Loading...
2020, 07-23 Agenda PacketSpokane jValley• Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. July 23, 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 planningAspokanevallev.org prior to 4.00 nm 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 planningAa spokanevalle�org and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members through email. 3. Link to Zoom Meeting information: httos://st)okanevalley.zoom.us/i/91835067617?pwd=VUOrOnVzYlJnT2k2dOx\Vblzg U116 UT09 Meeting ID: 918 3506 7617 Password: 758316 One tap mobile +16699006833„91835067617# US (San Jose) Dial by your location +1253 215 8782 US (Tacoma Meeting ID: 918 3506 7617 Find your local number: https://spokanevalley.zoom.us/u/acpCzgoJZ4 4. CALL TO ORDER 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6. ROLL CALL 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Corrected June 11, 2020, July 9, 2020 9. COMMISSION REPORTS 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. 12. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments b. Findings Of Fact: CTA -2020-0001, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.180 Annexations c. Findings Of Fact: CTA -2020-0002, A proposed amendment to SVMC 19.90 Essential Public Facilities d. Study Session: CTA -2020-0003, Nonconforming Use Code Text Amendment 13. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 14. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall June 11, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. IV Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. 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 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). 2 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 (I) 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, and 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 north 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 Mired Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (1) 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 06.11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 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 Robinson asked if the city will be looking to add additional open space or parks into the urban area to help accommodate some of the additional residents that will be brought into the high density area. Mr. Bates answered that this proposed change will accommodate the level of parks services with this change. The level of service is driven by the number of residents in the area so more people will need more parks space. Mr. Basinger responded that the majority of the properties in the proposed R-4 area will be associated with the Appleway Trail which will allow the residents to have access to that 4 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page S of 6 linear path throughout the city. The city.considers that to be a linear park and the intention is to improve the park as funds become available. 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. 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, in-patient 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. 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 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. 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 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall July 9, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:01 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 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Walt Haneke Jenny Nickerson, Building Official James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the agenda for July 9, 2020, with the exception of removing the corrected draft minutes from June 11, 2020, due to a technical error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the minutes for June 25, 2020 minutes as presented. Chairman Johnson moved to amend the stated location of the parcels for CPA -2020-0003 from south of Mission to north of Mission. 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: There were no Commission reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official offered a suggestion for the Planning Commission to voice their concerns with staff prior to the meeting so staff can provide information and acknowledge those concerns during their presentation. Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager stated that the Planning Commission use the staff as their resource. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA -2020-0001. A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.180 Annexations. 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes The Public Hearing was opened at 6:10 pm. Page 2 of 4 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager explained the code text amendment would amend Chapter 19.180 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to provide further clarification for annexations. He explained that the only areas that can be considered for annexation must be in the Urban Growth Area. The city has received many informal inquiries regarding annexation and during these discussions, staff determined the existing regulations for annexation needs to be expanded to provide clear direction to potential applicants and staff regarding these requests. He stated that the proposed code text amendment will provide criteria to evaluate annexations. The criteria includes the impacts on existing residents, the ability to serve the new area at the adopted level of services, the financial impacts of the annexation and the methods for determining zoning upon annexation. Chairman Johnson expressed concern regarding the financial analysis criteria and that it may show that the area being annexed will not pay for itself. He also mentioned that the economic evaluation is a piece of information that the Planning Commission should utilize to help inform their decision. Mr. Basinger stated he appreciated Chairman Johnson's comment and that this is one of many criteria used to evaluate annexations. Deputy City Attorney, Erik Lamb stated that the criteria is not in any particular order and that City Council may approve or disapprove any annexation that comes forward. The meeting was open up for public testimony. No public testimony was offered on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 6:18. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval of CTA -2020-0001 to City Council. Commission Haneke added that people spend money in the city, which creates additional revenues for the surrounding businesses. Commission Robinson commented that residential areas in the county would still be using the city's infrastructure and that it would be beneficial if those residential areas were in the city. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Public Hearing: CTA -2020-0002. A proposed amendment to Chapter 19.90 Essential Public Facilities SVMC and Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses SVMC. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:18 pm. Senior Planner, Lori Barlow explained that this code text amendment would modify regulations for essential public facilities. Ms. Barlow explained that it would prohibit Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) from locating in residential zones and it would allow EPFs in the Mixed Use (MU) zone. Ms. Barlow explained that the proposed changes to Chapter 19.90 SVMC will reformat the regulations to highlight the process and then specifically add language to the regulations applicable to locally significant EPFs. She stated that the language added to the last section of 19.90 specifically states that EPFs with local significance are not permitted in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones. Ms. Barlow highlighted that the city does have the ability to determine which zone locally significant EPFs may be located in as long as there are adequate areas in the city that can provide for these EPFs. She stated that through this process, it has been determined that locally significant EPFs are not compatible with the single-family residential zones. The proposal is to prohibit locally significant EPFs from locations in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. 2 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Beaulac asked about adding the Multi -Family residential zone to the R-1, R-2 or R-3 zones. Ms. Barlow explained that there are some EPFs designed to be in residential zones so it was determined that allowing these to be in the Multi -Family residential zone would meet the need for these locally significant EPFs to be located in a residential setting while still preserving the character of the other residential zones. Commissioner Beaulac asked for an example of what would be allowed in the Multi -Family residential zone for EPFs. Ms. Barlow explained a brief history of what prompted this amendment and gave an example of a small scale detox center. Commissioner Robinson requested clarification for facilities like NAOMI and other women's shelters. There was a short discussion on what services those shelters would need to provide to be considered and EPF. Commission Kaschmitter requested clarification on state and regional correctional facilities and if they could be included. Ms. Barlow answered that those would not be locally significant and they would have to go through the siting process with the Board of County Commissioners. She further explained the process that these EPFs would have to go through to determine the most suitable locations. The meeting was open up for public testimony. No public testimony was offered on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 6:32. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval of CTA -2020-0002 to City Council. Commissioner Beaulac stated that he would like to see Multi -Family residential added to the list of residential zones that EPFs could not locate in. Mr. Lamb provided clarification that an identified residential zone should be left as a potential zone for EPFs to locate. Chairman Johnson stated that these are essential services and moving them to a Multi -Family zone will make it more expensive to create these facilities. Commissioner McKinley stated that he is in favor of these facilities moving from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelley read a statement regarding core values. He stated the importance of the commissioner's votes during the election of officers and for the comprehensive plan amendments. He asked the commissioners to bring their core values to each meeting. He welcomed the new commissioners to be a part of the conversation. Commissioner Robinson thanked everyone for their patience and stated that although she cannot change her vote on CPA -2020-0007 from the June 25, 2020 meeting but she wishes she could. She provided further information as to why she's reached this decision and going forward she will be in support of the R-4 zone. Commissioner McKinley offered a reminder that tax returns are due Wednesday, July 15, 2020. He also thanked staff for their work on the EPFs. Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the commission for caring about the community and thanked staff for their patience. Chairman Johnson thanked staff and mentioned that the commission should never question staff s motives. He stated he is in favor of medium density. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments— Findings of Fact GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session on March 6, 2020; Study Session on June 11, 2020; Public Hearing on June 25, 2020. BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2020, the Planning Commission held a study session. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for March 26, 2020, but was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. The Planning Commission process for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments was restarted with an additional study session on June 11, followed by a public hearing on June 25, 2020. At the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated on each CPA and gave consensus as follows: CPA -2020-0001 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020- 0001. CPA -2020-0002 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020- 0002. CPA -2020-0003 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2020-0003. CPA -2020-0006 5-2 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020- 0006 CPA -2020-0007 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2020-0007. After providing consensus on each individual proposed amendment, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of CPA -2020-0001, 0002, 0006, and to recommend denial of CPA 2020- 0003 and 0007. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, deny the proposed amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal and the modifications are substantial, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission approve and forward to City Council the Findings and Recommendation of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, and CPA -2020-0007. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: General Findings and Recommendations for CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, CPA -2020-0007; Specific Findings and Recommendations for CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020- 0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, CPA -2020-0007. RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 2 Please bring your Yellow Binder to the meeting. RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 July 23, 2020 A. Background: 1. 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. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C (SEPA), and Title 21 SVMC, environmental checklists were required for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 21, 2020. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 6. On March 6 and 13, 2020, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed amendment site, except for CPA -2020-0007. 8. The duly noticed public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2020 was cancelled to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. 9. On May 29 and June 5, 2020 notice of the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign with a description of the proposal. 10. On May 28, 2020, notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed site, except for CPA -2020-0007. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020- 0007 Page I of 3 11. Additional notice beyond the minimum legally required notice included, on June 18, 2020, the City issued a press release and sent a direct email to the Media and Comp Plan Updates distribution lists, 283 and 336 email addresses respectively. On June 24, 2020 another direct email was sent to the City News and City Planning Commission Agenda distribution lists, 722 and 763 email addresses respectively. Prior to the public hearing, the City created a rotating banner on the city's homepage that linked to a story in the "NEWS" page of the city website about the public hearing. The City created and published social media posts on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn about the public hearing. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 13. On June 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. While reviewing and deliberating on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, Planning Commission gave consensus as follows: a. CPA -2020-0001: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020-0001. b. CPA -2020-0002: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020-0002. c. CPA -2020-0003: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2020-0003. d. CPA -2020-0006: 5-2 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2020-0006 e. CPA -2020-0007: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2020-0007. After deliberations and based upon the consensus for each proposed Amendment identified above, Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council the following recommendations: Recommend approval of CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020- 0006, and denial of CPA -2020-0003 and CPA -2020-0007. 14. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates findings specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached (see attachments 1-5). Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, and CPA -2020-0006. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The Planning Commission finds that CPA -2020-0003 and CPA -2020-0007 do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are not consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and do not promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020- 0007 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates conclusions specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached (see attachments 1-5). Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, and CPA -2020-0006. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA -2020-0003 and CPA -2020-0007. Approved this 23`d day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020- 0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA -2020-0001 July 23, 2020 A. Background: 1. 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. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: These findings are specific to CPA -2020-0001. All findings in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA - 2020 -0001. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(lo(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment changing the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) has a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north -south arterials." McDonald Road is an improved north -south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. Additionally, the proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicant's indicated desire to expand the McDonald Professional Center use on the subject property. Changing the designation to CMU, increases the allowed types of uses to include office and parking. Increasing office and parking opportunities in the McDonald Road corridor has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of office use on a designated Minor Arterial with supporting infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with goals of GMA and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions from the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. However, the two parcels to the south of the proposed amendment were Attachment I - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page I of 4 changed from Office to CMU as part of the 2016 legislative update as part of a larger 2016 amendment to eliminate the Office designation, and the owner of the subject property is the same owner of the McDonald Professional Center. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure. The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City: ED -P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. T -G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 1780.140(X)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow for expanded office and office related uses such as parking. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site immediately to the south is vacant and designated and zoned CMU. There is no concern on the effect of the physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance ensures adequate protection of critical areas and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to CMU to the south and MFR to the east. To the north and west are existing single family homes on SFR designated properties. If approved, the development of the site will be subject to the transitional regulations that will ensure protection of the adjacent homes to the north and south. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the south and east. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation- parks, recreation, and schools: McDonald Road is a Minor Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. While the subject property was not considered in the 2016 legislative update, the property immediately to the south was part of the 2016 analysis. The projected LOS for McDonald Road in 2040 is A- C, and no mitigations or transportation projects are planned for this section of McDonald Road within the 20 -year planning horizon. Additionally, the subject property is approximately 0.5 acres and its overall impact to the transportation system is minimal. Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 The subject property and the property immediately to the south are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of office in this area is ideal because of the supporting infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to support the expansion of the McDonald Professional Center, increasing employment opportunities and growing the City's economy. The change will benefit the City and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED -G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED -P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 0.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this location allows for the expansion of an existing office development on the McDonald Road corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: There is one dwelling unit proposed to be removed. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur and therefore the City would lose one single family house as a result of the amendment. The change is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. There will be no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0001. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2020-0001. Approved this 23r1 day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman Attachment I - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 3 of ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA -2020-0002 July 23, 2020 A. Backeround: 1. 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. 2. 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. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findines: 1. These findings are specific to CPA -2020-0002. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA -2020- 0002 Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(IV (1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides the opportunity to aggregate parcels creating greater depth to provide for a larger format structure. Based on the application, the intent is to combine the two Regional Commercial (RC) parcels to the south with the proposal. Both the Industrial (1) and RC designations and zoning districts allow for intensive uses. Providing opportunity for development and redevelopment where there is existing infrastructure has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to aggregate parcels in an area that is already served by supporting infrastructure. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. While not identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure. The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City by: ED -G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page I of 3 ED -P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF -P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the p_hysical environment: The change to RC will allow uses similarly allowed along the Sprague corridor. The change may result in a more people -oriented active use in the area versus a vacant or industrial use, but the intensity would be similar to existing nearby uses. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed when future development occurs and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to RC to the west and south; and I to the north and east. To the north are existing industrial developments and users. To the south is a vacant used motor vehicle sales lot that is under the same ownership. To the west is Home Depot. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools: Sprague Avenue is a Principal Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. The 20 -year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies a concrete intersection at Sprague and Fancher by 2039. The existing and projected LOS for this segment of Sprague Avenue is D within City's adopted standard. Additionally, the change from I to RC is expected to have a minimal impact to the transportation network and other utilities. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to be combined with the two properties fronting Sprague Avenue, increasing employment opportunities and growing the city's economy. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED -GI Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED -P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF -P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 3 acres of RC property to the 809 acres of existing RC designated property within the city. As of 2018, there are approximately 111 acres of vacant RC property within the city. The amendment allows for commercial development on the Sprague Avenue corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under RC standards the type of use and density will be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions the subject property is a paved vacant lot. It appears the property was used in conjunction with the RC designated property to the south for used motor vehicle sales, which is presently vacant. The change of the property from I to RC will not impact current or projected population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The RC designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0002. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2020-0002. Approved this 231 day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA -2020-0003 July 23, 2020 A. Backeround: 1. 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. 2. 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. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findines: These findings are specific to CPA -2020-0003. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA -2020- 0003. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(f)(1): 2. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north -south arterials." The subject properties are between CMU properties to the west, east, and south. Access is provided by Union Road via Mission Avenue. Mission Ave is a Minor Arterial. Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. The Planning Commission finds that the potential for increased density in the area may result in safety concerns related to the transportation infrastructure along Union Road, it does not find the amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of the multiple family development on the site and the opportunity to provide the neighborhood with access to daily goods and services in a centralized area with adequate public facilities; there are two projects in the 6 -year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area to improve capacity. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the comprehensive plan. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land used designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. While the Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions beyond the owner's control, the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan eliminated the Office designation generally replacing it with the CMU designation, which was the case for the parcels to the west, east, and south. While the 2016 plan changed the designation of the surrounding vacant lands from Office to CMU, the properties subject to the amendment request had a multifamily development and the designation of Multifamily was not changed. The CMU designation provides more flexibility than the Office and Multifamily designations. The changing of the surrounding properties from Office to CMU created a situation whereby the subject properties may not use their property to the similarly situated properties to the west, east, and south. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment adds diminutive capacity to the CMU designation; all three parcels have existing structures and two have multifamily developments on them. Changing the designation from MFR to CMU on an existing developed parcel provides the opportunity to increase density on developed parcels using pre-existing infrastructure and provide flexibility to add service related retail to the area that may be supported by the multifamily housing. While the proposal does not address a direct deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goals and policies that support the proposed change: LU -GI Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H -G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H -G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. CF -P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(Fl)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as commercial, office and higher residential development of the properties. The properties will have the opportunity to transition, add density and add a mix of uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The 6.25 -acre site is currently developed with a multifamily development and one single-family home. The adjacent use to the south is single-family, to the west self -storage, to the east office, multifamily and vacant CMU. The CMU land use designation surrounds the proposed amendment site to the west, east, and north. The amendment is consistent with the adjacent land use designations. Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 10. If approved future development of the site will be subject to the transitional provisions adopted in the development regulations. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the west, east, and south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial. There are two projects in the 6 -year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area, one of which is the intersection capacity improvement and signal modification at Pines/Mission. Site-specific improvements and their impact to this project would be identified through the development review process, and development on the parcels within the Mirabeau Subarea Study area. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land use designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. The Planning Commission concludes that Union Road is not adequate to support the proposed change. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to increase density and support infill development in an area planned for growth. The change may support increased housing opportunities, office, employment, or access to daily goods and services. The change benefits the neighborhood, city, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED -G] Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED -P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proppsed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 6.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the city. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this place would allow for increased options for development including retail services serving the existing multifamily development. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected Wopulation density in the area: Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. This proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0003 except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3, and 10 above. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3, and 10 above. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2020-0003. Approved this 231 day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 July 2, 2020 Chaz Bates City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comments Regarding Proposed Amendments Chaz; I would like to submit this letter to clarify our position for the three parcels which we seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan from the zoning classification MFR to CMU. These three parcels are TPNs 45094.0134, 45094.0133 and 45094.0121. Two of these parcels are owned by Revere Ridge. The third is owned by Brill Properties (which is owned by a local developer of apartments). We have spoken with the City a fair amount about this proposed change. However, based on the comments from the Planning Commission, we feel that some issues were not communicated properly, and members of the Planning Commission were certainly not privy to our conversations. Let me start by saying that 1 think we would agree that there is a fair amount of parking on Union which inhibits the flow of traffic on the street. I believe this is something to which we can all agree, and I believe the concerns of the commissioners are legitimate. There have also been discussions about how best to address these concerns and fix any problem(s). However, it was our understanding that any issues would be addressed at the time of development, not at re -zoning. We therefore decided to not address any of these issues with the Planning Commission as any future actions related to these parcels would be hypothetical. We were afraid that anything we said may be misconstrued and we did not want to have the City feeling that we had misrepresented our true intentions, or that the owners would be bound by some preliminary comments. At the present time Revere Ridge is interested in possibly making some improvements to their apartments. They would also like to clean up the strip of land adjacent to 1-90 where an abandoned basketball court is located. Based on several conversations with the Building Department, it would be much easier for Revere Ridge to update their apartments if the Comprehensive Plan is amended as there are no density requirements for the CMU zone. While there may be no density requirements with the CMU zoning designation, there are other applicable requirements with which Revere Ridge would need to comply. These requirements would include fire access, water flow and parking. In terms of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, we would like those involved in the decision-making process to know the following as it relates to Revere Ridge: At such time as Revere Ridge is updated and the lower area is paved for parking, the owners have no issues with the City restricting the on -street parking on Union. The owners of Revere Ridge feel that many of the vehicles parked on Union are a poor reflection on their apartment complex, especially those which are located at the entrance to their complex (i.e., older vehicles on stands which are being worked on and are present for an extended period of time). The owners are constantly asking their property managers to monitor and remove these vehicles. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, the strip of land adjacent to 1-90 would be cleaned up and converted to on-site parking as part of the development. This additional parking would serve the needs of the residents of Revere Ridge and help relieve the current congestion on Union (which should benefit the neighboring properties). At the present time Revere Ridge is contemplating removing approximately 20 of their garages and replacing them with 40 studio and one -bedroom apartments. The exact mix of units would be made based on market conditions (at the time of submittal) and is subject to approval by the Building Department (and the SVFD). As an FYI, Revere Ridge currently has 104 apartments and 52 garages. Please see the attached drawings by David Rodeback. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, Revere Ridge would provide more detailed architectural and engineering for the Building Department to review as part of the development process. Brill Properties owns the third parcel which is subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Brill Properties also owns an additional, contiguous parcel (TPN 45094.0139) immediately to the east of TPN 45094.0121. It is challenging for Brill Properties to develop their two parcels due to their layout as TPN 45094.0121 will provide access for both parcels. when jointly developing the two parcels, Brill Properties must comply with the more restrictive of the two zoning designations (i.e., the MFR). By rezoning TPN 45094.0121, it will allow Brill Properties to take advantage of the CMU on both parcels. Brill Properties has recently submitted a Phase 1 to construct three tour-plexes. If the rezoning is approved, Brill Properties would like to construct additional apartments on these two parcels. It is my understanding that Brill Properties will have ample on-site parking for their residents and guests. Our goal is to accomplish the following by modifying the zoning to the three parcels: Allow some additional apartment construction by Revere Ridge. Our understanding is that any changes are not a function of zoning but are subject to the requirements of the Building Dept. Clean up the stretch of land adjacent to 1-90 where the abandoned basketball court is currently located by adding some on-site parking and thereby relieving congestion on Union Road. Enable the owners of Brill Properties to maximize any apartments constructed on their land, which it really cannot do now even though TPN 45094.0139 is currently zoned CMU. Modifying the zoning would in fact allow additional uses. However, based on my conversations this is not the intent of the owners. The current owners develop and invest in apartments. Changing to an alternative use would require demolishing the existing and proposed investment which has already been made for apartments (which are occupied). The owners would simply like to utilize the CMU zone which the adjoining parcels to the east and to the west currently enjoy so that they may make additional investments in their properties. Please let me know if there are any questions. I have provided some diagrams of the parcels in question. In addition, Revere Ridge has forwarded some potential designs to provide the City an idea of their preliminary intentions. Sincerely, Jay Rambo At u U TA X10 r a K Q O 1 N N O V Q) O Y l!) O [t — L C Y M O M y N Y O 0 O � � O V) D V O � V m > L o a m m C) ° Ln a v O N Y Qj Z a OD ° o �3 3 a ° t m v a a K Q O 1 a m a a v w a 46 0 N « C d a N d L V O w m C Y m CL v N 0 0 0 W a W N 7 a C m a d M V Q, > c V d a a 0 0 3 r r 3 0 u m a .. a Y N m a a v c 0 a c m a m v t « O c 0 Y m 0 J J v mm c m O O a/ m E x 0 CL Q m 0 d a' v m c N rl O N N Q! U (U c Q) a 0 0 3 O 0a c Y m Q al N 0 Q 0 CL w o` m a Q N X a! O N (9 w CL n m m Q) a, a E m d 0o C cu d C 0a C Q1 t V .3 v a m a Q) d 0 O 3 m a! m a! N u Ql n ai `0 r Q Y- r,, u ATTACHMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA -2020-0006 July 23, 2020 A. Background: I . 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. 2. 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. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA -2020-0006. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA -2020- 0006. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides more flexibility of uses on a property allowing East Valley School District (EVSD) to broaden and enhance their educational service mission. Under the Industrial zone educational activities are limited to professional, vocational and trade schools. While this may continue to be an essential component to EVSD curriculum, flexibility is needed to meet existing and future demand for other educational services. Changing the designation to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), increases the allowed types of educational services legally permitted to occur in the existing facility. Increasing educational opportunities to local youth has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to strengthen EVSD mission to provide for education of local youth in an area with adequate public facilities. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. At that time the subject parcel was not changed from the designation in place since at least 2014. Since the 2016 legislative update, EVSD has experienced changes in enrollment and interest in vocational education, under the existing designation only professional, vocational and trade schools are allowed in the Industrial designation changing the designation to CMU allows EVSD to adapt the educational services they provide in a location they own and have made Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page I of 3 substantial improvements for educational purposes. The demographic and interest shifts are beyond EVSD control the proposed change allows them to continue to serve district educational needs. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goal and policy that support workforce development and education, which are integral to the long-term success of the City: ED -G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED -P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as more expanded educational uses. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site is currently developed. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is generally surrounded by Spokane Industrial Park to the north and east; however, the property is not part of the Spokane Industrial Park. The property to the south is designated and zoned CMU. The institutional use on the proposed site is generally compatible with both the light industrial uses to the north and east and the retail service uses to the south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhoods is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools: B Street is a local access street and Sullivan Road is a Principal Arterial. There are two capacity related projects in the 6 -year TIP near the project area: intersection improvement at Sullivan and Wellesley and improvement to Sullivan and SR 290 (Trent) interchange. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property and structure owned by EVSD to be used for educational purposes beyond professional, vocational and trade school use, increasing the school district's ability to provide educational services. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED -G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 ED -P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 12. The guantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 9 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation allows for additional educational uses, which has been indicated as needed from EVSD. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions and the Industrial designation there is very little population that resides in the area. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur. The proposed change in land use designation is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goal and policy identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Land Use, Transportation, and Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0006. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approval the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2020-0006. Approved this 231 day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA -2020-0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA -2020-0007 July 23, 2020 A. Background: 1. 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. 2. 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. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA -2020-0007. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA -2020- 0007. 2. In regards to noticing, the Planning Commission finds that the City met all legal requirements for notice for CPA 2020-0007. The Planning Commission finds that the City provided notice above legal requirements in the form of press releases, social media releases, and email list releases. However, Planning Commission finds that given the scope of the impact of the proposed amendment, additional noticing would have been beneficial as indicated by the relatively limited number of public comments received. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1O(1): 3. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of the city. Ensuring that there is a variety of housing types is an important competitive advantage for economic development. The proposed amendment will allow the City to more closely align its housing needs with locations within the City to ensure adequate infrastructure is available. This will also enable the provision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The GMA provides that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options in locations that have adequate infrastructure that can affordably support increased densities. The Planning Commission finds that additional noticing would serve the GMA's requirements to allow for effective public participation. 5. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment is Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page I of 4 not related to a specific piece of property. This amendment looks to incentivize alternative housing development where there is frequent transit and commercial services. 6. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037 (3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings. Additional data indicates that residents are cost -burdened with 51% of renters and 26% of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments. The following adopted goals, policies, and strategy support the proposed amendment: H -GI Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H -G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Strategy: Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs. Findings for Factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(FI) (2): 8. The effect upon the physical environment: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non site-specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the physical environment. Future development that may result will be evaluated under city regulations for physical development. 9. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and does not have a direct effect on open space, streams, rivers and lakes. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 10. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and includes implementing development regulations that are aimed to protect neighborhood character and locate alternative housing in areas with frequent transit and commercial services. The Planning Commission finds that increasing the density in the R-3 zoning district from six dwelling units per acres to eight dwelling units per acre as identified in the proposed implementing regulations would have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents in those areas by potentially increasing crime and decreasing property values. 11. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads- public transportation, parks- recreation- and schools: Capital Facilities Policy CF -P6 recommends that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards. LOS standards have been adopted for water, sewer, transportation, stormwater, law enforcement, libraries, parks, street cleaning, public transit, fire, and schools. The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. 12. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: Increasing housing options that protect neighborhood character and minimize the need for new infrastructure can potentially reduce housing costs and thereby reducing the amount of city residents paying more than 33 percent of their income toward housing, which would benefit the Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 neighborhood, city and region. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED -P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU -01 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality LU -P14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU -P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H -G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. 13. The auantitv and location of land alarmed for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposed amendment does not change the location or quantity of land designations. Implementing changes to the zoning code may increase densities in locations with adequate infrastructure support, and may reduce densities in other locations. Any future change would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 14. The current and projected population density in the area: The implementing regulations may increase density in areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and may reduce densities in other locations. The proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density on a citywide level. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 15. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed amendment will support the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals, policies, and strategies. The amendment will not have a direct impact on other Comprehensive Plan elements. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecast. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2020-0007 except for the need for additional notice above what is legally required and the negative impacts from the increase in density in the R-3 zone. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2020-0007. Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2020-0001, CPA -2020-0002, CPA -2020-0003, CPA - 2020 -0006, and CPA -2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTA -2020-0001 (Annexations) — Findings of Fact GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW Chapter 35A.14 RCW; RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150; 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session on June 11, 2020; Public Hearing on July 9, 2020. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a study session on June 11, 2020 and a public hearing on the proposed amendment on July 9, 2020. At the public hearing on July 9, 2020 the Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendment and voted 7-0 to forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval for CTA -2020-0001. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, deny the proposed amendment, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission approve and forward to City Council the Findings and Recommendation of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for the proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) CTA -2020-0001. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2020-0001; Staff Report RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2020-0001— Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. 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. 3. In 2019 the City adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that to provide clear direction of what should be considered as part of annexation requests. 4. CTA -2020-0001 is a City -initiated text amendment to chapter 19.180 SVMC that implements the annexation policies adopted in 2019. 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 in the event an annexation is approved. 5. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on July 9, 2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment attached as Exhibit I is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan 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. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2020-0001 Pagel of 2 The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Under the existing provisions for 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 designations and zoning for any annexed areas. 2. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 3. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2020- 0001. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA -2020-0001 Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020 Planning Commission Chair ATTEST Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2020-0001 Page 2 of 2 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 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Spokane May 29, 2020 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE jalley 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: L 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 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. B. CONCLUSION 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 S VMC 17.80.150(F). Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA -2020-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendations - 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: On June 11, 2020 the Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session. On July 9, 2020 the Commission conducted a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated and voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA -2020-0002 be approved. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Commission Findings and Recommendation for CTA -2020-0002 or provide staff further direction. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Recommendation 2. Chapter 19.90 SVMC and 19.60.050 with proposed changes FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2020-0002 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA -2020-0002 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC, amending chapter 19.90 of the 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. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on July 9, 2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following 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-Gl Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2020-0002 Page 1 of 2 Findings: 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. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2020- 0002 as proposed. Attachment: Exhibit I — Proposed Amendment CTA -2020-0002 Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spok" Valley Planning Commission CTA -2020-0002 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CTA -2020-0002 (Prohibiting EPFs in Residential Zones) Chapter 19.90 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (EPFs) Sections: 19.90.005-OWEssential Public Faeiliti. sitir� , ,L+�e�., 19.90.010 Essential Public Facilities€RF5-Ffacilities of regional/statewide significance. 19.90.020 Essential Public Facilities€RFs facilities of local significanc e 19.90.005 EPFshidi-procedures A General All Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) snail cie subject to the requiremei.: I section. B Determination of Scope The City is signatory to an interlocal agreement relating 7,, tilt shin- "Fs f statewide and regional significance in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200. 1. Application for EPF siting shall beinitially be made through the Spokane County department of planning and building (or similar applicable department if modified) in accordance with the adopted procedures of Spokane Countv. 2. The Board of C ,"ion of whether an EPS nas regional/statewto C. All EPFslocateo.. -ond , permit approval process and shall require i tations on t,'iat process pursuant to applicable law r,=^ardln-- wince. "' ^r' ,•^'�`•:.•"•� D. o«_ _. d2e shall ieut : ; appy ,,edtni� )e regional/statewide siting process in SVMC 19.90.01.— ssto meet ai a'cIe SVMCfeeaa ..1,mements except those expressly obviated as a result of that regional/statew - process The City shall consider all information submitted as part of the regional/statewide , ;inz process. E EPFs of regional/state���'�.�I^!gall be further subiect to`•.- siting process and requirements of SVMC 19.90.010. EPF.. shall be further sub:, he siting process and requires of SVMC 19.9u... 19.90.010 blit Facilitic,RP <'� r.aewkewkwes 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 CTA -2020-0002 Page 1 July 23, 2020 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. rtiae.e. 1:9.60 amer oe....awa Uses, idpntifies these s....:r:.:,, r.• Statewide/Regional EPFs shall be sited through ti -regional/statewide siting process, including applicable procedures established pursuant to seri: ,reement between the City and Spokane County, C. Following ranking of i by the -Q 3rd of county commis ioners JhQ aopli ant shall work dir tiv with the City to meet the regulatory reauiremant-, fo- the ronctructtnn and ooerati�n of*he faciiito un eri —' — Siting :. 19.90.020 sentialPubi. ;cilities&P$L-F�OfidocalSitiAg FFQGPd WAS hcanc�. 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. TheEity fiFe stations, peliee stations, child care faeilities, PUblie lil)FaFies, rGFRFRURity paFlG, FeUeatieR fadlities, (Att. R), 2016). B. All '—G&'e�Uy-�UFs having local significance maysh" only be permitted in the MFR MU CMU NC, RC. IMU, and I zones and shall not be permitted in the R-1 R-2, or R-3 zones CTA -2020-0002 Page 2 July 23, 2020 Chapter 19.60 PERMITTED USES Sections: 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. P g uses are designated with an'4i_." Reg a:,al Sg :.g uses are of statewide_ eF regional/countywide significance. €pF-s hapter 19.90 SVMC, Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "S." 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 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 R R 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 S S CTA -2020-0002 Page 3 July 23, 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ information FILE NUMBER: CTA -2020-0003 ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Nonconforming Use Code Text Amendment (CTA) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A CTA to prohibit the expansion of a nonconforming use onto adjacent lots and determine residential uses located in nonresidential zones are permitted uses. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040, SVMC 19.25, RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: Chapter 19.25 SVMC regulates nonconforming uses and structures. Appendix A Definitions of the SVMC defines a nonconforming use as, "A lot, use, building, or structure, which was legal when commenced or built, but which does not conform to subsequently enacted or amended regulations pursuant to Chapter 19.25 SVMC." Chapter 19.25 SVMC defines what is considered a legal nonconforming use or structure, than provides conditions for how a legal nonconforming use may continue and be expanded. Generally, if a use or structure was legally permitted under the applicable regulations at the time the use or structure came into existence and began lawful operations, the use or structure is considered a legal nonconforming use if the current regulations and amendments to regulations otherwise prohibit such use. See SVMC 19.25.010. Legal nonconforming uses are allowed to continue as is until the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months. See SVMC 19.25.020. The City's nonconforming use regulations were adopted in 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-015 and modified by Ordinance Nos. 09-036, 10-016, and 10-023. Ordinance No. 16-018 repealed the development regulations as part of the 2016 Legislative Update and adopted updated titles, which included chapter 19.25 SVMC, although no substantial substantive changes were made at that time. The chapter was further modified by Ord. 17-004 with housekeeping items. Of note, the primary amendments occurred in Ordinance No. 10-016 in 2010, by allowing nonconforming uses to expand on properties outside of the original boundaries of the use if certain criteria were met. However, allowing nonconforming uses to expand circumvents the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning as the use becomes more invested at that location, rather than discontinuing the use, and moving to an appropriately zoned location. CTA 2020-0003 proposes to remove the criteria which allows for expansion outside of the original property boundaries, but allow expansion on site, subject to criteria. The language proposed rolls back the criteria and returns the development regulations to that language previously implemented prior to Ordinance No. 10-016. During the 2016 Legislative Update, minor changes were made in chapter 19.25 SVMC that provided that a residential use in a nonresidential zone was a legal nonconforming use. Previously, the language provided that residential uses in nonresidential zones "shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use." The implication of the change to those residential uses is that if they are damaged by fire, flood, or neglect, and the damage represents more than 80% of market value of the structure, they may not be rebuilt. This has created a financing issue for affected single family homes. The language proposed returns the language to the previous verbiage and identifies the residential use as a permitted use not subject to the nonconforming use regulations. RPCA Study Session— CTA -2020-0003 Nonconforming use regulations Page I of 2 Staff will discuss the regulations as they exist and discuss the proposed code changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. This item is for discussion purposes only. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chapter 19.25 SVMC with proposed changes 2.Powerpoint presentation RPCA Study Session — CTA -2020-0003 Nonconforming use regulations Page 2 of 2 M O O O O C4 O N 1 D V) Qq L N r— U L N D l - N G Liz U) c E I.- 0 O C: O V O C: al • . N O E N C; U N w C O 0 N 00 his LO `N V 7 j�l Mq El 0 \ \ C o a m E f 0 o E } \ g \ k 0 0-0 0 \ 0 \ o - - c ± s C eo e� U)%�} * # f2 Z § k \ |}|2 0 u» t o e C = o f = k \ } k 0 k 0 0 0 $ - m 9 0) CL \ ( 2 \ƒ S a=® $ S � \ e \ / � �;• • / \ \ �} � x %4- \ \ \ \[ \5 0 � °0 0- e e x �k 0)0 t \ƒ k 3 \ \ N� w U 00 w = $z e \ \�\ O i �\ -0 °�� ƒ k§ 0(§ )U /0 _0 3 9 §§ r � p• 0 3 0± ° 0 k[ Clq e7 s = ,0 /¥ / / -0 / k 2 § c „ _K0 mak \\ �$ 2� 2 2 0 007 $ $ / "� 0b ƒ 7 Q�} E EC) k°7¥ # E § § §$ o § � 0c 5 0ƒ :o0 m e »2 e± e e < = F— F- © # F- / C 0 § 02 w w 0 w\ \= w u Z) 0 w �rn V' E 0 0 0 Z ^0 ^W l.L E a x LU W a u � ¥ \ °\ 0 \0� j/ & » . y QW) -0) ƒ � �0) /§ E � � • \ § C3 � C3 § /� 0 Lip) $ G & 0 % $ $ k\ / / `� 0 / °G= % 2 \ � x 44- / } x x xe G / j < � 6 (zwWGaa � Marianne Lemons From: Jenny Nickerson Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:30 PM To: Erik Lamb; Lori Barlow Cc: Mike Basinger Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses I have no comments beyond Erik's but I do know of at least one example which supports the importance of addressing the term 'use' given that the IMU zone does not allow for residential development but there are quite a few larger lots with existing single family residences that are aging to the point where repair may not be as attractive as redevelopment (including the potential for subdivision). During a conversation I had with a particular developer, I found it simple to explain the Non -Conforming Use reg's as they exist but the fact that he called to ask for clarification after performing his own research leads me to believe that some clarification as to the subdivision topic would be beneficial for staff and customers in the future. Thanks so much, let's get this packet out the (virtual) door! JRN From: Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:49 AM To: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org>; John Hohman <jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Mike Basinger <mbasinger@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses I think we need changes since "use" is so broad. I could see a developer arguing that the use is "single-family' and is not limited by number of structures, lots, or density and that thus as long as the "use" continues as single family any allowable development is permissible. However, given our timeframe for the packet, I am okay leaving the language as is and highlighting to PC that it will be changing to make clear the intent to limit it to those existing structures/dwellings and to not allow additional subdividing. I think probably some modification related to density or number of dwelling units would eliminate the possibility of subdividing it further. Erik Erik Lamb I Deputy City Attorney 10210E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5030 1 elambe$c)gkanevallev.org Spokan *%wft .;wSUaI ley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act. chapter 42.56 RCW. Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachments) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. From: Lori Barlow Sent: Thursday, July 16, 202010:29 AM To: Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevallev.org>; John Hohman <Ihohman@spokanevallev.org> Cc: Jenny Nickerson <inickerson@spokanevallev.org>; Mike Basinger <mbasinger@spokanevallev.ora> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses Erik, I accepted all of your changes on the RPCA. In regards to the draft, D-3 contemplates that at the time the use became non -conforming, the site may have contained more than one lot. D-3 provides that as long as all those properties are transferred concurrently since that time that all the lots would be allowed to be utilized in an expansion. it does not allow for expansion outside of the boundaries of the site in place at the time it became nonconforming. In regards to A-4 I did not interpret the change to allow for subdivision, but only to address the existing single family structure. I interpret that since it specifies "existing" legally established single family residential uses, to be limiting to only those existing, and not provide for future subdivision. That is the language previously utilized in the code, and I don't recall any issues with subdivisions. Do you have suggestions for clarifications? Thanks — Lori From: Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevallev.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:58 AM To: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevallev.org>; John Hohman <jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Jenny Nickerson <inickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Mike Basinger <mbasinger@spokanevallev.org> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses Comments on the RPCA attached. Since the proposed changes are in .pdf, I couldn't mark them up. However, shouldn't (D)(3) be stricken since we're not looking at adjacent lots any more? Also, I'm curious about the move back to allow residential uses as permitted uses. Doesn't this allow subdivisions on those lots? The limit is on "single-family uses", not the structures. Thus, I think there is an argument that a subdivision simply continues the use. Is that what we really want? If the only issue is rebuilding burned houses, perhaps it should be more limited. Thanks, Erik Erik Lamb I Deputy City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5030 1 elamb@spokanevallev.ore Spokane juaI ley T' .. -::. _:.I,., n.,a�nments maybe subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act. chapter 42.56 RCW. Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient. unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. From: Lori Barlow Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 20204:39 PM To: John Hohman <jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org> Subject: FW: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses John, attached is the nonconforming use CTA information that is going to the PC at the July 23 meeting. The attachec materials are currently under review by Jenny and Erik. Let me know if you would like to discuss the materials or want any changes. Thanks — Lori From: Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:36 PM To: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses Yes, Hohman will need to be kept in the loop. For reference, I previously provided him with the preliminary options you prepared and a summary of our discussions thus far. Thanks! JRN From: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:26 AM To: Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org>; Jenny Nickerson <Inickerson@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses This is the packet for the 7/23 meeting. I did not forward to John. Jenny, let me know if you would like me to forward to John. Thanks — Lori From: Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:02 PM To: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org>; Jenny Nickerson <inickerson@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses Is this for the packet for next week? Or is this going to John first for review? Erik Lamb I Deputy City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5030 1 elamb@sookanevalley.ore jWky- This email and ar, attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient. unauthorized use. disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error. please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. From: Lori Barlow Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:19 PM To: Jenny Nickerson <]nickerson@spokanevallev.ora>; Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.ore> Subject: CTA -2020-0003 nonconforming uses Jenny and Erik, I have attached the RPCA, powerpoint, and proposed draft language for the CTA. I am working on a visual for the power point which shows the configuration of the Hyte Crane property before the nonconforming use expanded and after it expanded. In the mean time please review the documents and let me know if you would like changes or want to discuss. Thanks — Lori Lori Barlow, AICP I Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5335 1 LBarlow@sookanevallev.or¢ www.spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. Draft Draft Chapter 19.25 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES Sections: 19.25.010 Applicability. 19.25.020 Continuing lawful use of property. 19.25.030 Nonconforming structures. 19.25.040 Completion of permanent structures. 19.25.010 Applicability. A. Legal nonconforming uses and structures include: 1. Any use which does not conform with the present regulations of the zoning district in which it is located that was in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of SVMC Title 19; 2. Any permanent structure in existence and lawfully constructed at the time of any amendment to SVMC Title 19, which by such amendment is placed in a zoning district wherein it is not otherwise permitted and has since been in regular and continuous use; 3. Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use; 4. Existing legally established single-family residential uses located in a nonresidential zoning district ,hall not be deemed non__ :.;d .hall l" a use. B. Structures or uses deemed nonconforming only pursuant to the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the City SMP (Chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations) shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.50.160. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Art. B), 2016). 19.25.020 Continuing lawful use of property. A. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of SVMC Title 19, or any amendments hereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months; except that any nonconforming use discontinued as a result of foreclosure or judicial proceedings, including probate, shall be permitted to continue for a period not to exceed 24 months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall transfer to all successive interests in the property. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use shall commence on the actual act or date of discontinuance. B. A nonconforming use that is abandoned or discontinued shall not be replaced with another nonconforming use. C. A nonconforming use which has not been abandoned or discontinued may be replaced with a conforming use or another nonconforming use when the use meets the following criteria: 1. The new use is not less conforming than the prior use. This determination shall be made by the city manager or designee; 2. The proposed use does not place a greater demand on transportation and other public facilities than the original use; and 3. The proposed use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property. D. A nonconforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot and -any - adjaeen! lei having the same ewa@Fship as the4et at the time the use on the original lot became nonconforming, if: 1. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; 2. The expanded use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property; CTA -2020-0003 Page 1 July 13, 2020 Draft 3. Any transfer of ownership on adjacent lots was made concurrently with the transfer of ownership of the lot on which the nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and 4. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent lots that would not otherwise exist. E F. Residential lots made nonconforming relative to dimensional requirements shall be deemed conforming if the use is allowed in the respective zoning district. G. Nonconforming uses that do not provide the required number of off-street parking spaces pursuant to current standards shall not be required to meet parking standards. H. Any nonconforming use damaged by fire, flood, neglect, or act of nature may be replaced if 1. Restoration of the use is initiated within 12 months; and 2. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value. I. Any nonconforming use changed to a conforming use shall not be permitted to convert to a nonconforming use. (Ord. 17-004 § 3, 2017; Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Art. B), 2016). 19.25.030 Nonconforming structures. A nonconforming structure may be expanded in accordance with the following: A. The expansion or alteration does not change the occupancy classification under adopted building codes; B. The expansion or alteration does not create additional nonconformity with respect to building setbacks or lot coverage; additions to nonconforming structures shall meet setbacks required within the zoning district; C. The number of dwelling units does not increase so as to exceed the number of dwelling units permitted within current regulations; D. Off-street loading and/or parking, stormwater facilities, and landscaping shall be provided for the alteration or expansion in accordance with Chapter 22.50 SVMC; and E. Nonconforming structures damaged by fire, flood, neglect, or act of nature may be replaced if: 1. Restoration of the structure is initiated within 12 months; and 2. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value of the structure. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Aft. B), 2016). 19.25.040 Completion of permanent structures. Compliance with Chapter 19.25 SVMC shall not require changes to the plans, construction, or designated use of a structure for which: A. A building permit has been issued or a site plan approved by the City or county prior to incorporation of the City or the effective date of SVMC Title 19; or CTA -2020-0003 Page 2 July 13, 2020 Draft B. A substantially complete application for a building permit was accepted by the building official on or before the effective date of the SVMC Title 19; provided, that the building permit shall comply with all applicable regulations on the date that the application was filed and the building permit is issued within 180 days of the effective date of Chapter 19.25 SVMC. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Art. B), 2016). CTA -2020-0003 Page 3 July 13, 2020