Loading...
2020, 07-09 Agenda PacketSpokane jValky° Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. July 9, 2020, 2020 6:00 p.m. 1. PLEASE NOTE: Meetings are being held electronically in response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning our recent State of Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in-person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely. 2. Public wishing to make comments will need to email planningaa spokanevallev.ore prior to 4:00 pm the day of the meeting in order to be to speak during the comments period during the meeting. Comments can also be emailed. Send an email to planning aspokanevallev.ore and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members through email. 3. Link to Zoom Meeting information: httas://saokanevallev.zoom.us/i/94788349724?awd=OzBiaHUI VONOK2tBYVhZT3Ny Meeting ID: 947 8834 9724 Password: 968899 One tap mobile +16699006833„94788349724# US (San Jose) Dial by your location +1253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) Meeting ID: 947 8834 9724 Find your local number: https://spokanevallev.zoom.us/u/acgCzgoJZ4 4. CALL TO ORDER 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6. ROLL CALL 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Corrected June 11, 2020, June 25.2020 9. COMMISSION REPORTS 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. 12. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA -2020-0001, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.180 Annexations b. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0002, A proposed amendment to SVMC 19.90 Essential Public Facilities 13. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 14. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall Junell,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the June 11, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the May 14, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he has continued to attend the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Nickerson thanked the commission for adjusting to the new Zoom meeting platform. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA -2020-0001: A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.180, Newly Annexed Areas Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave a presentation to the commission explaining the city initiated code text amendment that will amend Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the city and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided additional information regarding annexation. He explained that the amendment will clarify the annexation process for the three types of 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 annexation requests: voter initiated, City Council initiated and direct petition. It will outline the criteria that will be evaluated including existing and new facilities, services, expenses and revenues. It will also clearly identify the process to address zoning upon annexation. Chair Johnson asked for clarification regarding zoning for specific parcels as they request to annex into the city limits. Mr. Basinger answered that when the city annexes a property it is zoned with a designation that is the most similar to its current designation with the County. It will then be brought through the amendment process to evaluate what the zoning should be and go through the public process to make that final designation. Chairman Johnson asked for information regarding financial impact. He asked if a property would still be considered for annexation if it is found that the tax value received would be lower than the cost to the city. Mr. Basinger answered that this criteria will just be used as guidelines for the Council to consider when they make those decisions regarding annexation. b. Study Session: CTA Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Mr. Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. A public hearing will be held on June 25, 2020. Notice of hearing will be published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the site was posted with a "Notice of Hearing" sign, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. After the public hearing, the request will move to Council where they will review Planning Commission findings, consider the public hearing, and approve/modify/deny the request. The floor was given to Senior Planner Chaz Bates to discuss the details of each proposed amendment. CPA -2020-0001: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the east is zoned multi -family, the property to the south is corridor mixed use, and the west and south are zoned single family residential. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA -2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located off of Sprague and Fancher and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the zoning on 3 acres of land from Industrial (1) to Regional Commercial (RC). The properties to the north are zoned industrial and the property to the south and the west are regional commercial. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site is completely paved, the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA -2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mired Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located south of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Jay Rambo. The request is to convert the zoning of 6.24 acres from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The properties to the west is corridor mixed use, the north is industrial, the east is corridor mixed use and the south is single family residential. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed by the City of Spokane Valley's Senior Engineer and shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. Commissioner Haneke asked if the developer wants to build additional apartment buildings on the property and expressed concern about traffic flow in the area. Mr. Bates answered that this zoning designation would allow for additional multifamily dwelling units or retail. Attorney Lamb responded that the analysis done for this change shows the change from multi -family to corridor mixed use, it is not for a specific proposal. The current zoning of multi -family allows for a significant amount of trips. Corridor mixed use zoning will add more flexibility of uses but according to the traffic study it should not impact the traffic flow more than one car during the peak PM period. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked about the open space requirement for corridor mixed use designation. Building Official Nickerson responded that there are different requirements in the current Spokane Valley Municipal code between multifamily versus corridor mixed use zones. Multifamily does require open space but corridor mixed use does not. If open space was still required, Mission Park would provide the multifamily open space requirement. CPA -2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a city -initiated request to change the 9 acre property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property is owned by East Valley School District (EVSD) and currently houses the district's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance 06-I1-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 building. The properties to the west, north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses. Findings show that there are no critical areas, supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. CPA -2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a city initiated text amendment that will apply city-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area -wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district, R-4. There is 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used. Studies show that there is potential for 1240 housing units which would lead to 3100 new residents. The proposed area is surrounded by multifamily and corridor mixed use zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A definitions that states that townhouses are not considered multifamily. Mr. Basinger stated that staff's analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. Commissioner McKinley asked what the ultimate intent is for the amendment. Mr. Basinger answered that the vision is to offer a variety of alternative housing within the city. Staff is optimistic that due to the density change in this amendment, the City might see some cottage or townhome developments that would offer more affordable options. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if the Appleway Trail could be extended. She also asked if Spokane Transit Authority is considering making their services more frequent in this area. Mr. Basinger answered that there are plans to extend the Appleway Trail to Dishman Hills. The Transit Authority is optimistic that they would be able to extend their services as more development happens. They feel that more demand would drive them to offer additional services. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the notification process for the properties affected by this change. 4 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 Mr. Basinger answered that the public hearing has been published twice in the newspaper, it will be sent to the Comprehensive Plan distribution list that includes any person that has ever signed up to receive notifications about comprehensive plan changes (approximately 370 people), it will be published on all of the City's social media platforms, and a media release will be sent out prior to the public hearing. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about sending notification out regarding the City- wide rezone. Mr. Basinger responded that the City does not send out letters to individual property owners when a City-wide rezone is done. However, staff hopes that the additional notices on social media, press releases, and the distribution list will get the word out to the residents about the change. c. Study Session: CTA -2020-0002. A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.90, Essential Public Facilities. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation on the city -initiated code text amendment to amend regulations on essential public facilities (EPF). The proposal is to prohibit locally significant essential public facilities in residential zones. She explained that essential public facilities are facilities that are typically hard to site because of their size and the nature of their use. These facilities include state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, inpatient facilities which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health group homes and secure community transition facilities. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to have procedures to site essential public facilities. They can't be precluded from being allowed within the city limits. However, the City can control the zones where they are located. This request is to preclude all of the residential zones; R-1, R-2, and R-3. The reason for this change is because there have been numerous detoxification facilities proposed within the City limits in the last few years. There was a controversial public hearing held recently for a detoxification center that wanted to move into a residential zone. Staff made the decision that it would be appropriate to look at making a change to limit the zones where these types of facilities can be sited. The City regulates essential public facilities pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations stipulate that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for all essential public facilities to address any possible impacts. Currently, essential public facilities are allowed in all zones except mixed use and parks and open space. Chairman Johnson asked if the new R-4 zone would also be included. Ms. Barlow answered that the City will probably look to exclude that zone if it is created but the current code text amendment only addresses the zones that are in the code right now. Chairman Johnson asked the timeframe for this amendment. Ms. Barlow answered that the public hearing will be held in July, the findings of fact at the following meeting and then moving onto the City Council for their review and decision. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Haneke to the board. Commissioner McKinley asked for an update regarding opening the City Hall for in person meetings. 06.11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Ms. Nickerson answered that the governor's order for COVID phase three does include allowing face-to-face with customers for government facilities. However, there is no date yet for when phase three will begin. The City has begun preparations for when opening does happen and is putting protocols in place to keep people safe while they are in City Hall. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall June 25, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:19 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Meeting was late due to technical difficulties. H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Marty Palaniuk, Planner Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the agenda for June 25, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner McKinley joined the meeting at 6.23 pm. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the minutes for June 11, 2020 minutes as presented. Commissioner Robinson moved to amend the minutes to include an addition regarding a discussion that was held during CPA -2020-0007 regarding open space and the Appleway Trail will be considered a linear park per Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger. The vote on the amendment was seven in favor, zero against and the amendment passed. The vote on the amended motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson commented that he has continued with the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. The task force has issued several public statements recently and they will be holding a virtual awards ceremony later this year. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that now that the meetings are being held via the Zoom platform, the meeting recordings on the website will now include visual and audio capabilities. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:27 pm. Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. This evening is the public hearing. He explained that the Findings of Fact will be heard by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2020 and then the amendments will advance to the City Council for their three reviews. The process for Comprehensive Plan amendments includes staff facilitating the amendments, conducting the review and analysis of each proposal, preparing the staff reports, and public notices. The Planning Commission conducts the public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the Planning Commission's findings and deliberations, considers public comments and makes the decision to approve/modify or deny the request. Notice of public hearing was published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the sites are posted with a "Notice of Hearing" sign for site specific map amendments, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. Email notification regarding the public hearing was also sent out to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planning Commission, and City Council distribution lists. A notice was posted to the City website in two separate locations including the home page and the news section of the website, a notice was published on the City's social media sites including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages, and a press release was sent out on June 18, 2020. It was explained that public testimony will be held at the end of each proposed amendment. CPA -2020-0001: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Senior Planner Chaz Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to change the land use designation/rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3) to CMU. The property to the east is zoned multi -family, the property to the south is CMU, and the west and south are zoned SFR. Mr. Bates explained that McDonald Road is an improved minor arterial road with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, it has a center turn lane and single traffic lane in both directions. The CMU designation is used on north/south arterials such as McDonald Road and the proposal is consistent with the CMU description in the Comprehensive Plan. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Bates stated that the City did not receive any comments from outside agencies and only received one public comment regarding the proposal. The submitter was not opposed to the project as discussed in the application but was unhappy with the openness of the CMU zoning. The meeting was opened up for public testimony. Chairman Johnson read the guidelines for public testimony. 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Dwight Hume, Spokane: Mr. Hume is the agent for the landowner and stated that he has reviewed the staff report and finds that it is consistent with what he submitted. He explained that this change will enable the owner to expand his building because there is pressure to have more services at that site. The owner would like to be able to utilize property that he already owns and provide additional services at an already established location. They plan to use this portion of the site for parking when they expand the building that is already on the adjacent lot. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA -2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (R(-). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located at 5901 E Sprague Avenue and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the land use designation/zoning on 2.98 acres of land from Industrial to RC. The properties to the north are zoned Industrial and the property to the south and the west RC. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site is completely paved, and the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. The City did not receive any comments from outside agencies or public comment on the proposal. The meeting was opened for public testimony. Ed Lukas, Spokane: Mr. Lucas is the real estate transaction director for the property owner, Larry Stone. He stated that he concurs with the staff report and feels that this would be an appropriate change to the Comprehensive Plan. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA -2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for three parcels located south of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Revere-Dece III Inv, LLC & Brill Properties, LLC. The request is to convert the land use designation/zoning of 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU. The properties to the west is CMU, the north is Industrial, the east is CMU and the south is SFR. The properties currently have an existing 240 unit multifamily development and if approved would allow increased flexibility and density of the property and may increase redevelopment potential of the vacant lot to the southwest. The property is directly accessed by Union Road and Mission Avenue. Mission Avenue is designated a minor arterial road. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Based on a comment received from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the City's Senior Traffic Engineer completed a trip generation and distribution letter whihc shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. No other agency comments or public comment were received. 06.25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Chairman Johnson asked for additional information on the trip generation letter. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerremy Clark responded that he did an analysis that included the capacity of the lot for maximum build -out of multi -family versus the maximum build out of the existing multifamily plus additional CMU possibilities to come up with the net increase in traffic volumes of one car. Commissioner Haneke expressed concern about the possibility of unlimited density in the CMU zoning and feels that that there could be substantially more than 22 units per acres if this amendment is approved. Mr. Bates responded that the CMU zone has additional flexibility and uses that can be developed. The designation would allow commercial or retail use in that location as well as housing units. He also explained that this proposal is not for a development specific project, it is just for a land use change. Any impact related to development specific project will be reviewed when they are submitted. Commissioner Beaulac asked about possible future road improvements in the area. Senior Engineer Clark answered that there is a project underway right now to improve the current footprint of Pines Road and Mission Avenue. Once additional funding is available, the improvements will include a southbound turn lane from Pines onto Mission. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if there is an additional exit on this property. Mr. Bates answered that there is another exist onto Nora Avenue going towards Wilbur Road. Commissioner Kelly commented that he went to this location and found the exit onto Nora Avenue chained and locked. The meeting was opened for public testimony. Secretary Horton read into the record a comment from Greg Figg with WSDOT. The comment was in regards to both CPA -2020-0003 and CPA -2020-0006. The comment stated that the change to land use would not result in a significant increase in traffic from what the current zoning allows. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA -2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a City -initiated request to change the 8.81 acres property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial to CMU. The property is owned by East Valley School District (EVSD) and currently houses the District's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance building, but it also includes classrooms. The properties to the west, north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses zoned CMU. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the changes supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. Comments were received from W SDOT requesting additional traffic information. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed showing details on both the designation of educational use and CMU. The CMU designation shows that the change would result in one additional net trip. Changing the use 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 to educational would create a decrease in trips. The letter summed up that sufficient roadway capacity exists. The City did not receive any additional agency or public comments. The meeting was opened up for public testimony. Secretary Horton read into the record a comment from Greg Figg with WSDOT. The comment was in regards to both CPA -2020-0003 and CPA -2020-0006. The comment stated that the change to land use would not result in a significant increase in traffic from what the current zoning allows. CPA -2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a City initiated text amendment that will apply City-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area -wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district, R-4. There are 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used in the designated are between 80'Avenue and Broadway, between Park and Sullivan. This change could allow for a net change of 496 new housing units and it could allow for a net of 1240 new residences. The proposed change area has 130 parcels that are less than half an acres, there are 36 parcels that are one to two acres, seven parcels that are two to three acres, and two parcels are three to five acres. There are no parcels that are greater than five acres. The proposed area is surrounded by Multifamily and CMU zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the municipal code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. The change outlines that assisted living/nursing homes, cottage developments and townhomes will no longer be permitted in the R-3 zone. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A -Definitions that states that townhouses are not considered a multifamily product. Mr. Basinger stated that staff s analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. There were no staff or agency comments received on this change and there were two comments received from the public. Commissioner Beaulac expressed concern about the parcel owners not being directly notified about this proposed change. He feels that the staff should have sent notification to the affected parcels. 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if nursing/retirement homes that are already located in R-3 zones will continue to be allowed. Mr. Bates answered that these properties will be classified as legal non -conforming uses. Commissioner Johnson asked how much it would cost to send notification to everyone within 400 feet of the properties being rezoned. Mr. Basinger answered that this area is a very large zone and it would be a very large mailing. According to the RCW code, the noticing requirements have been sufficiently met and staff has added several additional means of notification to get word out to the residents. The meeting was opened for public testimony. John Conard, Liberty Lake: Mr. Conard expressed support for the new R-4 zoning classification to develop single -story townhouses and said that he is excited by the opportunities this could open for the City. Secretary Horton read three letters into the record: Barry Beck, Spokane Valley: Mr. Beck expressed support of the proposed amendment and encouraged adoption of the change. Pete Miller, Spokane Valley: Ms. Miller expressed that this change will provide welcome relief to the residents in the R-3 zone and requested full support from the Commission of the amendment. Stephanie Woodruff, Spokane Valley: Ms. Woodruff expressed concern about the influx of apartments, duplexes and rental homes being built in the Valley. She encouraged the Commission to pass the amendment. No additional public testimony was offered. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 pm. Commissioner Kelley moved for the Commission to take a ten minute break. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Discussion regarding CPA -2020-0001: Commissioner Kelley read a statement and provided four pictures of McDonald Rd. He expressed that residents would not be putting themselves at risk walking to and from the medical office building or driving in/out of the proposed parking lot. He also stated that the developer, Tucker Roy LLC did a great job with the original building on the property and feels that the reason they are outgrowing the location is due to the high quality work they put into the location and their determination to support City residents. He is pleased that there are developers like Tucker Roy, LLC interested in reinvesting in the City and stated that he will support the request. (Statement and pictures provided by Commissioner Kelly are attached to the public record). Commissioners Johnson and Robinson expressed support for the request. Discussion regarding CPA -2020-0002: Commissioners McKinley, Kaschmitter, Haneke, Commissioner Beaulac and Johnson all expressed support for the request. Commissioner Robinson asked if the change would force landscaping requirements during the development process. Building Official Nickerson answered that the Industrial zone did not require landscape but the change to Regional Commercial does require landscaping. Storm water management will be addressed during the building process. 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Robinson stated that she supported the request. Commissioner Kelley read a statement saying that he would be voting to approve the amendment based on three goals and objectives: to promote development of vacant and underutilized property, to support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed use district to accessible district that promote economic activity and to support the employment growth in the City. (Statement is attached to the public record). Discussion regarding CPA -2020-0003: Commissioner Kelly read a statement saying that he does not support the amendment due to traffic concerns on Union Road and Mission Avenue and because it fails to meet the goals and objections set forth to guide the Commission in their decision making process. (Statement is attached to the public record). Commissioners Beaulac, Haneke, Robinson, McKinley, Johnson and Kaschmitter all expressed concerned about the width of Union Road. They feel that there needs to be improvements done on Union Road to widen the street or to prohibit street parking if there's going to be additional development utilizing this road. They were not in favor of this amendment. The Commission came to a consensus not to recommend approval of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion regarding CPA -2020-0006 Commissioners Kaschmitter, Haneke, Beaulac, Robinson, and Johnson expressed that they are all in favor of this change to the amendment Commissioner Kelley read a statement saying that he would not be voting to approve this amendment because it would allow a K-12 school to be located in a busy industrial park, it does not meet the goals and objectives for public health, safety and welfare of citizens, it would be located in an area where an unlimited number of I-502 manufacturing and I-502 grow operations are allowed which is not in the best interests of school aged children, and there is a hotel located directly across the street. (Statement is attached to the public record). Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification about whether or not a K-12 school would be going into this location or if the classrooms would be used strictly for programs. Mr. Bates answered that the school intends to use the facility for their Parent/Partner program. This is a program that assists parents and children who are homeschooling or using other non -typical education systems to get the assistance they need to teach their children. There are no plans to have any kind of K-12 school in this location. Commissioner Kelley responded that this land use change would allow a K-12 school to be located on this property if it is approved. Mr. Basinger responded that the commission does need to look at what could be placed on the property based on the land use designations. This new designation would allow a K-12 school to be located on this property. However, the school district does not have any intentions to do that because they do not feel that location would be an appropriate place for a school. The Commission took a poll on the matter. Commissioners Kaschmitter, Haneke, Beaulac, Robinson, and Johnson were in favor of the amendment. Commissioners Kelly and McKinley were not in favor of the change. Discussion regarding CPA -2020-0007: 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Kelly read a statement saying that he would not support the amendment because it appears to be an attempt to punish investors in the community that have supported the City and that the amendment is not in line with the vision that was formed during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Review. (Statement attached to the public record). Chairman Johnson expressed concern about the way the amendment was advertised and the need to let the residents know about such a big change. However, he feels that there are a lot of good ideas in the amendment and that there is a great need in the City for medium density lots. Commissioner Kaschmitter and Beaulac both expressed that the R4 zone would be a good addition to the Comprehensive Plan because it would give options for alternative/affordable housing and help preserve the R-3 zone as envisioned but that the City really needs to do a better job notifying the property owners that will be affected by the change. Commissioner Johnson moved to extend the meeting time to 9:15 pm. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Robinson mentioned that there is a very low vacancy factor for rentals in the City. She feels that it is a good idea to get more people into home ownership instead of forcing people to stay in rentals. The City needs to have options for alternative housing and this is a good way to achieve that option. She expressed that she is in favor of the change. Commissioner McKinley expressed that he is not in favor of this change because it changes the character of the area too much and he doesn't feel that the added density is a good addition to the City vision. Commissioner Haneke stated that he thinks the concept is a great idea. However, he is concerned about the property owners not being notified. With the current notification process, he is not in support of the change. The Commission took a poll on the matter. It was decided to recommend to the City Council not to approve this change to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Beaulac moved to extend the meeting by fifteen minutes to 9:30 pm. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend approval on CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020- 0002 and CPA -2020-0006 and recommend not approving CPA -2020-0003 & CPA -2020- 0007. The Commission came to a consensus that the basis for denying approval on CPA -2020-0007 was the lack of notification to the affected residents, increasing the density will have a negative impact on the standard of living that the Valley has had in the past, but the proposed R-4 zone could have some potential in the future with further study and changes. This information will be put into the findings of fact for approval at the July 23, 2020 meeting. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners commended the staff on their work on these amendments. 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA -2020-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Proposed amendment to the Chapter 19.180 SVMC. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The city initiated code text amendment will amend Chapter 19.180 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the City, and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040 and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in late 2016, the City has received a number of informal inquiries regarding annexation into the City. During these discussions it was determined that the existing policy framework for annexation needed to be strengthened to provide direction to potential applicants and staff regarding annexation requests. In 2019 the City adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that included the following policies and strategy: LU -P19 Develop criteria to identify, process, and assess the annexation of land into Spokane Valley LU -P20 Identify land designations for potential annexation areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent Urban Growth Areas to the City CF -P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas, including identifying the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance. Strategy: Evaluate and develop criteria to assist in the evaluation of annexations. The proposed amendment to Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC is the implementation measure to provide criteria for considering proposed annexations, including review of public facilities and fiscal impacts. While the proposal doesn't identify land designations, it provides a mechanism to address zoning of newly annexed areas. It implements several of the Comprehensive Plan policies and strategies. Annexation is a tool allowing the City to "annex" and incorporate areas outside of the City boundaries into the City boundaries. Property that is annexed becomes subject to all City laws, including land use, taxation, and other regulatory laws. Further, since the property becomes part of the City, the City becomes responsible for providing services to citizens within the annexed area, as well as for providing and maintaining any public infrastructure or facilities within the annexed area. Thus, it is important for the City to carefully review proposed annexations to understand the fiscal impact to the City to provide necessary services and infrastructure, as well as to understand what value the annexed area will bring to the City, such as adding new available industrial, commercial, or park land for development and beneficial use. Notably, the City does not provide water, sewer, power, or gas, so the primary services are street -related services (sweeping, maintenance, plowing, stormwater, etc.) and public safety. Staff will provide a detailed overview of the criteria, but generally it (1) identifies the process for either City Council or an outside person or entity to propose an annexation, (2) identifies criteria to be evaluated, including existing facilities, new CTA- 2020-0001 Page 1 of 2 facilities needed, anticipated services to meet City service levels, anticipated expenses, and anticipated revenues, (3) identifies a process to address zoning upon annexation, and (4) establishes clearly that City Council may approve or deny any annexation brought by petition at its sole discretion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, consider the proposed amendments through deliberations. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Proposed Amendment Chapter 19.180 SVMC CTA- 2020-0001 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Spokane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2020-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 11, 2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 9, 2020, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The city initiated code text amendment will amend Chapter 19.180 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the City, and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.180 SVMC are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice May 26, 2020 SEPA — DNS Issued May 29, 2020 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: June 12 and 19, 2020 BACKGROUND: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in late 2016, the City has received a number of informal inquiries regarding annexation into the City. During these discussions it was determined that the existing policy framework for annexation needed to be bolstered to provide clearer direction to potential applicants and staff regarding annexation requests. In 2019 the City adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that included the following policies and strategy: LU -P19 Develop criteria to identify, process, and assess the annexation of land into Spokane Valley LU -P20 Identify land designations for potential annexation areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent Urban Growth Areas to the City CF -P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas, including identifying the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance. Strategy Evaluate and develop criteria to assist in the evaluation of annexations. Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2020-0001 The proposed amendment to Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC is the implementation measure to achieve the previously adopted Comprehensive Plan policies and strategy. ANALYSIS: Annexation is the procedure for bringing unincorporated areas of a county into an adjacent incorporated city. If an area is annexed, the city becomes the primary provider of local government services. Washington State law as set forth in RCW 35A.14 allows annexations through a variety of mechanisms, including Voter Initiated Election Method, Council Initiated Election Method, Direct Petition Method, Unincorporated Islands, Municipal Purpose; Interlocal Agreement Annexation of Area Served by Fire District(s); and Annexation of Federal Areas. Many of these methods are limited in scope and used by cities infrequently. The most common methods of annexation are further described below: Voter Initiated Election Method - This annexation method is initiated by voters living in the area to be annexed and requires approval of the voters in the proposed annexation area. City Council Initiated Election Method - This annexation method is initiated by a City Council resolution and requires approval of the voters in the proposed annexation area. Direct Petition Method - This annexation method is initiated by property owners (or residents) of the proposed annexation area. This method requires the signatures of (1) property owners representing 60 percent of the assessed value of the area proposed for annexation, or (2) property owners representing a majority of the area proposed for annexation and a majority of the registered voters in the area. Upon receipt of a sufficient petition, City Council adopts an ordinance approving annexation. This is the most common type of annexation. Annexations are limited to areas that are within the Urban Growth Area. The figure below shows the areas in Spokane County that may be available for annexation to the City in yellow. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2020-0001 In addition to the Washington State laws regarding annexation, the proposed amendment will require that all voter -initiated, City Council initiated, and direct petition annexations be subject to the proposed procedures in chapter 19.180 SVMC. Other types of annexations may, but are not required to use the procedures. The proposed annexation procedures and criteria will allow the City to evaluate specific annexation proposals with a set of uniform standards and evaluate the consequences of the annexation on utilities, sanitation, traffic, and law enforcement. The proposed regulations will also allow the City to evaluate the financial impacts of the annexation on providing the required public services at the City's adopted levels of service, including both the costs to provide services and anticipated revenues from the proposed annexation area to support required levels of services. Under the proposed regulations the newly annexed areas will have a Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations of either the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation as identified in a joint planning process or the closest comparable City Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation. These interim designations and zoning will be evaluated in the next Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The proposed amendments to chapter 19.180 SVMC provide a uniform set of criteria that the City would use to evaluate annexation requests. The proposed regulations provide for a set of criteria to fairly and uniformly evaluate annexations, their impacts on existing residents and the ability to serve the new area at adopted levels of service. The regulations also provide a mechanism for the City to evaluate the financial impact of the annexation and mitigate that impact to existing residents. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan and is consistent with the following policies and strategy: LU -P19 Develop criteria to identify, process, and assess the annexation of land into Spokane Valley LU -P20 Identify land designations for potential annexation areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent Urban Growth Areas to the City CF -P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas, including identifying the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance. Strategy Evaluate and develop criteria to assist in the evaluation of annexations. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Under the existing provisions for Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation B. CTA -2020-0001 annexation there are no criteria to evaluate annexation requests. The proposed regulations provide guidance to the City, to evaluate the consequences of the annexation on utilities, sanitation, traffic, and law enforcement. The proposed regulations will also allow the City to evaluate the financial impacts of the annexation on providing the required public services at the City's adopted levels of service. This evaluation will analyze the costs to provide services and anticipated revenues from the proposed annexation area to support the required levels of service. Further the regulations provide a clear process for establishing interim comprehensive plan and zoning for any annexed areas. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA -2020-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted. The proposed text amendment clarifies the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the City, and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendment is found to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F). Page 4 of 4 Chapter 19.180 ANNEXATIONS 19.180.005 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the City, and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. 19.180.010 Annexation Methods and Applicability. A. All annexations shall occur pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter 35A.14 RCW, as adopted or amended and as otherwise allowable by law. In addition to all other procedures allowed by law, all voter -initiated, City Council initiated, and direct petition annexations shall be subject to the procedures set forth in this chapter 19.180 SVMC. Other types of annexations may, but are not required to use these procedures. B. To be eligible for annexation the entire subject area must be within an adopted Urban Growth Area and be contiguous with the City boundary. 19.180.020 Annexation Evaluation Criteria. A. The purpose of this section is to provide criteria to evaluate annexations on the basis of their short- and long-term community impact. Annexations shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. B. Prior to approval or disapproval of any annexation as allowed by law, the City shall consider at a minimum the following: 1. The ability of the City and other applicable entities to provide required public services at a level equal to or better than that available from current service providers; 2. The financial impact of providing the required public services at the City's adopted levels of service, including potential sources of revenue. Review of financial impact shall include at a minimum an analysis of the costs to provide services and anticipated revenues from the proposed annexation area to support required levels of service; 3. The impact of annexation on any applicable City bonded indebtedness, including an analysis of the impact of City bonded indebtedness upon property within the proposed annexation area; 4. Whether the annexation would follow logical boundaries, such as streets, waterways, or substantial topographic changes; 5. Whether the annexation would eliminate an irregularity or irregularities in the City's boundaries, thereby improving service delivery; 6. Review of existing infrastructure prior to defining boundaries of the proposed annexation to determine logical inclusions or exclusions, including but not limited to the review of the following factors: a. Whether right-of-way will be needed for the provision of utilities or transportation links. b. Whether there are pre-existing utilities from a particular district or jurisdiction that are currently in a right-of-way. c. Whether the existing transportation network will produce an unfair burden on the City for the operation, maintenance and preservation or replacement of assumed infrastructure; 7. Zoning that will be applicable for the proposed annexation area, subject to the requirements of SVMC 19.180.040; and 8. Review of any other impact identified as necessary by the City. C. Prior to any annexation, the City will confer with affected special districts and Spokane County to assess the impact of the annexation. Where possible, boundaries should be mutually resolved by the jurisdictions before final action on the proposed annexation. F. The City may request that petitioner(s) provide information regarding the identified impacts as part of a petition or part of the petition process, may require the petitioner(s) to respond to inquiries regarding the impacts, and may require the petitioner(s) to conduct any studies necessary to evaluate any of the identified impacts at their cost or to pay for such studies undertaken by the City. 19.180.030 Jurisdictional cooperation. A. The City shall, as appropriate, cooperate with Spokane County and other municipalities to identify, review, and address area -wide comprehensive planning, zoning, and service provision to urban growth areas that contiguous to the City's municipal boundaries. B. When determined to be advantageous to the City, the City should assist in the creation of interlocal agreements to provide technical and financial support to contiguous urban growth areas for the extension and improvement of public services and facilities. C. The City will work to cooperate with Spokane County and other service providers to establish uniform street and utility standards within adopted service areas of the City as appropriate. 19.180.040 Newly annexed areas. A. Annexed areas shall be annexed with the following Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. 1. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation set forth in joint planning designations; or 2. The closest comparable City Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation to that imposed by Spokane County. B. Upon annexation of property, in the absence of a pre -established zoning designation, the council shall, within the annexation ordinance, establish an interim classification for the property on the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. The interim zone shall be consistent with the annexation area's Comprehensive Plan designation. If an interim Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation(s) are established, it shall be in place no longer than 12 months unless otherwise provided by ordinance. The process for establishing an interim zoning district shall meet the requirements of RCW 36.70.795. For all property classified in the interim zone, the department shall commence all steps necessary to establish an official zoning classification pursuant to the procedure described in SVMC 17.80.140. C. The City may seek to mitigate increased expenses due to annexation through any means allowed by law. An example would be to seek agreement from all property owners within the annexed area that they will not object to the formation of a local improvement district to bring existing infrastructure into compliance with adopted city standards. 19.180.050 Decision on Annexation. Subject to applicable law regarding annexations by election, the City Council shall not be obligated to approve or disapprove of any annexation, regardless of the outcome of the review undertaken pursuant to this chapter 19.180 SVMC. N O O O J � O V N LLS Q O N V ' �a m ~ V � t/1 Z aO Z W N N W W cem t OZOZ 661 aunt , guianag aiignd jo aaijo. OZOZ `61 aunl MainaH JVJUatUUOIIAU:l Y I1M1�I IMS iiaunoa ��ia -- c •� c Cd o O t/� N 4 UOiSSItutuoD 21uluuuld -- t OZOZ 661 aunt , guianag aiignd jo aaijo. OZOZ `61 aunl MainaH JVJUatUUOIIAU:l 4A EL CL O N O U) IL V � _ N 4A O � N N D a N w d WI d U- 0 O to } CL U) U) m O d U) U) IL °- wl a U) U) D a wl a w d WI d Z wl U) U) U) d WI V a wl U) U) a wl E a wI U) U) a wI a wl U) Cf) c y O i O Q-0 Q- V 'v cn c(n W _0 E a� co a co U o cz . a �. CY C: m � � G1 '� d •V •V -� N N a U w m N E a E H 0- 0 I CA LL CL W ■ 1 Ll I 0 rl CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ information FILE NUMBER: CTA -2020-0002 ❑ new business ® public hearing [—]study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Essential Public Facilities (EPF's) Code Text Amendment (CTA) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A CTA to prohibit locally significant EPF's in residential zones, allow EPF's in the Mixed Use zone and other housekeeping matters. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040, RCW 36.70A.106, and 36.70A.200 BACKGROUND: EPF's are facilities that are typically difficult to site due to the use or resulting impacts. EPF's are defined in various state laws including RCW 47.06.140, 81.112.020 and 71.09.020. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to establish a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. The State has identified a list of EPF's pursuant to WAC 364-196-550, which includes state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities, which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health, group homes, and secure community transition facilities. The City may not preclude the siting of essential public facilities within their jurisdiction. The City of Spokane Valley is signatory to the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County. The interlocal agreement defines the process applicable to uses meeting the definition of an EPF. Generally speaking, a proponent would submit a request for determination of appropriate siting process to the Spokane County Planning Department for a decision by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). If the use is determined to be regionally or statewide significant, a regional siting process is undertaken that considers a location analysis and public involvement that ultimately results in a ranking of the sites from the BOCC. If the site is determined to be locally significant, the proponent works directly with the local jurisdiction to meet the regulatory requirements. The city regulates EPFs pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations categorize the uses as statewide, regionally, or locally significant and identifies the process as noted above. Additionally the regulations stipulate that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC to address the unanticipated impacts of the use. Last the permitted use matrix in SVMC 19.60.050 identifies the zones where EPFs are allowed. Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except Mixed Use and Parks and Open Space. Although the city cannot prohibit the siting of EPFs within the city limits, the city can prohibit the siting of EPFs in residential zones so long as there is adequate, appropriate land available in other zones. At this time the City has proposed a code text amendment to prohibit EPFs in the single family residential zones (R-1, R-2, and R-3), allow EPF's in the Mixed Use Zone, and reformat the chapter to improve clarity. EPFs would continue to be allowed in the MFR, MU, and CMU zone to accommodate those EPF uses that are designed to be located in a residential zone or zones that allow residential uses. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and deliberate on the amendment. The Planning Commission will adopt findings and make a recommendation on the amendment to City Council on July 23, 2020. RPCA Study Session — EPF CTA -2020-0002 Page 1 of 2 STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Chapter 19.90 SVMC and 19.60.050 with proposed changes 3. PowerPoint Presentation RPCA Study Session —EPF CTA -2020-0002 Page 2 oft COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING pO crn a kane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE jValley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2020-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 2, 2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 9, 2020, beginning at 6:00 p.m.; Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated extensions), this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. Proposal Description: A city -initiated code text amendment to chapter 19.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and SVMC 19.60.050 to prohibit locally significant Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) in the single-family residential zones, to allow EPFs in the Mixed Use Zone, and to address other housekeeping items. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapter 19.90 SVMC and SVMC 19.60.050 are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment June 15, 2020 SEPA — DNS Issued June 19, 2020 Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 19 and 26, 2020 Background: EPFs are facilities that are typically difficult to site due to the use or resulting impacts. EPFs are defined in various state laws including RCW 47.06.140, 81.112.020 and 71.09.020. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to establish a process for identifying and siting EPFs. The State has identified a list of EPFs pursuant to WAC 364-196-550, which includes state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities, which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health, group homes, and secure Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2020-0002 community transition facilities. The City may not preclude the siting of EPFs within their jurisdiction. The City is signatory to the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County with Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and other municipalities. The Interlocal Agreement defines the siting process applicable to EPFs. Generally speaking, a proponent submits a request for determination of appropriate siting process to the Spokane County Planning Department for a decision by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). If the use is determined to be an EPF of regional or statewide significance, the project will be sited using the regional siting process. This process utilizes a location analysis with significant public involvement that ultimately results in a ranking of the sites from the BOCC. If the EPF is determined to be locally significant, the EPF is sited through the local EPF siting process established by each jurisdiction. The city regulates EPFs pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations categorize the uses as statewide, regionally, or locally significant and identify the process as noted above. Additionally the regulations require all EPFs to receive a conditional use permit (CUP) pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC to address the unanticipated impacts of the use. Lastly, the permitted use matrix in SVMC 19.60.050 identifies the zones where EPFs are allowed. Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except Mixed Use (MU) and Parks and Open Space (POS). Although the City cannot prohibit the siting of EPFs within the City limits, the City may prohibit the siting of EPFs in residential zones so long as there is adequate, appropriate land available in other zones. At this time the City is proposing a code text amendment to prohibit EPFs in the single-family residential zones and also proposed a reorganization of chapter 19.90 SVMC improve the clarity. ANALYSIS: Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except MU and POS pursuant to SVMC 19.60.050, Table 1, Permitted Use Matrix ( Table 1 below) and subject to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC. Table 1 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix Zones R1 R2 R3 MFR MU CMU INC RC IMU I POS Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities P P P P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities R R R R R R R Public utility local distribution facility S S S S S P P P S Public utility transmission facility S JR S S S S I S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S S S S The proposed amendment: 1. Prohibits locally significant EPFs from locating in single family residential zones because they are incompatible with residential uses. Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2020-0002 As noted above, EPFs are defined and categorized as such due to the necessity for such facilities and uses and the implicit challenges due to the impacts on surrounding properties. However, EPFs that primarily serve local populations may be categorized as locally significant. Locally significant EPFs are subject to City regulatory approval, which requires a CUP process. They are also currently allowed in all residential zones. The City has recently processed CUP's for several small scale substance abuse detoxification facilities determined to be locally significant through the siting process, one of which was proposed in a residential zone. The Hearing Examiner (HEX) determined through the CUP process that the facility was not compatible with the residential uses, due to the commercial nature of the service, traffic impacts, physical changes proposed to the site, and various operational impacts that included shift changes and even deliveries. The HEX denied the CUP. The decision for that project highlights the contradictory nature of allowing EPFs in single-family residential zones. While all EPFs have some level of challenge in finding an appropriate site, the impacts are generally magnified in single-family residential zones due to the limited residential uses in such zones. The proposed amendment will prevent incompatible uses from locating within single family residential zones. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with state laws. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200(1) Cities are required to establish a process for identifying and siting EPFs. Generally there is a distinction between EPFs of statewide and regional significance and locally significant EPFs. A City has more authority to zone locally significant EPFs and may preclude them from single family residential zones so long as they are allowed in at least one residential zone and other zones within the City. The proposed amendment precludes locally significant EPFs from the single family residential zones (R-1, R-2 and R-3) but allows the use in all other zones (MFR, MU, CMU, RC, NC, IMU, I) except POS. 3. Allows EPFs in multifamily residential zones and mixed use zones. The amendment recognizes that certain EPFs are designed to be located in residential zones, such as group homes or residential substance abuse treatment facilities, and continues to allow EPFs in the multi -family residential zone and mixed use zones where a wide range of residential uses are allowed. Table 2 Proposed Amendment to 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix Zones R1 R2 I R3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities P P I P I P P P I P P P P P Essential public facilities E E E E E E E E E E Public utility local distribution facility S S S S S S S P P P S Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S S I S ISI Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2020-0002 A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies: LU -GI Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors CF -P19 Collaborate with Spokane County jurisdictions in determining the best locations for public and private essential public facilities. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses LU -P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. H -P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. CF -GI Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Precluding locally significant EPFs in the single family residential zones protects the character of the existing single family residential uses and allows those EPFs that have a residential component to located in other mixed use or high density residential zones. The proposed amendment protects residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and provides for EPFs that require a residential character. The amendment addresses community concerns and protects community character. The amendment will also direct locally significant EPFs into zones and sites more suitable and allow for more efficient processing and permitting of the necessary services they provide. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation No public comments have been received to date. CTA -2020-0002 b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA -2020-0002 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has not received any agency comments to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to preclude locally significant EPFs from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, allow EPFs in the MU zone, and other housekeeping items is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 5 DRAFT CTA -2020-0002 (Prohibiting EPFs in Residential Zones) Chapter 19.90 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (EPFs) Sections: 19.90.005 -41FEssential Public Facilities;k:wwrocedures 19.90.010 Essential Public Facilities of regional/statewide significance 19.90.020 Essential Public FacilitiesiFKfaeiOLies of local sign ficance 19.90.0 5 EPF =w.=procedures The City is signatory to an interlocal aereement relative to the sitine of EPFs f statewide and reg onaI swnificsince in accordance w th RCW 36 70A 200 Aoolication for EPF sitine shall §e made through JhQ Spgkaae QgUnly department of olannine and building in accordance with the adopted procedures of Spokane County. nll EPFs located with -n the C tv SVokzne Valley shall requ re EPFs approved through th _ �FeEess to meet all _ heal eo - e is t those expressly obviated as a result of th e process. The City shall consider all information submitted as oars of the regionzl sT ne oroce55 19.90.010 Essential Public Facilities&Rf,� of regional/statewide significance. A. EPFs having statewide significance are major facilities that provide a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Washington state counties Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5', No bullets or numbering Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering and may be included on the Washington State Office of Financial Management list of EPFs. These facilities include, but are not limited to, regional transportation facilities, such as commercial and military airports; freeways, highways, and beltways; state correctional facilities; secure community transitional facilities; state social services; state parks; and state higher educational facilities. B. EPFs having regional/countywide significance are local or interlocal facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Spokane County jurisdictions. They include, but are not limited to, general aviation airports; county correctional facilities; regional transportation system; public transit maintenance and operational facilities; regional solid waste disposal/recycling/composting/handling facilities; community colleges; regional wastewater treatment facilities; arenas, stadiums, and other entertainment facilities; and regional social and health services such as in-patient hospitals, mental health facilities, and substance abuse treatment centers. GhRPWF 19.69 &VMG, PeFffl Ited Uses, identifies these fag `• - _ Statewide/Regional EPFs shall be sited through the applicable- regional/statewide siting process_ _ _ C. Followine rankine of sites by the board of countv commissioners. the aoolicant shall work directly. with the City. to meet the regulatory. reouiremgnts for the construction and ooeratian of the facility under the plans and rgaulations that were in effect at the time of initial aoolication under the regional Siting process. a1f111'101' aiF All Inrl 19.90.020 Essential Public Facilities4K a of -vocal gi%'Repfeeed� si¢nificance. A. EPFs having local significance are facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, only residents and/or property within the jurisdiction in which they are located. :PheQV B. All . —EPFs _ ____ _ —only be permitted in the MFR. MU CMU NC, RC. IMU. and I zones 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P." Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zoning district. B. Conditional uses are designated with a "C." Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. C. Essential Public Facility uses are designated with an "RE_." Regi a Ras 5 t RgEssential Public Facility uses are of statewide, regional/countywide or local significance. Essential Public _hapter 19.90 SVMC, Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "5." The Supplemental regulations are set forth in Chapter 19.65 SVMC and shall apply to the corresponding supplemental uses listed in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. E. Prohibited uses are designated with a blank cell. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). SVMC 19.60.050 Zones Chapter 19.60 R2 PERMITTED USES Sections: CMU 19.60.010 General. 19.60.020 Use categories. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P." Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zoning district. B. Conditional uses are designated with a "C." Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. C. Essential Public Facility uses are designated with an "RE_." Regi a Ras 5 t RgEssential Public Facility uses are of statewide, regional/countywide or local significance. Essential Public _hapter 19.90 SVMC, Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "5." The Supplemental regulations are set forth in Chapter 19.65 SVMC and shall apply to the corresponding supplemental uses listed in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. E. Prohibited uses are designated with a blank cell. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). SVMC 19.60.050 Zones R1 R2 R3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS PubliGQussi-Public Community facilities P P P P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities RE RE RE RE E RE RE utility local distribution facility S S S S S S S Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S IREffiREPublic S Tower, wind turbine support S