2022-08-25 Agenda PacketS&Kan��
,,,;o0W]1eya
Agenda
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM meeting and
In Person at 10210 E Sprague Avenue
Note: In response to Governor Inslee's announcement reopening Washing under the "Washington Ready"
plan, members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Planning Commission meetings in -person at City
Hall at the address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed
to comment in person or via Zoom as described below.
wishing to make a comment via Zoom, need to email plannine(aspokanevalley.org prior to 4:00 p.m. the day
of the meeting to speak during the comment period of the meeting. Comments can also be emailed to
planningQsookanevallev.ore and they will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members
via email. Otherwise, comments will be taken in -person at the meeting in Council Chambers.
LINK TO ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION:
htti)s://Svokanevallev.zoom.us/i/86262747051
One tap mobile
US: +12532158782„ 86262747051# or+16699006833„86262747051# US
Dial by your location
US: +l 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
Meeting ID: 862 6274 7051
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 11, 2022
6. COMMISSION REPORTS
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
8. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
9. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Findings Of Fact: STV-2022-0002 — Street Vacation of 1,553 Square Feet Of
Unimproved Right -Of -Way Intersecting With Appleway Boulevard
b. Public Hearing: CTA-2022-0002 — Multi -Family Residential Parking Regulations Update
10. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
11. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
August 11, 2022
I. Planning Commission Vice -Chairman Robinson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The
meeting was held in person and via ZOOM meetings.
H. The Commissioners, staff, and audience stood for the Pledge Of Allegiance
HI. Planning Commission Secretary Marianne Lemons took attendance, and the following members
and staff were present:
Fred Beaulac
Susan Delucchi
Karl Granath
Walt Haneke, late
Bob McKinley, absent
Nancy Miller
Sherri Robinson
Tony Beattie, City Senior Deputy Attorney
Chaz Bates, Planning Manager
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Nikki Kole, IT Specialist
Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant
There was consensus to excuse Commissioner McKinley from the Planning Commission
Meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Granrath moved to approve the August]], 2022 agenda as presented.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion
passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the July 28, 2022 minutes as presented.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion
passed.
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commission reports.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Chaz Bates asked if the Planning Commission
would be interested in a brief training regarding the role of a Planning Commissioner and Roberts
Rules of Order at a future meeting. There was consensus from the Commissioners that they would
be interested in the training.
Commissioner Haneke arrived at 6:05 p.m.
VIH. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
08-11-2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 4
a. Public Hearing (Continued): STV-2022-0002: Street Vacation of 1,553 square
feet of unimproved right-of-way (ROW) intersecting with Appleway Boulevard.
Vice -Chairman Robinson opened the continued public hearing from the July 28, 2022
Planning Commission meeting.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff report regarding STV-2022-0002. She explained
that the public hearing on this item was continued from the previous meeting so that
additional information could be acquired regarding access to the adjacent property. She
requested that the Planning Commission add a condition of approval (if the Commission
decided to recommend approval) to grant an easement that is acceptable to Avista to
encompass all their utility lines. She recapped that if approved, half of the vacated ROW
would be distributed to the two adjacent lots owned by Cameo Lofts, LLC and the
requested Avista easement would be established by a new Record of Survey. She also
stated that all other easements would remain in place as platted.
Ms. Barlow explained that there was a question at the previous meeting whether there was
adequate access to the adjacent property (owned by Major Bambino) that would allow entry
into the garage door that abuts the requested vacated area. She stated that there was a
recorded access easement through the Cameo Lofts, LLC property to provide access to the
Bambino property. She then said that the applicant and adjacent property owner would
provide information and photos regarding the access.
The applicant, Jeremy Hopson with Cameo Lofts, LLC (Plummer, ID) presented photos of
the property showing the access easement. He explained that he had a survey company plot
the boundaries of the access easement in relation to the adjacent garage building. He stated
that he feels the access is adequate to enter the garage and requested that the street vacation
be approved.
Commissioner Granrath asked if the applicant plans to move their fence to run along the
easement line. Mr. Hopson answered that they will be moving the fence to the boundary of
the easement if the street vacation is granted.
The property owner, Major Bambino (Spokane Valley) also presented photos of the
property. He stated that he does not feel that the access is adequate to enter the garage and
requested that the street vacation be denied.
Commissioner Granrath asked why the property owner doesn't feel the access easement
provides adequate easement. Mr. Bambino responded that he doesn't believe a large
vehicle would be able to make the turn into the garage.
The property tenant, David Beech (Spokane Valley) stated that he is the tenant renting the
Bambino property and is also in opposition to the street vacation because he needs to be
able to get large vehicles into that garage.
The public hearing was closed at 6:53 p.m.
Commissioner Granrath stated that he feels the access easement is sufficient for the
applicant to get into the property.
Commissioner Haneke expressed concern about the access easement possibly being
blocked in the future and causing a civil case between the two property owners where court
08-1 I-2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 4
action and attorneys would have to get involved. He also expressed that he is disappointed
in how much is stored in the public ROW but he feels that access to the garage is adequate.
Commissioner Beaulac stated that he drove his car into the property and was able to access
the garage without any issues. He said that a large over -sized vehicle might have some
issues but still feels that the access easement provides adequate access.
Commissioner Robinson, Miller, & Delucchi all concurred that the easement provides
adequate access.
Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of STV-2022-0002, subject to the
staff conditions, including an additional condition to grant an easement that is acceptable
to Avista to encompass all their utility lines. There was no additional discussion. The vote
on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
A five -minutes break was called at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:06
p.m.
b. Study Session: CTA-2022-0002 — Multi -Family Parking Regulations
Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that CTA-2022-0003 was a City -initiated code text
amendment to update the parking regulations for multi -family units. She explained that City
Council was concerned about overflow on -street parking near multi -family developments
and wanted staff to research the cause and find out if all provided on -site parking spaces are
being used by the residents of multi -family developments. She explained that garages and
paid parking spaces are not always used to park cars but they count as part of the parking
code requirement when development occurs.
Ms. Barlow explained that the current code requires 1 to 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling
unit plus 5% of total for guests. All spaces provided, including garages or spaces that have
an extra associated fee, are counted toward the required number. The current code does not
have a reduction for Affordable Housing developments.
Ms. Barlow stated that the proposed code would require 2 spaces per dwelling unit + 5% of
total for guests. Garage and parking spaces that require an extra fee would not be counted
toward the required number. The required number of spaces would be reduced to 1 space
per dwelling unit for the developments at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI).
Ms. Barlow said that the area Affordable Housing Providers have expressed concerns that
requiring 2 spaces per unit would make most affordable housing projects infeasible because
more parking results in higher stormwater costs, less revenue generating buildings (taxes),
larger development footprints, less space for housing, and less space for amenities. They
have stated that Affordable Housing would need an exception from the higher parking
requirement to make developments possible.
Ms. Barlow explained that the higher parking requirement would lead to the following
impacts:
• The parking requirement is land intensive so more land would be required for
developments
• There will be more impervious surface which would lead to more stormwater run-
off
08-11-2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 4
• There will be increased development costs which would lead to higher rent costs.
Ms. Barlow stated that a Determination of Non -Significance of Environmental Impact and
the Notice of Public Hearing were both issued and published on August 5, 2022. The
public hearing will be held at the August 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Robinson asked if the parking requirement will impact the R-4 zone. Ms.
Barlow answered that the change would only apply to multi -family dwellings (apartments).
Multi -family apartments are not permitted in the R-4 zone.
Commissioner Robinson asked if there are any large parcels available that are currently
zoned for multi -family residential. Ms. Barlow responded that she would research available
land parcels that are zoned for multi -family developments.
Ms. Barlow reiterated that the change would not be retroactive and would only apply to
future developments.
Commissioner Delucchi expressed concern that the requirement would not address issues
with existing facilities that don't have adequate parking for residents. She also expressed
that she thinks fee generating parking spaces should be counted toward the requirement.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if there are provisions for off -site parking in the code. Ms.
Barlow and Senor Planner Chaz Bates determined that there is a provision in the proposed
code amendment regarding off -site parking.
Commissioner Haneke expressed that he also doesn't think fee generating parking spaces
should be excluded from the parking requirement. He stated that he would like additional
information regarding affordable housing requirements (contract terms) and an outline
showing the additional costs associated with the parking changes, i.e. additional land
purchase, paving, stormwater, etc. Ms. Barlow responded that she would try to provide that
information at the next meeting.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There were no Commissioner Reports.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The vote
on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
Bob McKinley, Chairman Date Signed
Marianne Lemons, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: August 25, 2022
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: STV-2022-0002
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation - STV-2022-0002
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately initiated street vacation request to vacate 1,553
square feet of unimproved right-of-way intersecting with Appleway Boulevard.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC);
RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79 RCW
BACKGROUND: The original unnamed street was dedicated by the Corbin Addition to
Greenacres Plat in 1924. The alley was in the shape of an arc which extended from Greenacres
Road to Appleway Avenue. Portions of the alley were vacated by Spokane County Right of
Way Deed no. 1994, and at this time the west end of the alleyway which intersects with
Appleway Avenue is bisected by property boundaries. The right-of-way is unimproved and not
being used by the City and there are no future needs or plans for the right-of-way.
The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is 20 feet wide with a varying length due to the angle of
the right-of-way. The average length is 75 feet. The total area proposed to be vacated is 1,553
square feet. The right-of-way has remained unopened and unimproved for 98 years. The
unnamed street is adjacent to parcel numbers 55184.1207 and 55184.1208, both owned by
Cameo Lofts, LLC; Parcel number 55184.1216 is owned by Major and Corinna Bambino. The
entire area to be vacated originated from the property owned by Cameo Lofts LLC, so while the
Bambino property is adjacent, the entire vacated area will return to the two properties owned by
Cameo Lofts.
On June 28, 2022, City Council passed Resolution 22-013 to set a public hearing date with the
Planning Commission on July 28, 2022. The Planning Commission conducted a study session
on July 14, 2022 and a public hearing on July 28, 2022. The public hearing was continued to the
August 11, 2022 meeting so that additional information regarding the access easement could be
provided. On August 11, 2022 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
the street vacation (STV-2022-0002) to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings
and Recommendation for STV-2022-0002.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings of Fact
RPCA Study Session for STV-2022-0002 Page 1 of I
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (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's decision to recommend approval of File No. STV-2022-0002.
A. Background:
1. Chapter 22.140 SVMC, governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and
became effective on October 28, 2007.
2. STV-2022-0002 is a privately initiated street vacation request to vacate 1,553 square feet
of unimproved right-of-way intersecting with Appleway Avenue.
3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2022 that
was continued to the August 11, 2022 meeting. On August 11, 2022 the Planning
Commission conducted deliberations and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of STV-2022-
0002 to the City Council.
B. Planning Commission Findings:
Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030
Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public.
The area proposed to be vacated lies between two parcels owned by the applicant. The
applicant is currently constructing a multifamily development that is taking access
approximately 50' east of the alley. The smaller triangular shaped parcel abutting the
southwest boundary of the right-of-way has an area of 702 square feet. The dimensions
leave the property undevelopable. A varying width access easement provides access to a
garage located on the east side of the structure on a parcel owned by the Bambinos (parcel
number 55184.1216). A gas line easement crosses a portion of the right-of-way and is
necessary for maintenance and operation of existing facilities. Other easements are
located outside of the right-of-way. All easements will remain. All parcels abutting the
alley right-of-way have direct access from Appleway Avenue. Due to the irregular shape
of the north portion of the alley it does not maintain a viable connection to that portion of
the alley to the northwest. Currently several vehicles that appear inoperable are parked
in that portion of the alley requested to be vacated and that portion of the alley extending
west. It is evident the alley is not used for public access, although testimony from Mr.
Bambino, the adjacent property owner, indicated that the alley was used for private access
to the garage. A private access easement ensures that access be maintained to the garage.
The public would benefit from the removal of old vehicles, and the development of the
property in conjunction with the multifamily complex. The vacation is expected to have no
impact on the general public.
2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access.
The area proposed to be vacated is currently unimproved and is not being used for public
access and is not required for current or future public access. Stormwater improvements
are located in Appleway Avenue and the alley is not needed for future stormwater
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2022-0002 Page 1 of
improvements. Since the lot to the north is under development future stormwater
improvements and access are not anticipated.
Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to
the public.
There is no substitution being proposed as part of the vacation. The City's review has
determined no need for a new or different public way. The alleyway is unimproved and
has not provided access to the remaining unvacated portions of the alleyway to the
northwest. All lots abutting the alley have access from Appleway Avenue and the access
easement ensures continued access to the rear of the adjacent property owned by the
Bambinos. So long as access easements are retainedfor the electrical facilities, the public
interest is served. The private access will be retained. The private easement has no impact
on the general public.
4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need
than presently exists.
The surrounding property under development takes access from the Appleway Avenue;
Future redevelopment of the adjacent properties should not be affected as the properties
have frontage on Appleway Avenue. It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the
future that would require the use of the subject right-of-way for public access.
Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property
(exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies
or members of the general public.
Notice of the public hearing was made by posting written notice at City Hall, CenterPlace,
and the valley library; publishing notice in the Spokane Valley Herald, posting both ends
of the right-of-way to be vacated, and a direct mailing to property owners adjacent to the
proposed vacations. No objections by governmental agencies have been received, but the
owner of parcel 55184.1216, one of the three adjacent parcels, was concerned that the
existing access easement would not adequately provide access to the garage in the rear of
his property. A review of the access easement concluded that adequate access would be
maintained by the existing easement.
C. Conclusions:
The findings confirm that the criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met.
D. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council
approve STV-2022-0002.
1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2022-0002),
including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days
following the effective date of approval by the City Council.
2. The vacated property shall be transferred to the owner of the abutting parcels (55184.1207
and 55184.1208) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2022-0002 Page 2
County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 5. Such property shall become part of each
abutting parcel.
3. An easement shall be established acceptable to AVISTA for access and preservation of
existing services within the area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall
be shown on the record of survey
4. All easements shall be retained on the record of survey.
5. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a
record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of
Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any
and all applicable easements for ingress and egress, construction, repair and maintenance
of existing and future utilities and services, shall be completed.
6. All direct and indirect costs of the title transfer of the vacated street from public to private
ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording
fees, shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not, assume any financial
responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title.
7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be
automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation
shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting
Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning
district designations.
8. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City
Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor.
9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of
title by the City.
Approved this 25`h day of August, 2022
Planning Commission, Chairman
ATTEST
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2022-0002 Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: August 25, 2022
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTA-2022-0002 Multifamily Residential Parking Regulations Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: A study session was conducted on August 11, 2022.
BACKGROUND: In 2021, City Council had several discussions regarding multifamily parking issues
which identified a need for code text amendments to chapter 22.50 SVMC Off -Street Parking and Loading
Standards. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.040 modification to SVMC Titles 17 through 24 are classified as a
Type IV development application and require the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to
City Council.
The City has received complaints regarding the amount of on -street parking on streets adjacent to various
multifamily developments. The Council considered whether enough spaces were required by the SVMC
and whether individual garage spaces and parking spaces only available for an additional fee should count
toward required parking. The current code allows garages and parking spaces available for an additional
fee to be counted toward the total spaces required by the SVMC. On May 3, 2022, Council directed staff
to revise the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit in multifamily development and review
what type of parking spaces may be counted toward the required number of parking spaces.
CTA-2022-0002 is a city -initiated code text amendment to revise SVMC 22.50.020 SVMC as it relates to
multifamily parking standards. The proposed regulations increase the parking up to 2 spaces per dwelling
unit regardless of the number of bedrooms, or 1 space per dwelling unit if the unit is documented as an
affordable unit (affordable being at or below 80% Area Median Income). Additional changes include adding
that garage spaces and spaces available only by fee cannot be counted toward the required number of spaces.
On August 11, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed amendments.
The August 25' meeting will include a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the SVMC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and deliberate on the proposed
amendment. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial
of the proposed draft regulations.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Presentation
2. Draft CTA-2022-0002
RPCA Public Hearing for Code Text Amendment CTA-2022-0002 Page l of 1
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING & PLANNING
Spokane
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
jValley PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2022-0002
STAFF REPORT DATE: August 15, 2022
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: August 25, 2022 beginning at 6:00 p.m.; This hearing will be conducted
in person and 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/planningconimission.
Proposal Description: A city -initiated code text amendment (CTA) to increase the parking requirement
for multifamily residential up to two spaces per unit, allow one space per unit for each unit at or below 80
percent AM], and clarify that individual garage spaces, or spaces that require a fee shall not be counted
toward meeting the requirements and other matters related.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, and 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that CTA-2022-0002 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: Chaz Bates, Planning Manager
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
August 5, 2022
Published Notice of Public Hearing:
August 5, 2022
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to
Adopt Amendment
August 9, 2022
Background:
Chapter 22.50 SVMC regulates the number of required off-street parking spaces provided for specific uses.
The number of spaces required is based on Table 22.50-1 — Required Parking Spaces for Specific Uses.
Pursuant to the table multifamily residential uses shall provide spaces based on the following ratio:
Use
Required Parking
Dwelling, multifamily, studio and one bedroom
I per dwelling, plus 5% of total for guests
Dwelling, multifamily, two or more bedrooms
1.5 per dwelling unit, plus 5% total for guests
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0002
Chapter 19.60 SVMC regulates the uses allowed in each zoning district. The zones where multifamily
residential uses are allowed are found in SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Multifamily residential
uses are allowed in the MFR, CMU and MU zones. Multifamily is defined in Appendix A and has a specific
parking requirement. The Multifamily definition is as follows:
"Dwelling, multifamily: A building designedfor occupancy by three or more families, with separate
entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping and sanitation. Townhouses are not
considered multifamily development. "
In 2021, City Council had several discussions regarding multifamily parking issues which identified a need
for code text amendments to chapter 22.50 SVMC Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards. The City
has received numerous complaints regarding the amount of on -street parking occurring on streets adjacent
to various multifamily developments. The Council considered whether enough spaces were required by the
SVMC as well as the fact that in some cases garage spaces are provided for parking but used for tenant
storage. In other cases, covered and uncovered spaces may only be available for use with an additional fee,
which may impact their use by residents. The current code allows garages and parking spaces available for
an additional fee to be counted toward the total spaces required by the SVMC. On May 3, 2022 Council
directed staff to revise the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit in multifamily development
and review what type of parking spaces may be counted toward the required number of parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
Multifamily residential uses are only allowed in the MFR, CMU, and MU zones. The analysis only
contemplates multifamily residential uses and associated parking requirements in these zones.
The proposed amendment:
1. Increases the number of parking spaces required on -site for multifamily residential development.
The existing parking requirement for multifamily residential dwellings ranges from 1 to 1.5
spaces per dwelling unit depending on the number of bedrooms in the units. The proposed
regulations increase the parking requirement to 2 spaces per dwelling unit regardless of number
of bedrooms. The City has received citizen complaints regarding the amount of on -street parking
occurring on streets adjacent to multifamily developments which may indicate that insufficient
parking is being required at the time of development. Requiring more parking spaces will
increase the available spaces and may result in less on street parking. Table 1 below compares the
required space per unit and land area needed for parking using the existing and proposed
regulations; it assumes that under the current regulations that all dwelling units would be at least
2 bedroom dwelling units. The proposed regulations would increase the number of spaces
required for a 200-unit multifamily complex from 300 parking spaces up to 400 parking spaces.
Table 1
Comparison of Current MFR Parking Regulations to Pro osed Re ulations
Required
Total Units
Number of
Additional
Total Area
Space/Unit
Spaces
Guest Spaces
SF(Acres)'
Required
Required'
Current
1.5
200
300
15
75,127 SF
Regulations
1.72 acres
Proposed
2.0
200
400
20
100,170 SF
Regulation
2.30 acres
'Assumes 238.5 sq. ft. per parking space and drive aisle required
2 Guests aces are required at a rate of 5% of the total parking required.
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation
2. Increases the land area required for development.
CTA-2022-0002
As noted in Table 1 above an increase from 1.5 spaces per 200 units to 2 spaces per unit results in
an additional 105 spaces (100 required + 5 guest spaces) in a 200-unit complex. The area
equivalent of those spaces is an increase of 0.58 acre. Other directly related development
requirements are also increased as a result of the additional spaces. Additional impervious
surface results in the need for additional stormwater treatment. Based on the comparison of a
200-unit multifamily residential development the area needed for stormwater treatment would be
increased by 1,502 square feet. The total area increase would be 0.61 acre. Increased area for
development results in increased occupied land, increased costs to construct, and generally results
in a decrease in density and greater land consumption requirements.
Table 2
Com arison of Land Area Re uired with Stormwater Treatment
Total Area SF
Additional Area for
Total Area required
(Acres) '
Stormwater
SF Acres
Current
75,127 SF
4,508 SF
79,636 SF
Regulations
1.72 acres
1.83 acres
Proposed
100,170 SF
6,010 SF
106,180 SF
Regulation
2.30 acres
2.44 acres
Assumes 238.5 s . ft. per parking space and drive aisle required
3. Increases the land development costs
Building parking spaces adds to the cost of development. For residential development, the cost of
complying with minimum parking requirements can add to the challenge of building affordable
housing. Each additional parking space required affects the number of residential units provided
and the cost of the units. Local affordable housing providers have indicated that building more
parking into a project, equates to more project cost, shifting resources to parking that would have
been allocated to other features or amenities., These changes also can impact the site design,
which can affect the feasibility of a development on sites where a large portion of the site is
required to be dedicated to parking. While market rate multifamily development projects may be
able to absorb the costs, affordable multifamily housing developments may not be able to absorb
the costs.
4. Decreases the number of parking spaces required for affordable housing developments, which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan.
The current regulations do not provide an opportunity for a reduction in parking for affordable
housing developments. Affordable housing units are the most impacted by increased construction
costs for site improvements, which could result from an increase in the parking requirements.
The proposed regulations address the impact by establishing a separate parking standard for each
documented affordable housing unit at or below 80 percent of the AMI as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The proposed regulations require 1 space for
each documented qualifying unit. The impact of this standard would require 210 spaces for in a
200-unit multifamily development where each unit is affordable. This reduces the amount of
parking by 0.57 acres under current regulations and 0.8 acres under the proposed regulations.
The proposed regulations related to affordable housing address the impacts of costly parking for
affordable housing projects consistent with the City's Housing Action Plan and Goals and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2022-0002
Table 3
Comparison of the Current MFR Parking Regulations to Proposed Regulations
and the Impact to Affordable HousingProjects
Required
Total Units
Number of
Additional
Total Area
Space/Unit
Spaces
Guest Spaces
SF(Acres)'
Required
Required 2
Current
1.5
200
300
15
75,127 SF
Regulations
1.72 acres
Proposed
2.0
200
400
20
100,170 SF
Regulation
2.30 acres
Proposed
1.0
200
200
10
50,085 SF
Regulation
(1.15 acres)
(affordable
units
'Assumes 238.5 sq. ft. per parking space and drive aisle required
2 Guests aces are required at a rate of 5% of the total parking required.
5. Addresses the impact of on -street parking resulting from multifamily residential development
where garages are used for storage and additional fees are required for parking spaces.
The current parking regulations allow all parking spaces provided to be counted toward the
required spaces. This includes garage spaces, covered and uncovered spaces, and spaces that
require a separate tenant fee. The proposed regulations prohibit individual garage spaces and
spaces that require a fee to be counted toward the required parking spaces. If the garage isn't
available for parking, other on -site parking or off -site parking is needed for the vehicle. Due to
the limited number of spaces on -site, vehicles are often parked on the adjacent streets.
Trends indicate that multifamily developments require a separate fee in addition to rent to acquire
a parking space. While this is a useful tool to reduce housing costs and create an opportunity to
only pay for parking if it is needed, it appears that it may be contributing to the number of
vehicles parking in the public right-of-way.
The proposed regulations specify that parking spaces within individual enclosed garages and
those spaces that require a fee may not be counted toward the required spaces. Multifamily
developments may provide garages and may propose to charge for spaces, but these spaces will
not count toward the required number of parking spaces. The proposal also separates individual
garage spaces from common garage spaces to allow for the parking spaces in an enclosed parking
garage to count toward the parking space requirement. While the city has not seen parking
garage spaces proposed for large scale multifamily development projects, infill projects on small
sites have used this method to provide parking.
6. Will not impact existing multifamily development and will not address existing parking issues.
The proposed code text amendment will not impact existing multifamily residential
developments. Existing on -street parking issues will be handled through code enforcement or
law enforcement actions as applicable to each situation. Existing multifamily developments
proposing to expand will be required to meet the parking standard in place at the time of
building permit. This would require the development to provide additional parking spaces
consistent with the code.
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0002
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 SVMC (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) identifies the approval criteria for an amendment to Titles 17-27 SVMC.
The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that:
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan
and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies:
LU-GI Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley.
LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,
employees, and visitors.
LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse
impacts associated with transportation corridors
H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels
H-P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial
and regulatory tools.
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
H-P15 Encourage and supportt new projects and programs which seek to assist in
maintaining housing stability or provide exits from homelessness to housing.
Strategy: Develop regulations that provide for the safe, efficient, and equitable
provision of supportive housing services within the City.
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. The City is experiencing
significant growth in multifamily residential development as well as challenges to
meet market rate and affordable housing demand. The proposal ensures reasonable
access to on -site parking for multifamily housing residents and recognizes the
impacts of higher density residential developments on existing residential
neighborhoods. The City is committed to protecting community character while
ensuring continued growth in the housing for all income levels.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.80.150(F).
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0002
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-2022-0002 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.
B. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to adopt regulations to
increase the parking requirement for multifamily residential uses up to two spaces per unit, allow
one space per unit for each unit at or below 80 percent AMI, and clarify that individual garage
spaces, or spaces that require a fee shall not be counted toward meeting the requirements and other
matters related, is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 6 of 6
i
O
a..+
cc
N
O
�
N
6
E
O
a)
N
N
U
O4.0
y� ^
M
O_
cc
Q
Cn
o
O
y
c6
N
0.
_
co
L
U
O
Q
cc
y—
r
KW
c
R
b
v
U
4-
L
l0
�
bn
C
cc
O
N
O O O
73 •N N
t% a
N
W
• 5
���
1'?J
IN
m
■E
cu
2
9
O
E
U
CU
Q
L
�
♦A
C6
0—
Q�
ate--•+
E
i_
0-
-0
i
07
_0
Q
U
Ca
_O
m
O
U
N
>
Ca
C1
O
S=
ate+
7
O
'N
70
70
iN
�
>'
CB
(n
YEA
U
U
>
E
�
O
CB
YaA
Cn
i?
to
O
0-
O
()
Q
N
U
m
O
D
070
Q
O
W
O
N
0
O
0
N
N
O
N
H
U
c
O
co
T
J
U
a
�1
n�
W
E
CL
_0
`W
W
0
.E
VJ
�J
Tf
Q)
>C
Q
U
O
O
O
O
O
U
N
+.
Co
n
O
co
cc
cu
�
c6
cB
O
O
O.
■
C
Z3
El
Lo
10
Ma
0
O
2
3
•E
cu
■
L
a)
L
^n
W
O
N
U-
G
�
�
U
�
O
N
N
O
�
�
�
O
co
O
!L-
7D
X
i
U
N
O
O
R
N
O
N
h
U
nD
c
N
S
U
.O
a
U
A
N
N
O
N
CA
N
AY �I
W
L
Q
cu
`Jcu
I
V
I
O
-0
m
E
L
_O
r
n
.°
N P•h RdW
_
-
N
p
a-
--t
`. lb
J
5 MYdb St
U
U
U
U
CB
(B
C6
LO
LO
U
CB
>
N
�
ate+
U
i
0
N
(n
C6
L
4 -
O
UA
(j)
U
_
LJO(B
Lo
r I
m
m
N
In
m
00
r-I
m
m
N
N
O
N
N
W
(1)�
(1)
0
�
■
�
�
4-0
(1)
CD
�
cr
Q)
w
C
0
�
�
E
i
0
�
�
�
G
m
ff
!
��
00
k
�
k�§z`
{7
/`
/\
\
w
¥\
)
3
ui
\
\%
-
=2�
a
m
a
CL
~
A
$
�
�
\
\
§
§ !
E
5 2 w
=
!
§
}
-
IQ
4 D
I
I
� + /_ \%
5 / CT � U) 4�
\ E 2 � .
0 CT
/
� � � 3 < : \ 2 2
$ % � c- @ 2
@ o U) ® _0 2 � Co
m 0 c
0 2 o m 3 % 2
% 4--
0 % * 2._ ±
o @ _ \ E
® % c a) o =
q m 0 -00
o f
. . .
2
mco
k
5
/
/w
_
o
2
2
I
w
4-1
/
\
0
_
I
/
/
a-
2
-3
�
/
m
/
/
3
+
7
w
5
—
@
k
2
<
.
.
.
a
0
.�
i
m
CL
E
0
CM)
"
2 %
"o
,
�\
37
«
$
£
S C
2
�
�
2
°
5
)
'
/
,
■
00
o
M
}
E
a41
a
)
\
¥
o
�
\
/
%
/
/
?
&
3
)CA
{\
62
\
U
o
u
L.
\
ƒ
u$
a&
/
\
§
cc
to
\
e
_\/o
&
/0
e=®
«C
=
J
)
-/
/
2
f /
®k
J
_ in
/
m
kk/f�
»m
2\
� »
k
/
0
/ \
�
§
/
§
E
k
»_-'
■
®
2
§\k\A2
/
(
\
\
7
/
}
L
»
ƒ
E\
7
$
=
r
_
/
\
J
00
&
7\
/
»o-
eex
/ \
\
co \
\
u
2
m
_
CL
U)Lcc
)
U)
\
7/
/
7
\
7/
kƒ\E\E\
e.
CL
Qaam�a2
0
0
0
0
a-
E
/
\
cL
$f
/�
7\
\
\ / \
0 0 0 0
`.J
I
� J
E
O
3
V
N N
v,
pop V1
ea Q
k,
F?Qri
rC4n���'-'cua
� dkn
a
C5 �
^O
O
O
N
4tC4na
p
N
N
y
V1
O
O
O
suopul0am
c
L
¢'
o
V
a
O
O
C
O
N
tz0
C
's
(6 Ub
Q C
bD Y
— c
bA 0 cn
1 — N U
Cl to c N
(D r`
as
N (0
U p CO U
1]0 C UO
ca O
00 a)'r- U)
N Q CI. UJJ
E
I v I
N O
co
Q a
O O
bD U.0
E OL Lo E o w
O + N O + N cl
(1) a LO m a IO
c N 0o c a>i 00
Gl O E - U X @ Q E U X
to c � (U NN LO co .� coN
Lo
U i O U r— (6 U N O c- (6
co a Q �j o. rH co a o_ ri C,
Cl=3 cn N Q✓ U)
c 0 E E a O c E a
C l0 I, Cc� i C (6
d 7 C1 N O' O co � O00 O
Lc) OOO C:)OO-Q LO O O N
%I =N CY) fl- " '
� i N N U)
O O O O O O O O
U
O
t`
LO
0
II
bD
C
O
0
co
a)
(1)
O
N
U
c
I N
0
N
7
v
L-
a
4-
U
_N
C:
C
-a
Q
—
Q
N
ru
o
U
f0
dA
0
OOC
of
N '�J
-0
O
ON
�
'N
cn
cI
v
N
N
00 �l
i
9�1
1!]
I
N
N
O
N
N
00
F
(1)
a
C
.0
W
V
CY
a
I