PC APPROVED Minutes 04-25-19 Regular Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
April 25,2019
I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present:
James Johnson Jenny Nickerson,Building Official
Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Timothy Kelley, absent-excused Karen Kendall,Planner
Robert McKinley
Michael Phillips,absent-excused
Michelle Rasmussen, absent-excused
Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant
Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kelly,Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented.
There was no discussion.
The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written.
There was no discussion.
The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City
Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights
Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership
meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the
area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
There was no public comment.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards.
Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the
procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix
A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the
Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the
Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA-2019-
0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
There was no further discussion.
Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA-2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings
of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council.
The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed
ii. Study Session: STV-2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of
Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the
Northeast Industrial Area.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast
Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation.Ms.Barlow explained that this area is located
between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed
vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road,
Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road.
Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner.
However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner.
Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to
ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation.
Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of
Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background
information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The
proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin
construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019.
Ms.Barlow continued,that there is not an application on file at this point,and it is uncertain
how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is
considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r
identify access points to the properties in the development.
Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue
providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the
BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be
determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been
routed to all agencies,and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage
situations as development occurs.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow
explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the
property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City.
Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there
would be any monetary compensation to.the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being
forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of
reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW
may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more
adaptable for future developments.
iii. Study Session: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding
affordable housing.
04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text
Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not
CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, ,
then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed
the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was
issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well
as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not
site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply.
Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study
session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is
made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled
for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to
the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that
have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms.
Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning
Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further
opportunity for public comment.
Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3)
zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently
multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily
residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would
change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating
multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations.
Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC
19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of
SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035
identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for
applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements.
Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at
least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner
Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51% is being maintained? Ms. Barlow
explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed
and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain
51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during
multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides
evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked
what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal
definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and
is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner.
Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms.
Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next
meeting.
Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a
single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and
the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow
continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the
maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not
allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of
six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the
04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but
then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development.The proposal
intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six
dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The
proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single
family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that
is established within the R-3 Zone.
Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would
qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query
that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner.
Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75,
25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church,school,and fit the criteria.
However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant
parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms.
Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be
aggregated.
Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking
and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked for
clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be
the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for
uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional
discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some
concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP)process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what"share
"specifically means.
Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this
development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow
reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public
hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be.
Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist,
such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking
structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian
areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity.
- Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified
that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01,
which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding
character already in place. Ms.Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling
units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue
with lot sizes of 10-20 acres.
Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and
that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The
agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will
remain for the life of the project,
Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires
a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would
be considered by the hearing examiner,requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be
denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process
04-25-2419 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts,
or the permit could be denied completely.
Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a
covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable
housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the
property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of
units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the
agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum
requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they
only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary
project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms.
Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an
example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to
a density that is less than max,they could come back and ask for modification to CUP.
Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling
units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of
the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow
explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they
had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow
highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline
to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing
Examiner revisit the CUP
Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five
acres. Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single
ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off
a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the
underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner
Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce
Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of
6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view
and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that
there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he
has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He
continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single
parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels
on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat
developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres
referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined
could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this
a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow
explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required.
Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed
up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be
required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question
does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or
increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity,
but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time.
Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case
scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become
04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6
less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved.
Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant
contacts the neighboring properties..
Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from
applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow
explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be
considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only
allowed on an annual basis
Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage
developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms.
Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the
underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3
zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the
site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated
on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on
the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion
regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing
component in cottage development.
Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related
Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow
explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be
allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is
allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex
CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was
met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently
allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring
items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson
read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for
his hometown the City of Spokane Valley.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed.
111Pis
..._9-4/ 1
7
James Johnson, Chairman Date signed
Ti26(di
Robin Hutchins, Secretary