ten-foot rear yard setback; and c. Five-foot side yard setback: 5. Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria: a. Four hundred square feet of common open space per cottage; b. Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted towards the common open space: c. One common open space shall be located centrally to the project with pathways connecting the common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building and community building: d. Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the open space, and e Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement: 6. One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage is required. B Building 1 Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet. 2 The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet. 3 The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet. 4. Buildings shall be varied in height. size, proportionality, orientation. rooflines, doors, windows, and building materials. 5. Porches shall be required. C. Other. 1, Accessory dwel9ing units are prohibited. 2. In-whole purchase of any development by one entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited. 3. 2. All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. D Permit Type. Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 9.150 SVMC. E. SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. (Ord. 16- 018 § 6 (Aft. B), 2016). CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 28, 2018 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ®public hearing ❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2019 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Public Hearing PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: On February 14, 2019, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs). The Planning Commission should review the following proposed CPAs and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the proposed amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal,they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 2019 CPA's: The Community and Public Works Department is processing three privately initiated requests for Comprehensive Plan Map amendments. In addition,the City is initiating one proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendments and several updates to various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will also be subject to a change in a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. At this time, the Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing on the proposed amendments and consider public input. Written public comment received thus far is attached for your information. Please add the documents to the appropriate application sections of the yellow binder. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Colin Quinn-Hurst ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: PowerPoint Exhibit 2: Additional Comment Received as of February 21, 2019 - Exhibit 7 — CPA-2019-0009: Trip Generation and Distribution Letter dated February 21, 2019 prepared by Ray Wright, Sr. Traffic Engineer - Exhibit 10 - CPA-2019-0001: John Crull email dated 2/14/2019 (Note: the exhibit is intended to be added to the yellow binder) 1 of 1 Valley 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Planning Commission Public Hearing February 28, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process 0 ._ .O — •– .N Administrative _ _ • Study Session a O 2-14-19 ••� Report D •V . •o 3 N 0 .c O 0 5f Q 5 ♦- } E `} i U Public Hearing`` Ordinance 1 N •– O Ootp 2-28-19 U Reading 1 i _4 •_ O V = Q N w Q Findings of Fact U Ordinance 2nd 0_ Q Z 3-14-19 Reading 1 i 0= aiiillik i 1 Today Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process SVMC 17.80. 140 I Staff Role Planning City Council • Facilitate Process Commission • Legislative • Conducts Review • Conducts Public Decision and Analysis Hearing • Considers Public • Prepares • Deliberates and Comment Reports and Makes • Discretion to public notices Recommendation approve, modify, to Council or deny requests PublicHearing otice of ----lik-1.11111111tv.A. ,,E 1 ►itoY __.„ - Eli ❑ Published in paper0111_IS igillig".414 .41"V\\NALM _ WAY , 1 - 30- 19 ssikAsk, kk. � m. , .AAA at,,, ally AirrAPAOr ',0' '4, li . kttimrief , 4 4 0 , ■ ❑ Posted 1 - 30- 19 n 1 ! o / H,e),"r j9yoz,-0;aA'''k\N.,N‘Nikt,mr,\ r ./ • ❑ Mailed 1 -30- 19 ,.: , 1 .,-,,,,,\ ' i i Extended noticing from 400 � i _i feet radius to 800 feet. Legend ililgi!____ Parcels `-�! I E—' r—I—M—i r Planning Commission Materials MI 1111 Yellow Binder City' ' Aria j�o°bane Pa/Icy ❑ Application Materials m p p ,odd tiovi,a1 Amend prehensiue plan t 4 fi „ 4 mems ❑ Staff Report �' ' *„ COMMENTS , sA, , :� Cririiirse Received i, ncy Comments `'Sic Comments1 4 ' ❑ Maps r 4,t,,, ,,,,, ❑ Any other related documents ......wv,.., t Approval Criteria — Staff Report Analysis Required Findino Other Considerations Supports public health, safety o Effect on Environment welfare, and protects the ❑ Compatibility and impact on environment existing uses and neighborhoods Consistent with GMA and ❑ Adequacy and impact on Comprehensive Plan services Responds to a change in o Benefit to City and Region conditions o Quantity, Location and Demand Corrects an error for land Addresses a deficiency o Projected population for area o Other effects on Comp. Plan City Initiated Text Amendments CPA-2019-0004 , 0006 , and 0008 CPA-201 9-0004 — Strategies Amend Strategies Chapter 2 Strategies for implementation The strategies included on the previous pages are compiled here for reference. Legend For each strategy,the implementat on matrix provided below also exploresIt bconomicDeveloprnent Removedcompleted the relationship between each strategy and the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan,designates lead staff or organization for implementation • Land Use activities,outlines a time table for completion,and provides a rough sense of • Transportation relative priority.Though the strategies are not mandatory for the City,they are Update timelines an important window into Spokane Valley's approach to the implementation • Housing of the Comprehensive Plan and they merit continued evaluation be City staff. • Capital Pad kips. • Public&Private Utilities Modify with new information . Parks&(]pen Spaces • Natural Resources Develop new STRATEGY PRIMARY RELATED ELEMENTS} PARTNERS TIMING PRIORITY Undertake a cernerehenslve branding process Se create and market art Identity Foe Spokane Valley t ED.M I11an, 2,17 HIGH that sells the Cltys inherent assets to would-be Eeeramic • • Visit Spokane residents,empleyers,and visiters Development Diwi Continue participation in regional taurism-ptd- 5 Eladeh. notion efforts and Inth crease e City's presence In Eemamie 8 itValteyfese Y51€ Ordcnv HIGH Spokane.Sports regional events Development Commission Evaluate the reunion investment of potential tourism anchors and allocate available funds Economic r• Ii •• E6.Drrkww 21St HIGH according iv thefrndings Develop ment Visit Sppokane CPA-201 9-0006 — Annexation Policies w Create annexation policies 490 Criteria forg rocessin �` p ID land use designations00 90 1 :- ... , Analyze fiscal impacts AVe ■ PW ` 9 Es���w III I lli Pli S 1111 E32nd Av+ ma 9[P 1 h 1 \ �v 4 Z] CPA-2019-0008 — New Map Appendix ,, __ 1 __ _. Create 11 "x17" maps Easier to read and copy Appendix Figure 16.Future Land Use 7-// /j y ee Pase n-ems / d�e11 oalr: • Assist in public records16 011 .,: : dies /�/ a Flela // SyoNa a r Ma�— -r ` . it -r-- PI ,i�� ' _.--7':- :_ 'tom . �'. Ani -te Poco .__ ../— a y i T ars e, ,i, 1 . . ■nr!,..., * IIS • j� � + M les �/ t_ % Valley .d r II 1.,, _. :: .. .rte ✓/ l, 1 • / IMP IV s. // 1 ...,,,,:,, ...,......., i 56.0 rw a b rail ..Bone. ciio� Staff, Agency & Public Comment Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment a No Agency ❑ No public comments comments received received CPA-201 90006 0008 12 Strategies for Implementation .r------' Fe"▪ wM n.."Mn..lalb..w..pr,...Wen d.q ew4.c ,, u.mow..hem,..n W.hry w m�....>.Cmem,m ....- I IW*.aw,PA.l11KI.WK.Mcr.q o•a.«w.,UUimn..... •' - ' I waw. . an m• om.wireax u,*Rana VON,.appall,.to me Nrylwanniaan filhi,j1-' ,— y PUBLIC � I'I. ..mom_,�� 111 . . 2 - en. H� �"' _ . is ulai ..._,....._ COMMENT .k...,. _ ..m .. . .. .. - .. 4' ..., PM, @ �/ PLUIT 156 Fl.re Land Use (please come to podium ,, �.; ./ ,..... ,„,,,„,,, , _ .,_____ ___ .. .,, fi j y i -, 2 , _w - City Initiated Text/Map Amendments CPA-2019-0005 , 0007 and 0010 Colin Quinn-Hurst, Senior Planner CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5 � Ewele9�YAe Camp Se,nui 's Fe' -- W31 Fe.k �\ EUpriver Dr park I r • Update Transportation =I =_ - _ ,nma,nd A X0� z._- i I r Fits held ea✓`k.P BuUceYen J MII otl-♦. MI h /o�� ♦ EEutlld Avco e"--,,,, Element• - .. ., 'Il.' __ . Ehlo4ry Pohl Par,• .,,,_ •., -o --� rku Mission AUG m EM ,Ava - '•!klne ~ s „_ , Focus onpedestrian and =1 z� '.4i MI �•"`° z 4 ■■■. .,r. A. bicycle components ES+ra•ueAve 11111111111 — z� - 41h Ave 7•E4tn A+! _ Z v r ■I•' it ,— i - A.ai iiimmEBth _ -_ 1E8th Ave Y I AveAve O Connect pathway networkf„.....,„,- +-Pk ' lath Ave - Salt s� Dishman Hills - / over ��' r Existing&Proposed Add policy Ianguage to N m E 2411 Ave Bikeway Network Municipal Boundaries E 29th A: E 32.Ake o::p�..ana'Ja ley support Complete Streetsof"UpaA.r�,UGA' P k R c•_at S Op Space37th AvaBikeway Elements I� eexkring Ped'3<=3rdge N Earn =: Proposec Ped:B ke Bridge 44k1 Ave •i Prapaseo Shared Use Path •••.New Proposed Shared Use Path ••••New Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge —Removed Ped/Bike Bridge 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 M Awa. Miles CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5 Public Involvement: Which improvements are most critical for addressing transportation safety? Online survey Public tabling H 73 } a tO In-person survey 0 3 o Tv 471 H to •a = �r`���a4.b pt ri lre`Ij co�ri�� ee► N V 3 -V t4jAPrrit,.�' .00, ° m N14 . .� ���►► � > H IV Q .�SUIIIVZ a 0y 6 .1/40 0 iN• -.F.,t#1,-_ taft ' crh �% 6 . e count 0. 4%is Es Havana •Sidewalks •Pavement Conditions Bikeways ■Street Crossings •Speeding •Bus Stops •Other CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5 mr- ii [ _imi _.ii Short trips citywide Technical Evaluation: trent Ave Housing and job density } Crashes Ii :'-- I ri' -o� , g ■ -, ' ro Congestion '►', �;-" i , i ►':'a- fi A% e `\►r'' r014- `����APw' ■411VA '�� � � Igr41'74*41 Public transit r' "' `' i`.; :+41c.it =```',��'1���:11.'1: � fir . �tO 4 , ,,� ? 1111 Short Trips jm`k►,,, 5 MileTrips par Awl - 1 Mile Trips -2 Mile Trips -7, ) r-, _ Source: SRTC Household Travel Survey CPA-2019-0007 — Pedestrian /Bicycle Maps____ iii Amend maps: r i - p = NEN r Figure 26: Pedestrian NetworkJ , . 3__:,. _ �I¢FaN ..- WW - — ` illa Figure 27: Bikeway Network ' 16". AIR0 I ' ..g h Ir Figure 46: School Districts ,_ �� ; _. -' 4��i1m :, r- 1-- —13 'r4 - ,van 7Wa:g lit = -7 r rr' MESE F _Mg= .1,-- pipiir .I Example: Figure 26—Pedestrian Network CPA-201 9-0010Twenty-year TIP _dm, _. _ _ .„,.. 20YeawTransportation Improvement Plan tlstnet5 Create20-year TIP ThC documentKlement anticipated one poten:a a'cems that fail outside the 6-yearTIP. -1111 Project Description Project Type cost Timeframe Years New appendix Grade Separation Protects Com-uct Grace P.ned'9N.^,FGSP tIVr {Sa210} Seonation �7a Kr+ fsN3� Grace $ 2B.DDG0D0 T-10 years 2025.2029 I i i • art Road' ,NSG' Coral:N/Grace �°r'eanK.�t Cp;F Grade Consolidate transportation projects: Pteart rrentSAM) on 5 25.000.003 20 years 2030.2039 Comprehensive Plan Inz I111l1blti CS J:tC i Or!ts7lCl C1an5C'4M! on 5 3.,!70.000 T-10 years 20^25 x029 poraoeau d sransreia - !mused/on aoa work same!or ru peovut 5 900.000' 7-10 years ,2025-2029 Traffic Studies Ince mpra.emen: m B Barrer Intersection spa trefk:jell orrvuna•oouc Intelsecoon TBD 7-10 years 2C25-2029 improvement Im3ro'remer Barter d Away trrt1akctlan Repace wank Lima!or realace asnar wen Intersect Or TBD, 1-10 years 2025-2029 Informs 6-year TIP annually Im' en'en:Protect ra Improvement BoatSsn&32M intersect-ccSigna="errs--eta+orsaeroc..KW:out intersect o^ TBD 7-10 years 2025-2029 improvement Imormerlen: Trauma,"&Appetaay AO ult turnin5 move molt:ora:trill mtrrsecf}o^ TBD 7-10 years 2025.2029 intersection improvement ona:ais Improvement stn it woes Metter-den IntelsecOon Strake maerection TIM 7-10 years 2025-2029 Staff, Agency & Public Comment ii.____JEL Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment ❑ City's Public Works ❑ No public comments ❑ Spokane Valley Fire received C PA_2 0 1 9_000 5 , 0007, 0010 20 _I Appendix B Figure 27.Bikeway Network 5-St I -Gramma IM. 19.4 i E.-I.ct,e Dam Pam..2019 gt'INV" w EAseing&Proposal _... Bikeway N.twark • ' IA Municipal Boundarm PUBLIC ,,,,/ ..- - • ' ------ „:„.,, 1 7 '. 46.1"4:;:A .•- ,Mirr9 6.Le, — !V LaMm‘Pee....r.de . •• -.,,..eo e.Lire ; Ely I .... . OMMENT . , rA . •. a —CMEir mlP.ialPs 1=IIPNIEI.mMmi1M1iE. N11111N1.o1.m4 ____.- M0—,W7iB,e06As1,.7NP,eO:.,P1:m.re.ed,.9PME.144,PM5ELFll!.,EE,ilC9hd0.l,p RgOe, U E ”..' .,. . ...1 spicule ,- , (please come to podium) ...,. „.,...r.„. } „:. _ , .... , ,..z, . i :,..... . . Produt,,..Sookam4a.r.imnmaMPJAIL.,.0e.remm Imcm.,rforrnarcr shtm-r on,ma cmpk.flm mr.:mum:'Pm CM1,21m Imlay*and ammro r k.ort—s ro NO,xcurnyevrrm,Utml Example:Figure 27—Bikeway Network Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA-201 9-000 1 Karen Kendall, Planner n. rCPA-2019-0001 _ _::. .. I I - 111.- — Y _ t� a r_ Park Fuad 0/y.,-.-' 4,4 C Pool Applicant: DannyDavis =_ — 11! _ _ _ Owners: {� ..,, /- 4 - w _ Circle J Mobile Home _. W Park, LLC � - ii Proposal: I CC Change the land use W designation from Ito g > Project Sitetil 0 SFR and the zoning ¢., from I to R-3 71+ na IIII el, ....1m f .am 1 N . 1 C -20 1 9-000 1 . .� 'm Area di 4 ... . ._ __ '2111i imill „ I , _ __ ,... • . . . . .,,,.... .. . .„1,,„ _ _ , _ -iiiiiiillalliiiiiiiiiilialL a (' spIayingt � 4 fr Surrounding uses 3 tle. ; ` y,' r fid' it ■ = CPA-2019-0001 ` ;, ,; '°fir, i�;` 1111 ■,. = Industrial 41FP r+#'mr,,' 1 11 ' '' Q . I1� / = Single family11 .4,11—Errai N, .� �y , +i. W >+ ■ = Commercial -,' = Recent M _ .zii permitting activity � `'' . !Study Areal CPA-2019-0001 1 W N SFR z a W = Land Use W - p� Designations a = 1 I 0 = SFR V = NC Study Area CPA-201 F}„+six R-3 0 Zoning Districts Z _ = 1 0 N = R-3 = NC � ., Comparison of Development Standards Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side Zone Coverage Height Size /acre Yard Yard Yard 1* Unlimited N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 ft.* 10 ft.* R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 sqft 6 15 ft./20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. * If abutting residential, development shall comply with Transitional Regulations CPA-201 9-00 0 1 - E :;ro4Ll'er.; r Av - E Breadwat Ave. . IV.'y , o� PvrceI 1 d►'� d►�‘ oc4( _ ._ e4 v Existing I Proposed LEGEND ❑ CPA-2019-0001 Parcel mo a IX Transitional ., Regulation Buffer ck. 1 2 Parcel 4 l Affected Parcels Staff, Agency & Public Comment ii_imL Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment o City's Public Works o Comments received o Spokane Valley Fire Included in Planning o Ecology Commission Packet o Yellowstone Pipeline err _.___4•1_ r � 77 • CPA-2019_000 .1. . _ _ _�- i_Study Area 29 .. r ""- - .ro..,,,:y Vii± — . ''1" 1 z, :: Fig► - , ' UBLIC , . . ._, _ , _ , If _ . _ . ,„00. f ' 'Ile '''. 1: 4:1 . r r' COMMENT p _ pA _ 1° - 1 f.., [01.x.' come to ,(pleasepodium) 1 . . { 1111 Jhm ! . j ;- M . R 'i 1 Y,,. _ . _ -- ,E :;a1crvar`k,c. Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA-201 9-0002 Marlin Palaniuk, Planner ,, . 1 t 1 1 I I .______.fl 1 1E P E. I_I .1_1 I - - �E R7tt Av,e; � - - - - CPA-2019-0002 II „ ...5 • 21 . ,_ , . _ c r, i p.„,.L1 , . — .fil . it Aft AN- • _(r..-15'-- ---' / , - - t - , , ■ Applicant: Whipple Consulting p f Ah Engineers ` itA 1� _" c Central I. c I. Valley High LU Owners: Advent Lutheran Church —1 __ ol a`• • ---�@itL v a TCF Propertieset , LLC 4:— ' W Proposal: Change the land use rt_ -�� � -- �- > i,,,, Poiect Site �; 1 , 0 designation from SFR to ,� ry NC and the zoningfrom �� �.. T-41 R-3 to NC ,' r E,�1v:. E A,-.-"-- h ;. i PO'x; ++" �PA-2011 9_0002 / / M M - ,U r porrr Li...b+••mibig 0 .i F ( urrounding uses Q p 9 • i 2 N = CPA-2019-0002 =c 4 f _1 L = Water District r Q ._.� 4, et = Single family4CC 4. • = School / Church 14111i m. ' '.1% ' r = BPA Easement ° 1 ''.. , 1 / \ 1 CPA-201 92 fStudy► Area 000 effiAxe 7. Land Use W Designations 1111111 1 0 = SFR Z a 2 e W = NC W Z Ck EL a SFR OE cttiAve ----_ ti) - r n CPA-20 000E NE-.5, \ 1tStudy Area Zoning Districts - R-3 CL a NC = NC 0 z Z 0 R-3 -----miL______ 2. N r,, . _- _________________ ,,1 1 1 _____,,_ - --\ 1 1. . 1 Comparison of Development Standards Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks Building Minimum dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side Zone Hei ht Coverage g Lot Size acre Yard Yard Yard R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 6 15 ft. /20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. sqft NC 35ft. N/A * * 1 5ft. 10 ft." 10 ft." * If residential development, comply with density & dimensional standards of adjacent residential zone. A If adjacent to residential use. Staff, Agency & Public Comment ii_imL Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment ❑ City's Public Works ❑ No comments received ❑ Spokane Valley Fire ❑ Ecology i ,„„eil -- - t.,•i .:, 71''''''' k; NM ;IC 1 Study Area• t- CPA-2019-0002 ,. . .,. Ili, .., *� • , k-# - -s.,. _ rtn r r--. r Ill 4%, . 117101:4N I 1 * ° --1.'1" r r . g ' xi u. 141° ._ Ill 1 � R LJBLIC , • ..,.,,, ; . . .,• . . ,40 7 COMMENT ., _ ilitffiri,• : :,..i,„ r / il , it , 11 , , • _ (please come to podium) ., 1 , _ 4. I killi' W ' 1.1.it,' ., __ -.. . 111111111161MI: II �� 0 . ,. 1 1 Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA-201 9-0003 Marlin Palaniuk, Planner t r C PA_2 .,.2,._.,..-, CPA-20 19-0003 J� i— __ _ ,e,, F 9 k.--i oir It Ornp �----T---- I ME / I LI ME Applicant: Joel Elgee ki3n Avc E 1 E Mis aion,yya,1£:t n-A-VC Owners: Marg uerite LLC — ! — I1-1 1. a W Terry Ovsted a l - E_�.intii3Aue - �- �� _ Proposal: N� _ El -. �It.:..,, Change the land use = DC Iii, W designation from SFR `- " _ _ iii > i -¢.u;e:- to MFR and the zoning --_- - g ; from R-3 to MFR 1 g L i - I I i �, CPA-2019-0003 _� .a . . .4 7 _ � �� � . ., ci_ f 1.11111M _ _ HT1j , Mil MIL tt.iii , . _ , . 1. M _ , , �- - udy Area (surroundinguseIM 1 Q _, G t 2 _10 v... "+r N = CPA-2019-0003 f — ni�ci _ iiiikL.; e Alt = Single family Qand two family1._,,, . _ — w/ ■ = Commercial LLI i ■ CPA-2019-0003 RC W Study Area I, N CL SFR Z a z W MFR = W Land Use W Z Designations C. a J 3 = MFR el. 0 = SFR U = RC CPA-2019-0003 RC Study Areal C R-3 MFR Zoning Districts Z Z = MFR 0 F.icrrin = R-3 = RC Comparison of Development Standards Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side Zone Hei ht Coverage g Size acre Yard Yard Yard R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 sqft 6 15 ft./20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. MFR* 50 ft. 60% 2,000 sqft 22 15 ft./ 20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. *Where MFR abuts R- 1 , R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with Transitional Regulations Staff, Agency & Public Comment ii_imL Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment ❑ City's Public Works ❑ No comments received ❑ Spokane Valley Fire ❑ Ecology ... .. .... .!.. r• II ... ''''''''':':.----•-____ II n ° •.,... . , _ i;L _ .. all :1 , •I 1111 1 '.Er - --;1 '" -• ' C PA_2 0 1 9_000 3 _i , r ,... .2..i I I I VII ill, ...,.. . injile.= Ia i , __ A • r Ai. - • -ii 411. Iii, • r ; • NI Study Area IL_ ..... , ...._ • - , k PUBLIC ,„ , , , , , 0 - N 'e,.. ... ' .1 - :1-0.01,-ft " I' I 11. I 1 ' 9 1 ,.. ,.. . COMMENT , ... 4 . — i_,••'' , . . 1..4- . a IHr r IN — .. ' (please come to podium) ..„ I +.1k. 1 ... . I, ... i 'I At 11 .....- - * I s. , . City Initiated Map Amendment CPA-201 9-0009 Karen Kendall, Planner ,,, \ PA-2019- _�0009 _ _4414--- Applicant: City of Spokane Valley -------Hp-----1- Project S to Owners: Carlson, Janson, Kjos, L 111•1 II' � • ��—'- Massong, On the Rock We i — �-- LU Stand, LLC, Consolidated _.---=----. ] Irr. Dist., Henderson ` I ri- -- Ct Legacy, LLC and Whimsical 1 IC LU Pig LTD Part. IIME` �"�E 1 ii 0 mm Proposal: �� I y p Change the land use v I designation and zoningI q II i I i g __I I from MFR to CMU �l -.H I 1 h I r ,_ 1 ±I CPA-201 9-00 0 9 _ _ . _ E-1-90•FW I- 19tip = - - Study Area • '4'�' _ . - - _ _ y ..;yam- - -'-'r) 'pp 5. t ii.Plj q. IrEl 1111.1110' <I( so- ',*, :1: .., ,k a WIL 2 ,, . , , . . L ,,,.__ ,,,, ..-.. . y • .{ rte. , I R f f �`' 1r r 441V,--'- '0 11,01111N111 I' _ I Famitoi, , tio:ht ,JK-110.1 . iir . __„,.... e._ . _,.... .,....._ ,‘0 ,_a .,,,___ ___ ___ d- - 1 , . . ___ . - - 5 r ' ':. • ' — _ :It' --1F — , ,,,LH- - illii Tor. . , _ . 4:E 4 ' 1 Mill IP. rt 4 1 ,_ •i IP ,mR ht I ;r _ — BPA Easement —II PA-20 1 9-000 9 =I mi uvw - z E No Ave = � #ka.nip II –T— W CMU tily ✓ rear Thillv-ft---, J I 45104.9151II N 73 E ZLIIICC �MISIQN AY a W4510411328 451104.1323 }ADDRESS U VACANT W Z — 451 X14.0321 CL a •PRESS OWN Om E O 15giols . 11361-1331519 5161_ i&19E 13621 E El 45104,0330 iasa9U miss ION AVE MISSION AVE' MISSION AVE. I MFR S R CPA-2019-0009E.Nra Ac._, ,... „, _____ __________ fStudArea aI 45104. 151 13107 E MISSION AV ' I * — --ft.—........,7,.........L................._ 455104.0328 .451043323 0 0AD CESS i 0 VACANT Z "11a LAND il 45104.0329 Z •.KESS OWN 0 NM144L{1114'c' L ' _ 45113°s14.511115 451QCCi91 "� 451041133019536E 13519E 13621 11I55f6NAllE MISS[DMAVE 1 NI ISSI ON AVE MFR R-3 3I r1%4'4115, Comparison of Development Standards Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side Zone Hei ht Coverage g Size acre Yard Yard Yard MFR 50 ft. 60% 2,000 sqft 22 15 ft./ 20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. CMU N/A N/A NA No N/A N/A N/A limit * *Single family residential shall comply with the density and development standards of the MFR zone. Staff, Agency & Public Comment ii.____JEL Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment ❑ City's Public Works ❑ No public comments ❑ Spokane Valley Fire to date ❑ Sewer ❑ WSDOT ❑ Yellowstone Pipeline CPA-201 9-000 9 _. _:.,:ri_r::: I, 0 ty, 53 . - ----- 1Gl 9f}rt E:NOM 'Are ______ __ — — -- (}fl�f },'ani _____ _ i 17.. . ' 11 . .. . v._,_. _. . . , 4+ .t -"----;IT:h 4 ii. a kL \ .'.• + _ : : COMMENT I - r`- _"i____ _ umum • 3' e- x r . '; 16a i "" , ,... , 4 (please come to podium) -y : . , ,r: _. ..,...., ' ', III r 41 'rill NI II i� N it M«` r` 4 I. • , ,� ilk ,� ; 4 _ NEXT StAmendment Peps - 0 • Planning Commission Study Session — Feb. 14, 2019 • Public Hearin . — - • : • • 0-' ' e i • erations and Recommendations — Marc A 2019 • Administrative Report ti • First Reading • Second Reading 1 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendments NEXT STEPS EXHIBIT 7 CPA-2019-0009 Additional Agency Comment(s) Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment File #: CPA-2019-0009 Parcels: 45104.9150, 45104.9151, 45104.0324, 45104.0315, 45104.0311, 45104.0307, 45104.0308, 45104.0330, 45104.0329, 45104.0323, 45104.0327 and, 45104.0328 This Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) is being prepared to support the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) application for a city initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing an existing Multifamily Residential (MFR) to a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) land designation. This letter estimates the trip generation of the current zoning versus the trip generation that could occur if the land were developed under the proposed new land use. Project Description CPA-2019-0009 is bounded to the south by the 13000 block of Mission Avenue, between McDonald and Mamer Roads. The CPA is situated about half way between interchanges of I- 90's Exit 289 at Pines (SR27) and Exit 291A at Evergreen. The Valley Hospital is less than half a mile to the west and Spokane Valley Mall is a mile to the east. ti ,I;;-46-':::_f; r•'•'I - I !i h. St\~4 to u P72 4. 1.*''' `,Viti i. »-. , i i 11,,,,"-.,, ,, �•'' 4+..� , ..' 1 i p'1'` ( v .n ,•'i' j�rKy / r rj � `�.._ 1 .;,� ! ' , n' ., ffR-27� E[ f rh-'-k-..-^,, .r1.\, , - - 4 • r +R1 IEF CPA-2019-0009 . -- - Spokane - - - � — T _ - Valley Mall ydy, Valley J - * •ams –---- Hospital - • 100000frt, , : BPA Easement I-90 Exit 291A , F = . .w Evergreen Road [ C.'-+ - .. .-- .. '4a _�, '` .rte 5.4.0R-rT _ �` - :°r ti. • • d 1. ., 1 1 Page Trip Generation There are 12 parcels for this proposed comprehensive plan amendment totally approximately 17.5 acres. A 150 foot easement for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) bisects the site that prohibits structures within the easement. The BPA easement reduces the buildable area by 2.7 acres. The remainder equates to a total of 14.8 acres of developable property. Under the current zoning (MFR), the available density allows 22 apartments per acre. If these densities could be realized, 325 apartment units could be built within the area. The total expected trips for all available property in the proposed comprehensive plan amendment are shown below for both the AM and PM peak periods. •ea 's our Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Zoning Directional Directional olume @ Distribution I Volume a Distribution 0.46 AM 0.56 PM Trips per 23% 77% Trips per 63% 37% Unit In Out Unit In Out Apartments (325 Dwelling Units) MFR 150 34 116 182 115 67 After conducting a literature review, it was found that commercial developments have been surveyed in various jurisdictions and typical Land to Building ratios calculated (see attached article). This ratio is determined simply by dividing the square footage of the land parcel by the square footage of the building. Typical values in urban areas are 2.5 and those in suburban areas 3.5. Using a land to building ratio of 3.5 for the purposes of determining the potential building sizes would be: 14.8 acres * (43,500 sq ft/acre) / (3.5) = 184,000 sq ft To evaluate the reasonableness of the 3.5 Land to Building ratio selected, a scaled map of the site showing building footprints that add to 184,000 square feet of useable property was drawn for single and two-story buildings. [===j 100 Single-Story Density of 184,000 Square Feet of Buildings on 14.8 Acres 2IPage Two-Story Density of 184,000 Square Feet of Buildings on 14.8 Acres Corridor mixed use under the City's zoning allows for Apartments, General and Medical/Dental offices, and Retail and commercial development. Because of the site's proximity to the hospital, opportunities for general and medical/dental offices could be considered in combination with housing. Finally, there are opportunities to have retail and commercial development that would support the residences and cater to people working at offices throughout the day. What the development may become if the City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is permitted might be these land uses and their expected peak hour trips: M Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips I welling Directional Directiona Land Use Units Volume @ Volume @ Distribution Distribution 0.46 AM I 0.56 PM Trips per 23% 77% Trips per 63% 37% Unit In Out Unit n Out Apartments CMU 120 55 13 42 67 42 25 M Peak Hour Trips P Peak Hour Trips' Volume @ Volume @ Land Use(710) 1.16 AM Directional 1.15 PM Directiona Distribution Distribution rips per Trips per 1,000 86% 14% 1,000 16% 84% GFA In Out GFA In Out General Office CMU 30,000 35 30 5 35 6 29 3IPage FM Peak Hour Trips PM eliMill I ip UI II Volume @ Volume @ Land Use 2.78 AM Directional 3.46 PM Directiond • Distribution Distribution Trips per Trips per 1,000 78% 22% 1,000 28% 72 GFA In Out GFA In Out Medical/Dental Office CMU 20,000 56 44 12 69 19 50 Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Volume @ VolumerrM 0.94 AM Directional 3.81 PM Directional Distribution Distribution Trips per Trips per 1,000 62% 38% 1,000 48% 52% GFA In Out GFA hi Out Retail/Commercial CMU 40,000 38 24 15 152 73 79 Total Expected Trips for CMU Land Use 184 111 111 323 140 183 Subtracting the peak hour trips for the current zoning of MFR from those that would be expected if CMU were allowed to develop gives a difference between the two land uses. The City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment could have a net increase on traffic volumes of 34 during the AM peak hour and 141 during the PM peak hour. 41 Traffic Trip Distribution Using current traffic information for Mission, Pines, McDonald and Evergreen gives a trip distribution on a percentage and number of new PM peak hour trip basis as shown here: Net PM Peak Hour Trips a�lwal4y V1.CA-YMCAe!6+e CMU MFR CPA-2019-0009 .E` °"e,y yrgwnd City Initiated Comp Plan 9 Map Amendment CPA-2019-0009 {r.a x a Acv ejll air•w!te VAr Q E!tiane•. Top'Wf•TB6MM! 9 9 QHaYa4rtpbbY T!M LdtaACrs Ce,- Piny Cny b v Noais0 atT ic got t .... S940144 Vow Nan 40% - a2% 47 � �' 10 € 60% 6 7% 12% + 29 14 •�q,�Y�raWn✓4+a } E Ww+on 7 8 .►i Ma11iC¢ro Vd6rry Faapnal 17p s b at 3 - M 9 9 _ Cee.094 wtea4 Es)ates. Cefar Chateat Estuec 3 }96 Ch. Er*, T i x t _...... [ � 6 eg 6An Z t" rra4• g !.•:--..ars a 1 : Traffic Mitigation In June, 2016, the City evaluated traffic operations in the Mirabeau Subarea then and into the future to 2040. The Subarea includes the Pines Road (SR-27) corridor from Mission Avenue to Trent Avenue, along Mission Avenue to Evergreen Road to the east, the 1-90 Evergreen Exit 291A interchange, Indiana Avenue west to Mirabeau Pkwy and Pines Road (SR-27). The Mirabeau Subarea identified future projects that need to be constructed in order to accommodate future growth within the area in order to insure the City will have the street infrastructure needed to support planned development. The project costs were estimated and a proportionate share of$323.75 per new pm peak hour trip was established in the report. When the plan was completed, the City established a "trip bank" that listed the number of new pm peak hour trips that are available upon the adoption of the plan. As development has occurred since 2016, developers submit a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) that presents the number of new trips and identifies their traffic pattern. Each of these developments paid a pm per peak hour trip cost and these trips are then deducted from the City's trip bank. 51 At this time, there are adequate pm peak hour trips to allow this City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment if the developer, at the time of development, pays a voluntary impact fee of $323.75 for each of their new pm peak hour trips that would use the Pines (SR-27) corridor. p aaF WASh�,' .\\ �! .. Lk/ ill ` 1 1 396.19_„) 9619 (u b 5 'tt S 6\Ct\nk‘ VI lA\\ 6lPage 2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters REAL ESTATE How to Calculate the Land to Building Ratio A low ratio indicates that the property is being fully used BY JAMES KIMMONS Updated September 09,2018 Every structure occupies a certain portion or percentage of the land parcel on which it sits. This percentage or ratio of the size of the building to the land is called the "land to building ratio." When it's high, the property isn't being used to its fullest potential. When it's low, the property is already at full capacity. The Calculation Divide the square footage of the land parcel by the square footage of the building to arrive at the land to building ratio. Here's an example: 188,000 land square feet divided by 43,500 building square feet equals 4.32 This is a 4.32:1 land to building ratio, and it's actually on the high side. The average is between 2.5:1 to 3.5:1. Is It Important for Residential Properties? The land to building ratio isn't reported in all appraisals. In fact, it's rarely seen in residential appraisals. There are many municipal codes and property restrictions that can limit the ratio, however. There might be a desire to keep the size of homes to a certain percentage of the available lot space. Land to Building Ratio in Commercial Applications The use of the land to building ratio is much more prevalent in commercial and industrial applications. There are usually stringent requirements in building codes for the amount of parking that certain size structures must maintain, as well as setback and green area considerations. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 1/8 2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters to 1 could be at maximum capacity or in violation of current codes due to grandfather clauses. The greatest number of considerations with municipal and other regulations occurs when you're working with commercial, industrial, and institutional real estate. There could be EPA issues with industrial properties, and there might be hazardous materials to think about. The Retail Shopping Center or Mall You won't find a shopping mall or strip center in the middle of thousands of acres of farmland. Population demographics are the first consideration in siting retail commercial buildings. There must be enough consumers to support the shops and businesses or there will soon be a shell building sitting empty. Traffic patterns are also important. In suburban situations, it's very important to have easy access to cars and lots of convenient parking. Sometimes it's enough to provide underground parking and rely also on walking traffic in an urban setting. Ratios of the tenant retail lease spaces and the overall theme of the center are important as well. There's often an "anchor tenant," the largest retailer that will draw the most traffic. Then there will be others who offer related but not necessarily competitive products and services. A major mall might have 20 clothing stores, but they each believe they have their niche customers and will do well. The anchor tenant, in this case, could be Macy's. Office Buildings These vary by the type of offices they'll house. A building catering to accountants, attorneys, and consultants would have certain space use requirements, and there might be one or more shared conference rooms for larger meetings. They might even share a receptionist to route calls and visitors. A medical office or dental office complex would have very different space requirements, especially when it comes to electric power and other special concerns related to the equipment being used. Medical office buildings might need more elevators or easier access situations for the aged or ill. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 2/8 2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters warenouses require a lot or space, ana tney also require large truck ioaaing aocKs in some cases. They generally don't need much more in the way of parking spaces, however. Warehouses will usually have one or two areas set up for offices, but they won't have much in the way of amenities—just space, utilities, and phone service. Specialty businesses include auto repair shops, oil change businesses, and car and RV dealerships. They each have different needs as far as space and parking. Auto repair and oil change businesses have special needs for disposal of waste oil and other chemicals. Every one of these buildings and business types will have some concern for the land to building ratio. The Value of Excess Land The nature of excess land and its zoning determine whether paying for it is a waste of capital. Can it effectively be sliced off and sold? It can if the overall land is comprised of two or more independent parcels, if the structure doesn't infringe upon one of them, and if the unused land has its own access. The same applies if it can be subdivided. Otherwise, you probably have no choice but to dedicate the excess land to future expansion...even if that's just a parking lot or storage. BASICS BASICS What Is Improved Land in Real Estate? Zoning and Land Use Codes—Are They Necessary? https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 3/8 EXHIBIT 10 CPA-2019-0001 Public Comment(s) From: iohn crull To: Karen Kendall; Marsha Nead Subject: CPA-2019-0001,622 N.Park Road Comp Plan Change and Rezone Date: Thursday,February 14,2019 6:39:59 PM Karen Kendall, My name is John Crull and I am submitting this comment letter on behalf of the Crull Living Trust. We have owned the property located at 708 N. Park Road, which is directly adjacent to the subject property, since the mid 1950s. We oppose the proposed Comprehensive Plan Change and downzone from Industrial to R3 residential for the following reasons: 1) Land use along both sides of Park Road between Sprague Avenue and Broadway is industrial except for the two small vestigial lots from an earlier era, one of which is our 708 N. Park Road property. Both we and the neighboring 630 N. Park Road owner have long resigned ourselves to the reality the Park Road corridor between Sprague and Broadway has irreversibly transformed into an industrial corridor over the past half century. Any possible value our property may yield in the future will result from eventual conversion to a commercial or industrial use. If the Comp Plan and Downzone is approved, the possibility of our property being merged with the larger adjacent subject property, for a future larger scale commercial or industrial purpose, will be eliminated. By foreclosing this foreseeable merging of future interests, the proposed action is damaging to our property,particularly-so in that our two small lots, if not combined with the subject property for a larger development, are just not large enough to support most commercial and industrial uses. 2)If the subject property is down-zoned and developed with a residential use, it is quite likely that both the owners and future residents of that property will oppose any future commercial or industrial development we will, at some point, seek to establish on our property. The potential residential/industrial land use clash that approval of the proposed action will inevitably tee-up is another serious impact to our property if down-zone is approved. 3) Further, our property is simply not deep enough to accommodate typical environmental mitigations (setbacks, landscaped buffers, etc) often imposed on commercial and industrial projects that share a common boundary with residential zoning. Please do not set us up for this future mitigation scenario by approving the downzone and allowing subsequent development of the subject property with residential units! 4) We cannot join applicant's petition because our property is obviously not suitable for future residential redevelopment. It is highly impacted by both major arterial traffic, mostly trucks, and surrounding commercial and industrial development. Northbound traffic on Park Road routinely backs up from the Park& Broadway stoplight in front of our property making ingress and egress very difficult throughout the day. The only viable future option for our property, if not combined with the larger subject property, is a commercial or industrial use. Again...allowing the subject property to be developed with a residential use limits our future redevelopment options. We respectfully request that you consider the existing pattern and character of industrial use along Park Road, and the serious adverse impact the Comp Plan Change and Rezone will have on our property. Please deny the applicant's petition. Thanks for your consideration. Best Regards, John Crull On behalf of the Crull Living Trust 206.920.2235 1201 N. Evergreen Road#2014 Spokane Valley, WA 99216