Loading...
2020, 02-27 Agenda Packet sokane Valley Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. February 27, 2020 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9, 2020 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers ii. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of portions of 12tt, and 13th Avenues, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues and Chronicle Road. iii. Annual Training: Public Records Training, Open Public Meetings, iv. Training Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments History and Docket Overview X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT PC ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only As of February 19,2020 ***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative andsubject to change*** To: Commission & Staff From: PC Secretary Deanna Horton by direction of Deputy City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings February 27,2020 Findings of Fact: STV 2019-0005— 12t and 13th Avenue; Chronicle and alleyway Lori Barlow Training Session: Public Records Training, Open Public Meetings Training Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments History and Docket Overview March 12,2020 Study Session: CTA-2019-0005 Subdivision Regulations Update—Connor Lange Study Session: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments--Chaz Bates March 26,2020 Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0005—Subdivision Regulations Update—Connor Lange Study Session: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Chaz Bates April 9,2020 Public Hearing: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Chaz Bates April 23, 2020 Findings of Fact: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Chaz Bates May 14, 2020 May 28,2020 Draft Advance Agenda 2/19/2020 Page 1 of 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall January 9, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Deanna Horton called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Bill Helbig, City Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the amended January 9, 2020 agenda. The election of officers had been added after the agenda was published. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the December 12, 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 a Spokane County Human Rights task force meeting and the January 7, 2020 meeting. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to suspend the rules and postpone the election of officers to a time when the full Commission has been appointed. There are only four appointed members of the Commission this evening. The new Mayor has not had the time to interview and City Council any new applications for the openings on the Commission. Commissioner Kelley stated that the new members would not necessarily know who the people they were voting for if the elections were postponed. Commissioner Johnson said that it was possible that some members could be reappointed, and therefore would already be aware of whom they were electing. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that four votes are necessary to be elected to each position. The vote on the motion was four to zero and the motion was passed. ii. Finding Fact: CTA-2019-0004, a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)22.70.020 Fencing, fence heights in residential zones. Building Official Jenny Nickerson presented to the Commission the Findings of Fact for CTA-2019-0004 which summaries the decision the Commission made during the public hearing. Ms.Nickerson reminded the Commissioners the change to the municipal code is 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 to change where a fence is measured from, which would allow for a six foot high fence measured from where the bottom of the fence is grounded, regardless of where the ground is located. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that if there were a dirt barrier, the fence would be measured from the top of an earthen berm. The change to the code moves the measuring of the fence from the lowest point within six feet of the fence to the bottom of the fence regardless of where the fence is built. Commissioners discussed the confirmed change, then moved to approve the findings. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations regarding CTA-2019-0004. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. iii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of portions of 12th and 13th Avenues, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues and Chronicle Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated street vacation for a portion of 12th Avenue, a portion of 13th Avenue, the alleyway in-between, and a portion of Chronicle Road south of 14th Avenue. Ms. Barlow explained this request is in the southwest portion ofthe City near the intersection of 12th Avenue and Carnahan Road. Ms. Barlow pointed out the Commissioners had received items to be added to their packet for the public hearing. She said the items are comments from the city of Spokane, and new slide for the PowerPoint presentation and updated recommendations to the staff report based on the new comments received. Ms. Barlow stated that the city of Spokane reached out and let us know that although the area in question is neither covered by Spoaken water district #3 nor the Carnhope water district, the city of Spokane considers it to be in their "retail she corrected the parcel numbers on the recommendation, and added a new condition based on a received comments from the city of Spokane. Ms. Barlow advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access, removal of the portion of the street or streets vacated and design or construction improvements. Ms. Barlow explained the applicant feels the site is unconstructible and this vacation would allow for full development. The alleys are no longer required for public use or access and the on-site wetlands interfere with the construction of 13th Avenue. Ms. Barlow provided an aerial view of the critical areas relative to the site. The unimproved portions of 12th and 13th Avenues and Chronical. Road are within the City's floodplain area and a wetland. Ms. Barlow explained the request is to vacate 500 feet of Chronical Street at a full width right-of-way of 60 feet wide. 385 feet of 13th Avenue also at a full width ROW. Lastly, 12 feet of alleyway between 12th and 13th Avenues and 385 feet of 12th Avenue at a half width ROW of 30 feet. Ms. Barlow detailed potential issues explaining that adjacent properties need access for future development, as the proposed area is zones R-3. If Chronicle Road were to be vacated the two adjacent parcels would be land locked. The other potential issues would be the storm water system. The stormwater system is not within an easement, it would 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 need to either be moved or have an easement. The City has been working with the property owner to resolve the potential issues with several options. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the applicant owns both sides of the roads to be vacated. The applicant also has a purchase sale agreement on the property immediately to the north. Commissioner Johnson asked what direction the storm drain flows. There was a lengthy discussion related to the direction of flow and the problems the system currently has and has had. The current storm water system is a private system that the City contributes to. City Attorney Cary Driskel explained that the system does run south to north and makes its' way onto the property owned by the Conservation District. The City's storm water division have been speaking with the Conservation District related to obtaining an easement. In addition, not only city or public waters are contributing to this storm water. There are a number of sources contributing including seepage from under the ground. There was also some discussion related to the site not have an exclusive water service district. Commissioner Johnson asked about compensation and it was determined that once council makes a decision and should compensation be required, it would be determined by resolution. Commissioner Walton asked Ms. Barlow to provide what the maximum allowed dwelling units are currently and what would be allowed if the streets were vacated. Ms. Barlow advised she will have the details requested, but added that there should not be a gain as there will still have to be access provided. The property that would be most affected is currently zoned R-3, which is six dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Johnson asked if the floodplain and the wetland would be included in the available property within the calculations. Ms.Barlow stated that in theory the wetland could not be developed however, the floodplain could be developed as long as it met the standards. iv. Study Session: Updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson introduced the subject of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (ROP) and provided background into the discussions from the six previous visits related to this topic. The Commissioners were provided a clean and a redline version of the ROP to date. Commissioner Kelley spoke to the voting section; he explained it used to read: "four affirmative votes must be cast for comprehensive plans or the election of officers". The language related to the election of officers was redlined, he asked when and why that was changed. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton explained that after the last meeting she added Section(c)Election of officers;that states: "Each Chair and Vice Chair must receive four affirmative votes in order to be elected". She continued to explain the Comprehensive Plan votes Section (b) and Election of Officer votes Section (c) have been separated. There was a lengthy discussion related to what a majority vote constitutes, four votes or the majority of the Commissioners appointed?Commissioner Johnson advised there was a discrepancy in the language and multiple sections. Mr. Driskel advised the language should be consistent in all sections related to voting. The language should read: "by majority vote of the membership of the Commission". Commissioner Johnson addressed the language related to votes being taken by paper ballot changing from "shall be taken" to "may be taken". It was determined the language states "may be taken" to allow for flexibility by the Commission and to alleviate public records request concerns by requiring a paper ballot. Lastly, after some discussion, it was concluded the Commission would impose a three-minute time limit for public testimony or otherwise determined by Chair should more time be necessary. 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Rasmussen stated she has enjoyed her Iast three years on the board and this will be her last meeting. She thanked those on the board and the staff for all of their efforts. Commissioner McKinley thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her service on the board. He asked everyone to enjoy the holidays. Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked everyone for their time and wished everyone a Merry Christmas. Commissioner Friend also thanked the Commissioners and staff for all of their hard work. Commissioner Kelley thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her time with the Commission. Commissioner Walton also thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her service and advised it has been a pleasure serving for the last three years. Commissioner Johnson also thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her time and service. He was thankful for his time as Chair; he is looking forward to the future, and read aloud a quote form Margaret Mead. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 27, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing information ❑ study session n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0005 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact— street vacation of a portion of 12th Avenue, 13th Avenue, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues, and Chronicle Road, west of Carnahan Road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately initiated request to vacate -380' of 12th Avenue, 13th Avenue, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues, and —500 of Chronicle Road, west of Carnahan Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79 RCW. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: January 9, 2020 a public hearing was conducted. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed vacation on December 12, 2019 and a public hearing on January 9, 2020. The City discussed various concerns regarding vacating the 12th Avenue right-of-way and recommended that the 12th Avenue right-of-way be retained. Prior to the public hearing the City of Spokane commented that easements may be necessary to accommodate an existing sewer main if any portion of the sewer main was located outside of a designated easement. The staff conditions were amended to incorporate the condition. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the proposal to vacate a portion of 13th Avenue, the alleyway lying in between 12th Avenue, and 13th Avenue, and Chronicle road with the amended staff conditions. The 12th Avenue right-of-way would be retained. RECOMIVIENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV-2019-0005 or provide staff with further direction. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: PC Findings and Recommendations STV-2019-0005 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STV-2019-0005--Street vacation of a portion of 12"Avenue, 13t''Avenue, the alley between 12'and 13th Avenues, and Chronicle Road. 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. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. The privately-initiated street vacation, STV-2019-0005,proposes to vacate 385' of unimproved sections of 12th and 13th Avenue, and the alley lying in between, and 491' of unimproved Chronicle Road. The total area requested is 1.58 acres. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on January 9, 2020. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the staff amended proposal to vacate 1311i Avenue, the alleyway lying in between 12°and 13th Avenue, and Chronicle Road but retain the 12e11 Avenue right-of-way. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and recommendation Finding(s): 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. Portions of a stormwater system, that includes pipes and catchbasins, are located within the right-of-way. No other utilities are located in the ROW. The stormwater system collects stormwater from the south and from the existing pond. The system extends to the north through private property and terminates in a swale on the Soil Conservation District property. The majority of the system is located on private property without easements. The property owner understands that the system will need to be relocated and/or easements provided in conjunction with future development of the property to the north and for the portion of the system lying in the ROW requested to be vacated. The proposed vacation would leave parcel numbers 35233.0203, 35233.0204 and the west side of parcel 35233.0101, which is the area outside of the borrow pit, without ROW access. All the adjacent property owners are owned by the Hamilton's and Jeff McCloskey. The properties could be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment(BLA) or boundary line elimination(BLE) leaving the resulting properties with access, or an access easement provided. If access is provided to the vacant parcels the vacation is not expected to have impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of-way for access. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2019-0005 Page 1 of 4 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. The site is bordered by R-3 zoned property to the west and south,and Multifamily zoned property to the north. Immediate properties are vacant, while the outlying properties are developed with single family residential neighborhoods. The vacant properties will need access for future development. As situated sufficient access does not exist to allow for the division of parcel numbers 35233.0203 and 35233.0204. Access to the parcels is provided by Chronicle Road but further division into typical residential lots would require the construction of either public or private streets. In the absence of development plans staff recommends the City retain Chronical Road unless the properties are reconfigured or an easement is provided as discussed above. As indicated in the application all adjacent properties are owned by the Hamilton's and Jeff McCloskey and the BLA/BLE can be accomplished. Although no development plans have been provided as part of this application, the applicant has provided a concept plan that indicates a design for single family development with a reconfigured street plan on the adjacent properties and multifamily located to the north in the Multi-family Residential Zone. Currently the ROW is not needed for the existing development that takes access off 14`h Avenue and 13th Avenue. 1311.Avenue ends in a cul de sac preventing the extension of 13th Avenue. Access for future development would be required through any proposed platting activity. Since 13111 Avenue and the alleyway are affected by the existing pond, and since 13th Avenue to the west ends in a cul-de-sac, which prevents the extension, both 13111 Avenue and the alleyway could be vacated without impact. Parcel Numbers 35233.0101 and 35233.1402 would have access from both Carnahan Road and Chronicle Road. Although 12111 Avenue is only 30' wide, the additional ROW could be obtained if needed at the time of future development of the northerly properties providing connectivity to the existing street grid. Assuming the north properties are developed with multifamily, 12th Avenue would allow for additional access points for increased traffic generated by the development. Staff recommends the City retain 12th Avenue ROW. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Currently public access is not needed in this area because no properties utilize the right-of- way for access, and the properties adjacent to the unimproved right-of-way are owned by the Hamilton's and Jeff McCloskey. However, future development is dependent upon access being provided. Without a development plan it is not apparent if a new and different public way would be more useful to the public. An ingress/egress access easement could be provided to ensure access for parcel numbers 35233.0203 and 35233.0204 and/or a BLA or BLE could occur to ensure that all properties have access off of the remaining ROWs. Requiring a BLE to create a single parcel will resolve the access issue for the parcels. 12th Avenue is still necessary for connectivity and to support the multi-family development on the north parcels that is anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the City retain 12th Avenue to ensure adequate access to support future development. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Based on the comprehensive plan the site is designated as single family residential and zoned R-3 which allows for single family and duplex residential development. The property owner recently applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning from single family residential to Multi-family residential in order to allow an Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2019-0005 Page 2 of 4 increase in development density and multifamily development. The City Council declined to consider the request and removed it from the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Docket, thereby halting further consideration of any land use designation change. It is anticipated that the adjacent properties will remain single family residential and require access for future development through a subdivision process. The current Chronicle Road ROW ensures that parcel number 35233.0203 and 35233.0204 have access for further development. The subdivision process would also ensure adequate access is provided as each lot created must have access to a public or private street. It is presumed that the property will develop into single family residential lots and access will be appropriately provided through the subdivision process consistent with Title 20, SVMC and the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards. As the parcels are currently configured, parcel numbers 35233.0203 and 35233.0204 require the use of Chronical Road ROW to ensure access. As discussed above a BLE will resolve the situation ensuring access. Also noted in the Background section the vacation of 13th Avenue ROW and the alleyway will have no apparent impact on the development of parcel numbers 35233.0101 and 35233.1402 due to the existing pond. The two parcels immediately to the north are zoned Multi-family and it is assumed that the property will develop as such. 12th Avenue provides a connection to Carnahan as well as a second connection to the parcels which are necessary to support the increased traffic generated from a multifamily project. Staff recommends that 12t11 Avenue is retained by the City to support future development of parcels to the north. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No public comment has been received. The City's Stormwater Engineer noted that stormwater drainage facilities were located in the ROW and that the facilities would need to be relocated and/or placed within an easement. The City Engineer noted that Chronicle Road and 12th Avenue are required to provide access to the existing parcels, but that 13th Avenue and the alleyway could be vacated as they encroach on the wetland (old borrow pit). The analysis above notes that access issues can be resolved with a BLA or BLE, and that 12th Avenue should be retained to support high density development to the north. Staff recommends that the 12i11 Avenue ROW be retained by the City. Conclusion: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. C. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amended proposal to vacate 385 feet of 13'1' Avenue and the alleyway lying immediately to the north, and 491 feet of Chronicle Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2019-0005), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (35233.0101, 35233.1402, 35233.0203, 35233.0204 and 35233.1307, or as otherwise adjusted by a Boundary Line Elimination) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 9. Findi ngs and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-20 I 9-0005 Page 3 of 4 3. All existing lots shall have access to a public street prior to finalization. A Boundary Line Elimination application shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the effective date of approval that aggregates 35233.0101,35233.0204 and 35233.0203. Additional parcels, including 35233.1402, may be included in the Boundary Line Elimination if desired by the applicant. The Boundary Line Elimination application shall combine the proposed lot elimination with the record of survey vacating portions of 130 Avenue, the adjacent alleyway, and Chronicle Road. The document must be recorded within 90 days of the effective date of approval. 4. The following easement and dedication are required. Submit recording number on record of survey and written documentation of easement for City verification. a. A drainage easement acceptable to the City of Spokane Valley for the existing stormwater facilities shall be provided b. The 100-foot cul-de-sac on Chronicle Road shall be dedicated to the City. c. A 30-foot wide sewer easement, located 15 feet on either side of the center of the existing sewer man, acceptable to the City of Spokane for the existing sewer main if any portion of the main lies outside of a designated easement. 5. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee,for review. 6. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of- way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 7. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to,title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 8. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 9. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 10. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 27th day of February,2020 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2019-0005 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for PIanning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 27,2020 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information E/ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N/A AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Open Government Training DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); Public Records Act (RCW 42.56);RCW 42.23 BACKGROUND: In Washington,there are numerous laws to promote transparent and open government by the legislative and appointed bodies that serve the people. These laws include the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) and various laws setting forth ethics requirements for municipal officers. As members of an appointed body, Planning Commission members are subject to the requirements set forth in these laws. Staff will provide training and overview on the various open government laws for Planning Commission members to meet training requirements for the Open Public Meetings Act and to educate members on the other open government requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney;Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation RPCA for 2019 Open Government Training t�J _ _ Pu rc Recar s Act anOpenPublic Meeting Act Trainin Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley February 27, 2020 City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney • Ic Records Act Y-A__ • __- u Historical background. • Adopted in 1972 by Initiative 276. • Codified under chapter 42.56 RCW. • Applies to state agencies and local agencies, sub-agencies, quasi- governmental entities, and non-profits who are functional equivalent of government. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney _ _ _ --- -- Strongly worded mandate - statute "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.56.o3o City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 3 � _ r _ _ " Public Record " definition Relevant portion of definitions states as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 4 IIIIIIIPIMIIIIIMMIL I .. � -_ _ ��:_ _____ _ _ _ . " Public Record " definition Most important parts are: (1) "writing" that contains (2) "information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function" and which is (3) "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency". City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 5 "Writing" - electronic • E-mails; • Tweets; • Text messages; • Transitory postings on Facebook and other social media; • Meta-data; and • Police/security video. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 6 - _ __TT; Public Record (writing) versus Information • PRA only requires disclosure of public records • Information is not a record and therefore not subject to required disclosure • Information is material or data that is not part of an identifiable record • E.g., City population, who is the mayor, how many employees • However, City policy and customer service standards provide for employees to provide information as requested City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 7 == inition — "relating to government and "used by government" • Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is critical (relates to conduct of government or performance of governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned, used, or retained by City). • 2nd Prong - "relating to conduct of government" - • Records contain any information that refers to or impacts the actions, processes, and functions of government. • Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015) • 2nd Prong casts broad net - recently Supreme Court suggested that union emails on agency server/network about working conditions could be public records. • Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 925 v. Univ. of Wash. 193 Wn.2d 86o (2019) City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 8 "i - _ _ - - inition — "relating togovernment" and "used by government" cont . • 3rd Prong - for records on personal devices, consider whether record was created within "scope of employment" or "scope of official capacity" • Job requires it, the employer directs it, or it furthers the employer's interests • Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015) (County business on personal phone is public record); West v. City of Puyallup, 2 Wn. App. 2d 586 (2018) (City Council campaign Facebook page not public record) • Personal computer or phone of Planning Commission • Text messaged from personal phone of Planning Commission • In possession of third party contractor • Available from another entity City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 9 _; - ._ ! 27:7w a w W-7---4-114— g - • - ® • • used by g — cont . • No Constitutional privacy rights for public records on private devices, private emails, or private texts • Must conduct reasonable search where records are likely to be located. • If we know or learn of facts that suggest a search of an additional location or source might reasonably be expected to uncover responsive records, we must make that extra search. • PRA requires employees/agents/officials to conduct a search of their own files/devices, submit any public records, and submit a reasonably detailed affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of the search City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney io - - _ Agency Rules • Local governmental entities are mandated to adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing how the agency shall respond to requests. RCW 42.56.100. • Spokane Valley has done that through adoption of SVMC 2.75. • City Clerk is the City's designated Public Records Officer. • Requestors may request copies or to view records. Have requestors work with City Clerk's office to set up viewing appointments. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney v- v 1 y Form of the record request • No specific form necessary • Can be oral, but agency should memorialize in writing for protection and clarity • Request must provide "reasonable description" to be able to locate the record • Sufficient clarity to give agency fair notice a PRA request has been received as opposed to other request City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 12 � � __ --P� -" -response _ : : Must respond within 5 business days by: (i) providing the record; (2) providing an Internet address/link to website for specific records; All City ordinances, resolutions, and contracts are online, as well as many other major documents such as the Comprehensive Plan (3) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request; (4) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request, requesting clarification, and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request if clarification is not provided; or (5) denying the record request. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney i3 +_. t from disclosure — a orae lent y information privileged • RCW 42.56.070(1) contains what is commonly referred to as the "other laws" exemption to disclosure. It specifically states in pertinent part that "each agency . . . shall make available . . . all public records unless [exempt under the PRA] or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records." • RCW 5.60.060(2) (a) states that "[amn attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment." City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 4 _ - ormation not m- les protected p • Council, Planning Commission, and employee names; • Council and employee salary; • Council and employee benefits; • Employee vacation/sick time used; • Council, Planning Commission, and employee work e-mail address; • employee length of service; and • Birthdates - Ongoing cases/legislation regarding birthdates. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney aj a les and Attorneyéës • City cannot require requestor to complete an administrative appeal process before filing lawsuit. • RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that it "shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record." • how much of a fine to assess is based on two steps: (i) count the number of days the party was denied access to the records; and (2) determine the appropriate per day penalty, up to $100 per day depending on the nature of the denial. • The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable attorney fees" and costs of suit. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney x6 _________ _____ _ ____ __--, _ _ _f ____--------------- Penalty per document or per request ? • Until 2016, the rule was that the daily penalty applied to the request, not per document. Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 451 (2004). • State Supreme Court ruled that it is within the trial court's discretion to assess a daily penalty for each page of each document wrongfully withheld, depending on the circumstances (i.e. how egregious the violation was). City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 17 — ,t ming ow muc • • Factors used by Courts to determine amount of penalty • Yousoufian v. Sirns (V), 168 Wn.2d. 444 (2010) • 7 mitigating factors • Examples: good faith, honest, timely, and strict compliance with all the procedural requirements and exceptions; proper training; reasonableness of reason for noncompliance; tracking systems • Size of agency is a valid consideration • 8 aggravating factors • Examples: lack of strict compliance; lack of proper training; negligent/ reckless/bad faith/intentional noncompliance with the PRA; potential for public harm; deterrent effect City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 18 Agency " best practices" 1. Entity management attitude; 2. Training; 3. Prioritizing requests; 4. Tracking requests; 5. Effective monitoring; 6. Central point of contact in the agency; 7. Visible signage; 8. Transparency and communication; 9. User-friendly website; io. Good records management and information technology; 11. Appropriate copying charges; 12. Using the installment method for large requests; 13. Communicate agency appeal process for record denials; and 14. Documenting the request process. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney �9 - s eporting/log requirements • Logs of public record requests and responses RCW 40.14.026 • ID of requestor, date request was received, text of original request, description of the records produced, description of records redacted or withheld and reasons, and date request was closed • Annual reports to JLARC • $100,000 threshold • 15 different metrics City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney zo . _ - ,:::_:io-ir _____ ___ __ .__, __._ Questions on the PRA? City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 21 The OPublic Meetings Act City of Spol ane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 22 The Open Public Meetings Act ( OPMA • Washington State law enacted in 1971. • Codified under chapter 42.3o RCW. • Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and town boards and committees. • Applies to planning commissions, lodging tax advisory committees. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 23 ,_ ______ ____ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ Purpose of OPMA • Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW 42.30.010. • "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.' Id. • "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. Id. • "The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.' Id. • Goal is transparency and public trust. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 24 OPMA requirements OPMA requires that: • All meetings of the governing body shall be open to the public. • All actions taken by such bodies shall be done at meetings that are open to the public. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 25 - What is a " meeting " ? • There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of the OPMA. • "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken; • "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions; • Physical presence is not required (email, phone call). • Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 26 What is a " meeting " ? cont . • Courts have found that "serial meetings" are considered "meetings" under the OPMA. • What is a serial meeting? • One Commissioner speaks with two other Commissioners about particular City business. Unbeknownst to the original Commissioner, a fourth Commissioner also speaks to the two other Commissioners about the same City business. • So now all four Commissioners, which constitutes a quorum, have discussed the City business and have done so outside of an open public meeting. • Best practice: Conduct all discussions in public meetings. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 27 What is a " meeting" ? ( cont . • Email and other electronic communications (e.g., texts or social media) may constitute a meeting which violates the OPMA if it goes back and forth. • Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be a violation depending on the circumstances. • It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" (a vote) for a meeting to be subject to the OPMA. • Discussion regarding City matters is "action." • Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the discussion. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 28 _ _ fir at is nota " meeting" • What is not a meeting: • If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting" subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present). • Examples: • Social gatherings if City business is not discussed; • Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to Planning Commission meetings) so long as City business is not discussed; • Meetings of other government agencies (BoCC, chamber of commerce), so long as the Council/Commission members do not discuss City business amongst themselves. • Perception still important. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney �� 1 ._______ ----------______._.__..---•••""'-"'".'n"''''" ------- ___ ______ Procedural Requirementsfor Meetin s • Some general requirements: • Notice; • Open to public; • Votes cannot be by secret ballot; • Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's ability to speak at the meeting on providing information). City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 30 JJ" • PMA exce tions and exemptions • No City business = OPMA not implicated. • If no official business of City is transacted, OPMA does not apply. • Public perception is a separate consideration from what is legal. • Active preparation for litigation. • Executive sessions (generally only applies to City Council): • u+ specific circumstances, defined by statute • Closed session (OPMA simply does not apply) (generally only applies to City Council) • RCW 42.30.140 (quasi-judicial matters and collective bargaining issues) City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 3i OPMA penalties • Effect of penalty • The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in violation of the OPMA is null and void; • 'Any person" may bring the action in superior court. • Individual liability. • $500 penalty for first violation if they attend with knowledge that the meeting is in violation of the Act, and $1,000 for subsequent violations. • City liability. • Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 32 -moi_- - _ -=- , _ .,,_ ____ Questions on OPMA? City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 33 Conflicts of Interest Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Municipal Code of Ethics lam_ interest Conflicts • "The general rule for specific prohibitions against conflicts of interest is that a public official may not exercise his or her office to confer a personal benefit upon him or herself. This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle that public officers hold a public trust. Under this principle, public officers are held to a standard of behavior that does not undermine, provide an opportunity to undermine, or appear to undermine that trust." • Excerpt from publication on conflicts of interest by Bob Meinig, Municipal Research Services Center • Various statutes provide restrictions on specific conflicts. • Most related to financial benefits 35 Conflict of interest — now what ? • A Planning Commission member who believes they may have a conflict should contact City staff prior to meeting, if possible, to discuss. • If a Planning Commission member believes they have a conflict of interest problem should announce the conflict, then leave the room while that matter is being considered by the Commission, and not participate in any way in communications or in the decision-making process regarding the matter. 36 fi Appearance of Fairness doctrine • Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones. RCW 42.36.010. • Doctrine requires government decision-makers in quasi-judicial matters to conduct hearings and make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact. • Test for fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that: (1) everyone was heard who should have been heard, and (2) the decision-makers were impartial and free from outside influences? City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 37 — ___ --- ---_____ _ _ ___ _____ r - _____ ______. _____ '"lam ,y fr at actions are - uasiudicial ? a � • Those actions of a legislative body or planning commission that determine the legal rights, duties and privileges of specific individuals in a hearing or contested case. RCW 42.36.010. • Indicators that action is quasi-judicial: • Decision applies policy to a specific situation rather than setting policy. • Decision has a greater impact on a limited number of people, and has only a limited impact on general public. • Purpose of the proceeding is to reach a fact-based decision by choosing between two distinct alternatives. 38 ti Examples ofquasi -judicial actions . • Quasi-judicial (handled by City Hearing Examiner): • Subdivision approvals; • Preliminary plat approvals; • Conditional use permits; • Variances; • Rezones of specific parcels; and • Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required. • Not quasi-judicial: • Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans; • Adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances; and • Adoption of area-wide zoning amendments. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 39 - - -- _ _ _ _ _ Appearanceof Fairnessapplied • Disqualifies decision-makers from the quasi-judicial decision-making process who: • have prejudged the issues; • have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding; • have a conflict of interest; or • cannot otherwise be impartial. • Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision-maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 40 gay . = `� - - Municipal Officer Code of Ethics - RCW 42 . 23 . 070 • Prohibited Acts for Municipal Officers: • Cannot use position to secure special benefits • Cannot receive gifts related to scope of position • No disclosure of confidential information 41 _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ __ _ ,„___ _ - -- ---- _ ___ _ _____ , - -- 0 •-- s ions on Conflicts, Et ics, anppearance of Fairness ? City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 42 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 27, 2020 Item: Check all that apply n old business Z new business ❑ public hearing n information ® study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Study session GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC).Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) are divided into two categories: map amendments and text amendments.CPAs may be privately initiated or proposed by City Council,Planning Commission or staff. As part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, the City Council is presented the proposed amendments that may be considered for this year's amendment cycle.This process known as docketing. The City Council reviews and approves the Docket, which is forwarded to the Planning Commission to review the CPAs and make a recommendation to City Council for their final approval. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Tonight staff will provide an overview of the 2020 Docket, background information on the adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and provide additional detail on the City initiated text amendment. On February 13,the Planning Commission will hold a study session on the entire 2020 Docket. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP,Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Docket 2. Presentation RPCA Study Session for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0001 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 45152.1004 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CPA-2020-0002 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). CPA-2020-0003 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134 and 45094.0121 from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0006 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 45013.9024 from Industrial (I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS Fife Number Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0007 Text Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types. 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments February 27, 2020 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner History Refresher SOOkane • Incorporation 2003 • Interim Comp Plan/regulations 2003 • Comp Plan adoption 2006 — Implementing regulations adoption 2007 - SEIS ■ Periodic update 2016 Spokane V'a ey — Implementing regulations Comprehensive Plan — FEIS 2.17, s� ACUFTEL_CSCE ThER201d ORDINANCENO.'16-018 2/21/2020 2 Comprehensive Plan Basics arte • Vision for City's growth " • Adopted and amended with public participation I • Goals, policies and strategies • Comprehensive Plan Elements — Economic development 0 . — Land Use - _w — Transportation — Housing — Capital facilities Spokane Valley — Public and private utilities Comprehensive Plan — Parks and Open Space 2c 17 — Natural resources JID n°��TE o`::rr' r.�zw, 2/21/2020 3 Land Use MapZoning and Map Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Districts R-1 - Single-Family Residential Estate Single Family Residential (SFR) 4 R-2 - Single-Family Residential Suburban 4 R-3 - Single-Family Residential Urban Multifamily Residential (MFR) 1111. MFR - Multifamily Residential Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 4 NC - Neighborhood Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) 4 MU - Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) ---) CMU - Corridor Mixed Use Regional Commercial 4 RC - Regional Commercial Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) 4 1MU - Industrial Mixed Use Industrial (I) 4 I - Industrial Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (POS) 4 P/OS - Parks/Open Space 2/21/2020 4 2016 Periodic Update S STRATEGY PRIMARY LEAD& RELATED ELEMENT(S) TIMING PRIORITY ELEMENT PARTNERS ® Economic Development focus Undertake a comprehensive branding process to create and market an identity for Spokane Valley • ED.Division; 21117 HIGH that Sells the City's inherent assets towouId-be Economic • • Visit Spokane residents,emplayerSand visitors Development • Data driven (special studies) Continue participation in regional tourism-pro- • EA.Division; motion efforts andlncreasetheCity°s presence in Economic • • Spokane Spol. rts osto�ra HIGH Spokane,Sports regional events Development Commission • Concise and understandable Evaluate the return on investmentof potential • ED.siDp ka e tourism anthgrsantl allocateavaFWtrle funds Economic •• • •• Visit Spokane 2018 HIGH according to the findings Development . I n c I u d es strategic actions Consider using GIS and web-based technologies to • assist business development Economic • E.D.Division 2018 HIGH Development • Combined goals and policies • • Intensify targeted retail recruitment efforts Economic ••t' Consuultaltantt• E.D. n2019 MEDIUM Development Evaluate local Interest in the creation of a Business • E.D.Dlvision: 2019 MEDIUM District Economic • • • Spokane County Development 2/21/2020 5 2016 Periodic Update S Reduced the number of Comp Plan Designations and Zoning Districts 12 Designations and 17 Zones 4 9 Designations and 11 Zones _ '',:_.:1 ', :-..-.. .,_ ..,_. j -- ---Lt.r 7 . e.." ' . -_,_ _ .—..);_,.____1„, .._ __....---- - „........ - INV -- =Waft ' ,1/40011. .._ :____ � �., tri C weszli...* , mi.74 _ ninaird' • itr3122H77.7.10Priti.7......... __,_. .-:Y Ws.....m.., 'Comma.,PY.Y,er.„AM.mel. an...e..N..drr...og i..a.- — .. �.M..1,.....n..3.7 -.aw ce.a 2/21/2020 6 2016 Periodic Update SummarY ■ Added Commercial r -� : Lula ee4gated11, Opportunities .- _ � ., ` -- � V — Changed Office CMU = �. " _" , �i ;1‘ 1-' 1��1i . = • '�l -� _iy . , CwII o Multifamily, office retail, and light _____:____-1 --,-----_----4:1- _ -_ 01.1,..t'.,..._1',1,1',14,,,,,iirk,,L,,,,,,,,,,,i„..„...,,, 1� 7 ,-NL�, �` ^ s' -..- I rfNlll�rlr. manufacturing -- -''���l. Ilrat r5-gar- t�.. — Neighborhood Commercial i - Tr. . 4" N.- m a &fan o Major intersections in - .{ ti ;-: 1 _°� _w a'_?1: r Vie` �.i �i neighborhoods y.�ili'i � Ir m '-/../0 :+ — Transitional Provisions liriii f-0`�" ` rer"---0 - _ ..._ Iq.IF �� ii�lr�+l:=7 _ ___ a 1110 2 o Replace dimensional standards lin= ' u • 1 0 �ri.`•�- n/9 r��m i�y' 1 gyp. E wi r ,. 0 iv �f 1,11' �i�+- +i•N ; � • r `` — : ,.g tied:mr � y ii Vii[.- �! r '� _ T r, s�" • sr ` 7LI . 7 2616 Periodic Update S ______ _p=, , __ • Added Industrial - ©pportunities Boundary "'~ �- - One Industrial designation --�- - ' 7 BNSF Maxi iir.e y/y — Industrial Mixed Use Y i - . - ,� / { w — Implementing PAO ` _ k5 . it--- - - * -_fir_ _- .City —--- f `.r::•' Limits • — _ g.-- -7.1 - - lli '- 9 ctam „r r r f :.. — =-1::\. .1.-,-_. 1 fa 3. „.7 g4,„,. i■ 1 _ dtilY.. S ralIw1` '.17 �"'- 1.----- —1 1=ICY' ■� '#. "}' .%.. - _ •1_ trnIn ti n .�.cmm. 1 - '• "kl1 h 'r $ ' -I.. elA� .q --"at"7.e•y �-V P I { laiiiii. 1,4 k 1 FT.- I . .. 3 •'J -_r9 'E.'Al , Iiffit41-,' 2016 Periodic Update S __ l= Legend --- - .. .M1111111141111111111111.11/111111.1 —_ — • New / Incentivized Housing A , 1/2 Mile Buffer from Transit Lin swission Zoning R3 NC I=RC I _. Ri 1 P45 MU1Mq Li. Opportunities R2®MF CMll_I i - c y _ — N/S corridors to CMU E�oad ��A m �' /r • — Consolidated R3 and R4 . . r II/ ' // j orf ,,;,' ..r*'i7. Y� i� % .iy s `i_,::1J f...: f' .gyp ,/ ,s• One Multifamily zones , -4 ,, , {r , rs�. .�.r --4 yr it /' ' .''' .6.�_ — Appleway Trail (park land) >> 4JiJi f /,, , ', 1 /744/ -, -,...-*r . .. -._ fit — Focus around Transit and fil'r ` q a Services (1/2 mIle) •,___,... E16th Ave IP r L I -aim), a 1 D •i, ix 2 Vsro cn gi m m G m ■;g 'I y 9 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process • Initiated by: COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS tiikane — Property owners/representatives DEPARTMENT — Citizens, agencies, neighborhood NOTICE OF CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE - City The CityofSookarre Valley Is providing nob cethat the application window for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle will dose on October 31,2019. Completed applications must be received by 5:00 p.m.on October 31,2019 to be • Application deadline October 31St considered during_the 2020 amendment cycle. Applications received eller October 31,2019,will be docketed for consideration duringthe 2021 amendment eyrie,All proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require a pre- appll adon conference prier to submitting an application. - Noticepublished 6 o-days prior The City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy document that governs how the City will accommodate and respond to the growth of the community over time. - Noticesent to agencies, organizations, and The annual amendment cycle provides the opportunity to propose changes to the Comprehensive Plan to address changing land use eonditions or emerging issues. Proposed amendments will be subject to review and a public hearing by the adjacent jurisdictions Spokane Valley Planning Commission before recommendations are made to the City Council. To schedule a pre-application meeting or get more information on the process and ■ Pre-app required anticipated schedule,please contact Senior Planner Char Bates at{509)720.5337 or cbates@spokanevalley.org. For more information about the comprehensive plan or application materials • Corn p I ete application(s) are docketed please ylsltwww.sppkanevalley.mg/cp. 10 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline O +� 2020 Docket co i,, c Overview C O C 2-27-2020 .� .O Administrative O N 2 E inpj = Cl) Study Session Report Q) C1 C) 3-12-2020 E ,� O E Ordinance 7 st Q. C = 0 Public HearingCLI C — Reading 00 0. a 3- 26-2020 a O = Ordinance 2nd Qy .0 2 O. 0 C Findings of Fact (0) Reading as .— > co 4-09-2020 Q O 0 r < U W Z LL U kiaramisig„, ,.,v", - - ,17 V - ,7 r - -..,,r I ' Today 11 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from I to RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres I to CMU Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 11/12/2019 12 Privately Initiated Map Amendment - CPA-2020-0001 igimmI•iih, T., fi t.� BO 1-- oo - 1:1 . " ' V :i • Applicant: Land Use - - � , - � F ,F { E-Mission Rv iii`) L wa s �' ..+Solutions o = m � ■ Owner: Tucker RoyLLC - F4 - r � �, - �� w E Broadway Ave - — � ` i _ • Amendment: Change from - - � � Single Family Residential - — a� -1 �_ (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use �.- - _ f407:::4111171.- ::::1' � ..A, _., fill 1 .ti. I--- - r .., _ . I I-- --- = _ 1 - - - Application Number:CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change:SFR to CMU 0 100 200 300 409 50011!) Area: 0.47 ac Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report-2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 13 Privately initiated Map Amendment - CPA-2020-0002 � :-I3:,,_ . isa-- .� � lF �,�� 1. • Applicant: LB Stone m 'g 11 - �` it,_ Properties } • Owner: LB Stone Properties B9 9' } Ave i ` �••f 'Ai p �t a > • Amendment: Change from , Industrial (I) to Regional i 90 Commercial (RC) 3 ` i_ =� —I tY. r me :LA Application Number:CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 5000 Area: Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report-2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 14 Privately Initiated Map Amendment - CPA-2020-0003 E MaysfiEl rte„, 71 ElMontgomerY --1ndxana Le a Jen ■ Applicant: Jay Rambo we _ II Property Owner: REVERE- 11r- - isston Ade---' la a DECE Ill INV LLC, BRILL E-M «`90- 4.( n r. . ii 73 PROPERTIES, LLC . riffliCIA _ i ''',4_ II Amendment: Change from ,l ° T _ } Multifamily Residential A I Ll ER Corridor Mixed -- ,,# ' ' _ Use (CMU) 1.12‘01*A - ; ,t1 1 I. r. - . =ems ,. isLin Application Number:CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU Area: 6.24 ac 0 150 300Fee50 so© 7500 11/12/2019 Administrative Report-2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 19 City Initiated Map Amendment - CPA-2020-0006 4, i :R n • Applicant: Spokane ___________.i \ -4---- „��< <; Valley 0 a .-1, h 1 ,.-,-.4i;I r_ i, ...4....ir,.t ..i;..Iy;:.o1. . Owner: East Valley l I ey ;� i \1, : _ �= , r, ea ... - .� -' _14:, School District _ ' f ! `' • Amendment: Change d - _ _ I -E, „� `i t_ = , wifliaseT industrial (I) to f � ri, from Indust a �. . Corridor Mixed Use _ �` (CMU) _ �c 4 , �- ' _ �N,. %,,_:,16 -:'}2'.s .e4.4-s/rE.t.,t—a "--- , i i i;i V�', i--21_47 j, ., - :141 , Application Number:CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU Area: 8.81 ac 0 150 300 450 600 7500 Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report-2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 16 City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 - 1 I ,_-----) ,_ -- • Applicant: Spokane : i . , Wellesley Valley . , ,....,_, v _____ t_ ,ri _1. , • Owner: applies citywide c.Gsti AtoprraaElpfts2e,gi es policies for alternative 1 i ElteAm, likiaoa t. Eil&Ssuan lez,/ Ave - - _ 41., - .411EffErri4 , policies & • Amendment: Add re8th m mi 4 - - Ave Z housing and area-wide 1 iz c, r rezone , \\R 5_,— 't a; t65 _ E 32nd . 19g FOS Ri . '' es MU 1 — I R9 .,..............„.............................„zz.,.9. 11/12/2019 Administrative Report-2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 17 City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 • Background J - --') _ II 1-r-1 , ,_=_ ,_ __ — Concerns from residents about influx of duplex .; developments � i k �� — Appropriate locations for ,. ,J 1 alternative housingig_ 1.41 ',--..-0.7s ," , N _ _+m _.. ._. . • Objective of Amendment _�•wvr vnI` 1,� - _; �. ,_ '` - �� a '��,.- Tic d — Addresses concerns of --ti residents : ' .1 - n * , , — Denser housingsupported Legend p p `° R3 parcels that are: - Greater than 10,000 sq ft and by transit & services + Vacant or Partially Used. STA Frequent Service(15 min) — STA Basic Service 0 11/12/2019 it 18 City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 ■ CTA-2018-0005 ,A-4-- Private Initiated Codeill% Jn Amendment to limit __if"ft -'i ft duplexes in R-3 zone —`_ � *� ,t , — Cottage developments -- = + - k _ proposed in areas without transit or services , . , , •' " 'rt _ �- ■ Affordable issues igi: - ► x.a Yv ,. = k.- -. .c 0 _ _ _statewide Ti ' r _ pp, 1---', ° - { 11/12/2019 19 City Initiated Text Amendment/Area-wide Rezone - CPA-2020-0007 • Create new zone (R-4) - - r �elleskyr,_ m Ave — Incentivize alternative EEu Iid:EFrederick r E , __ m A Ave housing in areas with x _Ave. _ � a — f Iu W .¢tea x.. _: Z -�.issY d i transit and servicesco 1 E Brea• Ave Mir - I ▪ : � — Reduce impacts to • �� _ _ neighborhoods ERttaye_ E stn a- ca dis ro ortionatel 17ths !' i_ 1 3 Ae� v ~ -�^t, p p l Ave I} ce m ''----,,''----,, re affected by duplex t a t E 29th _ I CR E.32nd en development Ave A's ELI Ave — • O a zen�nk PON CMU �a°' I MF - RC iiivvv me t C` E 44th Ave y R2 ti y_ — NC 1=1 iMu \ Fr3 Mu i - E 57th\le �.] R4 11/12/2019 20 Discussion ozoe\•t , Spmbliane Valley Mike Basinger, AICP Economic Development Manager