2021-09-23 Agenda PacketSpokane
jValley
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
September 23, 2021
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 planningAspokanevalley.org prior to
4:00 Pm the day of the meeting in order to be to speak during the comments period during
the meeting. Comments can also be emailed. Send an email to planningAspokanevalley.ortz
and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members
through email.
3. LINK TO ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION:
https://spokanevaIley.zoom.us/6/87146597722
One tap mobile
US: +12532158782„ 87146597722# or+13462487799„87146597722# US
Dial by your location
US: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
Meeting ID: 8714659 7722
4. CALL TO ORDER
5. ROLL CALL
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 9, 2021
8. COMMISSION REPORTS
9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
10. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
11. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing: PRD Code Text Amendment
12. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
13. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
September 9, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Commissioners and staff stood and recited
the pledge of allegiance.
II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took attendance and the following members and staff
were present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
Bob McKinley
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers, arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Sherri Robinson
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant
III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the September 9, 2021 agenda as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the August 12, 2021 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Beaulac and Commissioner Robinson stated
that they will not be able to attend the September 23, 2021 meeting.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VIH. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Study Session: Planned Residential Development Code Text Amendment
A brief recess was called due to a technical glitch with Senior Planner Lori Barlow's
microphone. Commissioner Rieckers joined the meeting at 6:15 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 6:16 p.m.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff presentation regarding the City -initiated code
text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
and prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones. She
09-09-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 3
explained that the PRD is a flexible development tool that provides flexibility in design,
preserves environmental amenities, preserves open space, preserves natural
characteristics, and encourages a variety of housing types. Planned Residential
Developments are currently allowed in all of the residential zones and allow development
standards of the underlying zoning to be relaxed for better site design, land use
relationships, and conservation of natural resources.
Ms. Barlow explained that City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a one-year
moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of
PRD's. The moratorium was passed on November 24, 2020 and will expire on
November 24, 2021. The reason for the moratorium was due to community concerns that
the range of housing allowed within the PRD regulations is inconsistent and incompatible
with surrounding existing uses in single-family zoning districts.
Ms. Barlow stated that the adoption of CPA-2020-0007 (Ordinance 20-0008 & 20-0009,
effective September 23, 2020) was also a contributing factor to the moratorium of PRD's.
The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment added additional housing policies
to the SVMC that helped address community concerns about the influx of duplex
developments and provided areas within the City for denser housing options that are
supported by transit and services (the creation of the R-4 zoning district). It also helped
to preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by
minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage
developments.
Ms. Barlow outlined that staff conducted a review of PRD regulations in adjacent
jurisdictions and compared various elements including land uses, density, density
bonuses, minimum site size, and open space requirements. Staff also did a review of the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. During this review it was found that PRD's are
not consistent with four of the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan.
Additional research included a review of vacant and partially developed properties
meeting the five -acres minimum site requirements. It was found that there are 33 sites
that meet the criteria and 22 of those parcels are located in the R-3 zone.
Ms. Barlow outlined the following staff conclusions:
• The current PRD regulations are inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies
• Sites meeting size criteria are predominantly located in the R-3 zone.
• Approximately half of those sites are impacted by critical areas.
• CPA-2020-0007 addressed community concerns regarding incompatible housing
and density issues in the R-3 zone.
• Current PRD regulations allow for incompatible land uses in the residential zones.
• The City has numerous alternative housing options that allow a variety of housing
types.
• Critical areas present a unique challenge to development.
Ms. Barlow stated that staff recommends eliminating the PRD regulations and code
references (SVMC Chapter 19.50) and continuing to evaluate the need for PRD
regulations as they relate to sites with critical areas.
09-09-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Beaulac asked if projects that have already been submitted would be
affected by this change. Ms. Barlow answered that there is only one project awaiting
approval, the Painted Hills PRD. Since it was submitted prior to the moratorium date, it
will continue through the process and will not be affected. The project is currently going
through the environmental review.
This item will return for public hearing on September 23, 2021.
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac stated that he would like to see the new
library or a City park named after long-time residents Sally Jackson or Chuck Hafner.
X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:58 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed
Marianne Lemons, Secretary
3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: September 23, 2021
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTA-2020-0006 — PRD Code Text Amendment
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) and prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040 and RCW 36.70A.106
BACKGROUND: As part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the city initiated an amendment to amend
the goals and policies for alternative housing types with regulatory changes that included establishing the R-4 zone and the
implementing regulations. The amendment was intended to address citizen concerns regarding the influx of duplex
developments and develop appropriate locations for higher density alternative housing. CPA-2020-0007 established the R-
4 zone in areas supported by transit and services that support denser housing and housing affordability. Additionally, higher
density housing types, such as cottages and townhomes were prohibited in the R-3 zone but allowed in the R-4 zone. Duplex
minimum lot sizes in the R-3 zone were increased to be compatible with neighborhood character.
On November 17', in response to citizen complaints Council directed staff to review Chapter 19.50, SVMC to ensure that
the PRD regulations were consistent with the intent of CPA-2020-0007 and identify any "loopholes". On November 24,
2020 Council adopted Ordinance 20-028 establishing a one-year moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing,
modification, and approval of PRDs. The moratorium has no effect on applications currently under review but prohibits
new applications from being considered.
Staff conducted a review of PRD regulations in adjacent jurisdictions and compared various elements including land uses,
density, density bonuses, minimum site size and open space requirements. The current regulations were also evaluated for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Additional research included a review of vacant and partially
developed properties meeting the 5-acre minimum site requirement to identify the extent the city could be impacted by such
developments. This analysis identified the number of potential properties and associated zoning of the properties. The
review also considered if the sites meeting the criteria were impacted by critical areas. The analysis highlighted that the
PRD regulations allowed incompatible land uses in predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods which is
inconsistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically contrary with the Council's recent
efforts to protect the single-family residential character of the R-3 zone. As a result, the City has initiated a code text
amendment to eliminate Chapter 19.50 SVMC thereby prohibiting PRDs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and deliberate on the proposed amendment.
The Planning Commission will adopt findings and make a recommendation on the amendment to City Council on October
14, 2021.
An example motion for approval of the proposed amendment is "I move to recommend City Council approve CTA-2020-
0006 as presented."
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Draft CTA Chapter 19.50 SVMC; and
Presentation
RPCA Public Hearing for CTA- 2020-0006 Page I of 1
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING & PLANNING
Spokane
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
,;oO Valley PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2020-0006
STAFF REPORT DATE: September 16, 2021
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 23, 2021 beginning at 6:00 p.m.; Due to the restrictions on
public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,, this hearing will be conducted remotely using web
and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to
the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission.
Proposal Description: A city -initiated code text amendment (CTA) to delete chapter 19.50 of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which would prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD)
in Residential zones, and other housekeeping items.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed deletion of chapter 19.50 SVMC is
consistent with the minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner.
REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment
APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table
summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal.
Procedural Action
Date
SEPA — DNS Issued
September 3, 2021
Published Notice of Public Hearing:
September 3 and 10, 2021
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to
Adopt Amendment
September 13 2021
Background:
Chapter 19.50 SVMC regulates PRD's. The regulations identify that PRD's are allowed in all
residential zones so long as certain criteria are met and subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner.
As the regulations are currently written all residential uses are permitted, and if the PRD is at least
10 acres than neighborhood commercial uses are also allowed. The range of residential uses include
single family, duplex, townhomes, and multifamily regardless of what housing type is permitted in
the underlying zoning. Additional standards in the chapter include a 5-acre minimum site acreage,
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2020-0006
density bonus up to 20% above the underlying zoning district density, and open space equal to 30%
or more of the gross land area. Standards of the underlying zoning districts that are waived to allow
design flexibility include minimum lot size, setback and side yard requirements.
The City's PRD regulations were adopted in 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-015 and modified by
Ordinance No. 09-036. Ordinance No. 16-018 repealed the development regulations as part of the
2016 Legislative Update and adopted updated titles, which included chapter 19.50 SVMC, although
no substantive changes, if any, were made at that time. The chapter was further modified by Ord.
17-004 with housekeeping items. Generally, the regulations have remained substantively the same
since 2007.
As part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the city initiated an amendment to
amend the goals and policies for alternative housing types with regulatory changes that included
establishing the R-4 zone and the implementing regulations. The amendment was intended to
address citizen concerns regarding the influx of duplex developments and develop appropriate
locations for higher density alternative housing. CPA-2020-0007 established the R-4 zone in areas
supported by transit and services that support denser housing and housing affordability.
Additionally, higher density housing types, such as cottages and townhomes were prohibited in the
R-3 zone but allowed in the R-4 zone. Duplex minimum lot sizes in the R-3 zone were increased
to be compatible with neighborhood character.
On November 171, in response to citizen complaints Council directed staff to review Chapter 19.50,
SVMC to ensure that the PRD regulations were consistent with the intent of CPA-2020-0007 and
identify any "loop holes". On November 24, 2020 Council adopted Ordinance 20-028 establishing
a one-year moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of
PRDs. The moratorium has no effect on applications currently under review but prohibits new
applications from being considered.
ANALYSIS:
Currently Chapter 19.50 SVMC allows PRD's to locate in all residential zones and allows a range of
residential uses, as well as neighborhood commercial uses, so long as criteria is met. A PRD is subject to
approval by the Hearing Examiner.
The proposed amendment:
1. Eliminates the opportunity for incompatible residential and neighborhood commercial uses to
locate in residential zones using the PRD development tool.
As noted above the PRD regulations allow a range of residential uses in any residential zone that
may include housing types prohibited in the underlying zoning district. For example, the R-2 zone
allows single family residential dwellings, but if a PRD were approved the site could include any
combination of single-family dwellings, duplexes, townhomes, and/or multifamily. Additionally,
if the site met the size criteria neighborhood commercial uses could be included. Certain housing
types, such as townhomes and multifamily are typically found in higher density areas. The scale,
design, and function of a multifamily structure in particular is out of character in a single-family
residential neighborhood.
Issues with noise, privacy, and traffic may result from the integration of a higher density
multifamily structure located immediately adjacent to single family homes located in low density
residential areas as multifamily structures function differently by design. Established residential
uses found in the R-2 and R-3 zones are typically on large lots. The typical single-family home
has living areas located on the first floor with bedrooms either on the same floor or upper and/or
lower floors. Active living spaces are at, or just above, ground level. Larger windows are
typically provided on the ground level to allow for views and light and are often facing the street
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2020-0006
or back yard. Each lot generally has a front yard and back yard Single family homes access
their lots with individual driveways distributed along the street, dispersing the neighborhood
traffic among the blocks. Back yards are large enough to accommodate open areas, play
structures, gardens, and other uses commonly enjoyed as private amenities typical of a single-
family dwelling. Single family residential development in the R-4 or MFR zone has a distinctly
different character as the lots are small with backyards that are often not greater than the setback
requirement associated with the Building Code. Yards are often not large enough for amenities
and public open space is generally provided in close proximity, which has the affect of shifting
outdoor activities to those larger public sites.
In contrast, multifamily developments are designed around common use of the driveway into the
site thereby funneling all traffic at one or two points, causing more traffic at site specific areas
rather than distributing the traffic. Common play areas or open spaces are provided for all
residents to use and enjoy that create a concentration of people and noise that is dissimilar to
activities occurring in a private back yard on large lots typical of the R-2 and R-3 zone
established properties. Last, multifamily structures allowed by the PRD regulations could allow
multistory buildings, so long as the height standard is not exceeded. Multistory multi -family
buildings are most frequently designed as stacked units, often described as garden style walkups.
Each floor of the building would contain complete dwelling units. The second -floor units would
naturally have both active living areas and bedrooms on the second floor with large windows in
the living areas to provide for light that typically include balconies for the private outdoor space.
The consequence is living areas overlooking the large adjacent back yard typical of the R-2 and
R-3 zone. The disparity of the structures affects the typical use and enjoyment of the single-
family property owner in areas developed with large lots. The PRD allows uses within the R-1,
R-2, and R-3 zones that function differently than those uses allowed in those zones affecting the
character and use of adjacent properties. As described above this affect is limited to the
developed low -density zone, as high density uses and structures are not found to have the same
impact on various housing types in the high density zones as the neighborhood residents utilize
spaces differently by design. Last, multifamily zones are also typically located on or near
arterials where the traffic is commonly restricted into both multifamily projects and new
subdivision development of small lots.
2. Recognizes the impact of PRD regulations on the R-3 zone.
Staff conducted a GIS survey of properties to identify potential sites where PRD's could be
allowed based on the minimum site size criteria for both vacant properties and partially developed
properties. The review found a total of 20 vacant lots with 14 of those lots located in the R-3
zone, and a total of 16 partially developed lots, with 10 of those located in the R-3 zone. The
review was expanded to consider common ownership of vacant or partially developed properties
that could be aggregated to meet the minimum 5-acre size and identified 33 vacant lots and 20
partially developed lots. Again, the majority of the lots were in the R-3 zone. It appears that lots
in the R-3 zone are the most likely areas for PRD development.
Number of Parcels >= 5 acres that are Vacant or Partialiv Develo ed bv Residential Zone
Vacant'
Partially
developed
Vacant with adjacent
properties with same
ownership'
Partially developed —
adjacent properties with
same ownershi z
Zone
>= 5 ac.
>= 5 ac.
>= 5 ac.
>= 5 ac.
R-1
1
1
R-2
4
5
4
5
R-3
14
1 10
1 22
_
1 14
R�
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2020-0006
Total 1 20 1 16 1 33 1 20
'A number of parcels identified in the vacant or partially vacant land survey have received
preliminary plat approval and presumably will be developed as such.
2The method to determine the number of parcels utilized common ownership of adjacent
properties that totaled 5 acres of more.
CPA-2020-0007 was initiated in response to community concerns that the R-3 zoned
neighborhoods were being overwhelmingly developed with duplex housing that was out of
character with the low -density single-family neighborhoods. As described above the CPA
modified the development regulations to incentivize single family development in the R-3 Zone
and established an R-4 zone where higher density housing types, including duplexes, were
encouraged with minimal development standards to maximize development options. The R-4
zone was established to offer increased housing development options in areas support by transit
and services that support the denser housing. The review indicates that the PRD regulations
provide an opportunity or "loophole" for housing types in the R-3 zone contrary to the intent of
CPA-2020-0007.
3. Preserves the use of alternative housing options that are consistent with the underlying zoning
code.
Chapter 19.40 SVMC Alternative Residential Development options provide regulations to guide
the development of accessory dwelling units, cottage development, duplexes, manufactured home
parks, and townhouses consistent with the zoning districts. Chapter 19.60 SVMC Permitted Uses
identifies the zoning district where each housing type is allowed. The housing types are allowed
in the zones that are consistent with the function and form of the character and intent of the
zoning district.
The City recognizes the need to allow a variety of housing options that meet the widespread
needs of our community. Chapter 19.40 provides regulations to support housing diversity,
affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels.
4. Eliminates the conflict between the City's Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies.
As indicated above, Chapter 19.50 allows for the range of housing types in a PRD regardless of
what housing type is allowed in the zone. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies strive to
maintain and enhance character and quality of life, ensure compatibility between residential and
commercial uses, protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses, and preserve
single family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing (Comprehensive
Plan Goals and Policies, LU-G1, LU-P5, LU-P7 and H-P6). The analysis above showed that the
PRD regulations allow housing types and neighborhood commercial uses not otherwise allowed
in the zones, and that the impacts from those uses conflict with the intent of several goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
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:
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan
and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies:
LU-GI Maintain and enhance character and quality of life in Spokane Valley.
LU-P5 Ensure the 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-P6 Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by
minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage
development
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health,
safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing incompatible housing
types to locate in residential zones where the use would not otherwise be allowed has
an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and is out of character with the scale,
form and function of low -density residential neighborhoods. Eliminating the PRD
regulations as they allow incompatible uses in residential zones is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and protects the interests of surrounding properties. The
proposed amendment recognizes that the current SVMC provides opportunities for a
variety of housing types across all residential zones. .
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-2020-0006 pursuant to adopted public
noticing procedures.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
The City has not received any substantive agency comments to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
No concerns noted.
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2020-0006
B. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to delete chapter 19.50 of
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which would eliminate Planned Residential
Developments (PRD) as a development tool in Residential zones, and other housekeeping items is
consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 6 of 6
DRAFT
CTA-2020-0006
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 1
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 2
-IS-fl-6FitigAl-H:eR
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 3
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 4
.. ,-
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 5
19.40.100 Development standards — Townhouses.
A. In zero lot line developments appFeved as pan of a planned Fesidentia' ao..e',.-...e..>, zero setbacks along one side
are allowed, provided a two -foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plan.
B. Townhouses located on individual lots shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements (where
applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements shown in Table
19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements:
1. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group;
2. Townhouse unit shall not be constructed above another townhouse unit;
3. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet;
4. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint; provided, that
the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. (Ord.
16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016).
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 6
17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification.
A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80-1
below:
Table 17.80-1— Permit Tvoe and Land Use Application
Type
Land Use and Development Application
SVMC
Cross -Reference
Accessory dwelling units
19.40
Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official
Multiple
Administrative exception
19.140
Administrative interpretation
17.50.010
Boundary line adjustments and eliminations
20.80
Building permits not subject to SEPA
21.20.040
Floodplain development
21.30
Grading permits
24.50
Type I
Home business permit
19.65.180
Shoreline letter of exemption
21.50
Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan
20.60.030
Right-of-way permits
22.130.100
Site plan review
19.130
Small cell permit
22.121; 22.122
Temporary use permit
19.160
Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan
20.30.060
Alterations — preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final
binding site plans (where there is no alteration of a public dedication)
20.60
Binding site plan — preliminary and final
20.50
Minor alterations — preliminary subdivisions
20.50
SEPA threshold determination
21 20.060
Shoreline conditional use permit
21.50
Type II
Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review
21.50
Shoreline substantial development permit
21.50
Shoreline variance
21.50
Short subdivision — preliminary and final
20.30, 20.40
Vacation — short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is no vacation of an
area designated or dedicated for public use
20.70
Wireless communication facilities
22.120
Type
Alterations — final subdivisions (where a public hearing is requested)
20.50
III
Alterations — preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final
20.60
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 7
Tahle 17_9II-1 — Permit Tvne and land Use Annlication
Type
Land Use and Development ApplicationCross-Reference
SVMC
binding site plans (where there is alteration of a public dedication)
Conditional use permits
19.150
3999
Subdivisions — preliminary
20.30
Substantial alterations — preliminary subdivisions
20.50
Vacation — subdivision; short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is
vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use
20.70
Variance
19.170
Zoning map amendments (site -specific rezones)
19.30.030
Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map)
17.80.140
Type
Area -wide zoning map amendments
17.80.140
Development Code text amendments
17.80.150
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 8
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
h
Draft CTA-2020-0006 Page 9
v/
am
c
O
O
Oy
1 Co
O
N =
O c�
N '-
V CL
A .J
o
o�
O
O
a
O
O
U
O
C6
O
O
p
N
=
C
O
O
co
>'
cn
O
O
c6
(
O
co
>,
a)
a)
�
m
()
O
—
a)a)
a)
a)
-0
U)
0--
>
C
O
Q
5
C
> cu
U
YID
a)Cc
o
0-2
co
c
E
O
O
a)
a)
Co
o
cn
>
'r
O
--
0
.O
p
U
p
co
a)
>
—
E
"
a)
a)
i
t�A
}
(a
Q
E
a)
C
a
Q�
(B
.�
a)
0
+�
_O
a)
X
+-+
p
E
n
U
3
a)
U
c
a)
�
70
U
U
p
1
0
Q
O
�
O
O
p
(B
U
�O
O
ai
�
i
E
>
>
i
�'
p
�_
a)
>
a)
Q
�
Y
ai
(�
a)
.�
(�
N
cn
U�
O
U)
"
OH
O
C)
C
0-�'
�'
=
"
=
o
C
o
(3)
W
O
i++
Q-
b A
U
�+
0-
U
+-+
W
d
C
(n
■
■
■
■
■
■
0-
om
o
�
N
A
Q
8�
C
Q
�
O
j
in
vi
°J
0�
88
€
a
Vl
Q
Op
l+l
N
C
v
A
Y
a
d
in
rzi
Y
Y
�
C
v
A
a
a
L
rp
N
d
d
d
N
Op
00
d
iy
to
C
N
Q
d
b0
>
Z`
G
4
O
LL V1
U�
K
N
O
J
J
Q
m
E
E
E
E
c
'�
O
O
cc
57
w
7t
IN �aI_� $��i Will!
t i ➢�
pia ; Will!
MOO all
all
far
ILI
�p�j ..� _ s€iglu
T gg yy
<u F��r< Y tt y2yp ¢p
?73adi is Ev �.2 aieR
r-
F
f
E
ca
CL
i.i
E
0
0
0
N
0
N
O
O
Cf)
cn
}'
Co
70
Q)
O
U
E-
a)
_0O
c
N
Z)
O
X
E
O
Q
0
cn
c
OcQ
U>�
I.-(n
�
m
O
0
0_
Q
N
U
4-
N
U
i
O
p
O
E
(n
O
>
-0
D
LU
CO
N
E
O
O
_
N
O
i
(n
U
m
—
O
co
Q
N
N
�,
}'
N
E
Q
�
O
z
}' 0 U +>
O) cn O .—
O � 70 O L -0
O — L O C6
O � � N
N L x U O
N0 4-
p O Q 70 b0 7 CO
N i CBCn0 CO—
O `
0~ � 0 �` U O }, O cn
O W N Q x�� co O
O O Q 4— o N a'
N p E>
O cn � Q) o m cn
C:) v O i Q Cll
CN 7 70 O> a) OC)_
70
U
O LLJ Q M 7C:) ca cn
U O
CL
cc
o
-0
V)
Lrl
o
N
4
=
fB
OL
C
v
V
U
f6
(6
O
v
U
7
Ln
Q-
v1
L
a
41
M
a)
N
4j
C
00
c-I
U
M
U
M
C:
�.o
O
d'
WMW
Pb
u'aaa6j
N
,o too
.� At
5a
15
IN
Q
I
PH swep
P8 Al!SJa
LU
0
co
0
LO
6
am
cu
Q)
0
0
a
GC
CC
M
�
�
cc
N
a
a-+
E
m
I
cn
X
O
D
O
H
QJ
V
o _
v
N
E
Z U
,.I
O
L
Fz
O
t�A
c�
p70�
70
O
O D
LO
i-0
O
O
N
D
-0
U
r-I
a.)
(n
70 i
c
n
O
>
O
O co -0
O
m a�
cn 0
(D
F
O
+
co t�A
=)
.L
D70
0�
70
U co
Q =ZU-o.—
.� (�
^i
W �I
cc
an
it
E
i
0
W
cu
u`
�I
■�w
_ I
cu
■
9
e;
Q1 v
U U
Q Q
41
h U 0
_r
❑ O
o a -
�
co
i
Q
N
O
CL
O
0
cu
Kl1
f6
N
O
N
M
N
CL
O
1.
CL
.cu
L
cu
CL
(1)
0
.�
0
LIL
�
�
cc
a
cu
�
�
.�
�
�
�
Ja
(1)
L
CL
E
0
0
/
0
.
a
k
/
2
.§
/
7
§
k
§
76—
-
§
�
E
a
§
E
2
n
k
-0
o
2
0
2
@
0
?
$
. c3-
m
ƒ
0
a)
E
2
§
2
e
c
'
/
§
_0
S
LID
§
E
7
E
0
E
±
0
f
g
£
»
co
LU
0
£
m�
§
c
0
E
E
0
o
y
/
\
f
o
e
3
/
E
w
7
cn
0
Co
2
c
\
-0
�
%
QL
E
E
o
3
\
n
w
2
2
\
E
-
k
_0
.
y
/
a
2
/
/
ƒ
0
a
�
E
/
/
u
2
£_
' 4
f
e
k
—
0
/
zs
\
4�
k
2
0
cu
ƒ
0
k
L
#
w
OF
±
a
:
\
E
E
§
3
U)
k
u
F
ƒ
E
/
/
/
k
0
m
�k
2
a)
m
§
co
e
4-
a
�
w
9
3
I I I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0(D
«
f
_
2
in
k
2
0
E
0
/
CO
E 0
k �
/
� 0
Q
y m
3
0 /
0
-0 F 2
W 0
k E D
± 0 ?
m o §
k C 0 k
@ o a 2
2 toco
§ � � }
co
0 Cok
2 / \ ƒ
0 k \
z %
� a) e 3
/ 0
kk Co _
U) UJ 3
% CL CL
¥ 2 2
I I I I
G 0 0
el
u
m
cc
V /
MOMMEN
cc
0
0
C
cc
WOMMON
I
O
N
1-1
N
O
N
r
C
O
cu
W
O
W
a
O
V
rm
O
cU
N
�
O
O
N
Q
ON
C6
i
E
n
Oa-
Cf)
>
O
(n
—
Q)
-c
(�
c6
C6
U
O
O
F
O
U
0
�
O
U
O
Q
>'
O
075
N
�
Q
(�
O
>
NN
Q
(n
O
C6
E
i
0
Q
U
-j
�
N
>
a--j
EO
co
c
Q)
c
U CO
'O N
M
C6
M
(n
O
cn
O
+
cn c
O
O
m
U
cn
0
i
i-'
-0
M _
U
O
O
O
�
O
M
0
• N
(n
E
O �
to0O
V)
O -O
N
�
w
Q
E
c6
N
wE
O-
zi
c
N
�,p
N
_
OQ
>,
+�
w
c
Q) a)'o
U)
U
a- O
�__
Q
O
U
U
cn
Q
U
n
c6
�-
0
r
d
V
0
r;
U_
U)
o
Q
O
D
Q
3
N
cn
:::)
(f)
7C)
O
Q
c�
CD
CD
.__I
CD
d�
0Up
Q
Q
(L)
co
7C)
CB
}'
Q
U
7C:)
U
E
7C:)
U
>
cn
v�i
Q
0U
W
9
CL
x
Z
I
blo
IA
V
O
LM
a
N
c—i
:-,
a--+
U
u►
4-J
f0
-
L
C:
�
C
w
Q
0
41
>�C
-0 O
L
N N p
4 N U t1A c J
o/s � .i -a
� 4J
J 0 o
U
'i � U—
4
r�
J�
. 9�
'o
40 _ oeo �s
vx*v 09
4i �d� �o
Wok
0 s,
■
EM
ra
ra
N
O
N
r