2024-06-27 - Agenda PacketSpokane
jValley
Notice and Agenda For Regular Meeting
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM meeting and In Person at:
Spokane Valley City Hall located at 10210 E Sprague Avenue
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Spokane Valley Planning Commission meeting will be held June 27, 2024, beginning at
6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Council Chambers at Spokane Valley City Hall located at 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane
Valley, Washington. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the items listed below on the Agenda.
NOTE: 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:
Public comments will only be accented for those items noted on the agenda as "Public comment" or `Public hearinr." If making a
comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm, the day of the meeting. Please email Planning(a,snokanevallevwa.eov
or call the Planning Commission Secretary at 509-720-5112 to be added to the Zoom speaker list. Otherwise, comments will be taken
in -person at the meeting, as noted on the agenda below:
LINK TO ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION:
https://spokanevallgy.zoom.us/j/86262747051
US: +12532158782„ 86262747051# or+16699006833„86262747051# US
US: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
Meeting ID: 862 6274 7051
AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. COMMISSION REPORTS
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
7. PUBLIC COMMENT: This is an opportunityfor the public to speak on any subject except items listed as public comment
opportunity or public hearing as comments will be taken when those items appear on the agenda.
8. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Findings of Fact: STV-2024-0002 — Hutchinson Rd & Riverside Ave Street Vacation (Presented By Lori
Barlow)
b. Study Session: Periodic Update Overview (Presented By Chaz Bates)
9. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
10. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: June 27, 2024
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: STV-2024-0002
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendations - STV-2024-0002
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately initiated street vacation request to vacate a 60' X
130' segment of Hutchinson Road and a 40' X 270' segment of Riverside Avenue located north
of Sprague Avenue and east of Argonne Avenue.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC);
RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79 RCW
BACKGROUND:
MacPherson Holdings, LLC and CANUSA Land Holdings Corp. have requested to vacate a
portion of Hutchinson and Riverside as described above. The area to be vacated abuts property
owned by MacPherson Holdings, LLC and CANUSA Land Holdings Corp. Riverside is a 40'
wide segment of road lying within 120' of the Argonne and Sprague intersection. The
Hutchinson Road segment intersects with Riverside Avenue with a forced east turn movement.
The paved area of both road segments varies in width from 20' to 40'. The area does not have
curb, gutter or sidewalk and is indistinguishable from the surrounding commercial parking lot.
The total area requested to be vacated is estimated to be 19,092 square feet.
The Hutchinson right-of-way requested to be vacated is adjacent to parcels 45184.9111 and
45184.2263. The Riverside right-of-way requested to be vacated is adjacent to parcels
45184.9111, 45184.2263 and 45184.9112. MacPherson Holdings, LLC and CANUSA Land
Holdings Corp. abut all portions of the right-of-way requested to be vacated.
On May 14, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution 24-008 to set a public hearing date with
the Planning Commission on June 13, 2024. The Planning Commission conducted a study
session on May 23, 2024, and a public hearing on June 13, 2024. On June 13, 2024, the
Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval with the staff conditions of the street
vacation (STV-2024-0002) to the City Council.
OPTIONS: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation or approve the Findings
and Recommendations with changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendation for STV-2024-0002.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings of Fact
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-2024-0002.
A. Background:
1. Chapter 22.140 SVMC, governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and
became effective on October 28, 2007.
2. STV-2024-0002 is a privately initiated street vacation request to vacate a 60' X 130'
segment of Hutchinson Road and a 40' X 270' segment of Riverside Avenue located north
of Sprague Avenue and east of Argonne Avenue.
3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 13, 2024. On
June 13, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted deliberations and voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of STV-2024-0002 to the City Council.
B. Planning Commission Findings:
Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030
1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public.
Riverside Avenue intersects with Argonne Road approximately 120' north of the
intersection of Sprague and Argonne, both principal arterials. SUSS table 7.5 — Minimum
Intersection Spacing for Local Access Streets requires an intersection spacing of 660'.
Intersection spacing is measured from the center of intersection to center of intersection.
In this case, from the center of Riverside Avenue to the center of Sprague Avenue. The
width of parcel #45184.9112, which lies between Riverside Avenue and Sprague Avenue,
is approximately 33'. The intersection spacing does not meet the standard. Eliminating
the intersection increases safety while reducing the opportunity for crashes as vehicles exit
or enter Argonne.
Riverside Avenue is currently paved approximately 20' wide with no curb or gutter;
Hutchinson Road is paved in varying widths up to 40' wide as it extends north toward
Harrington. SUSS table 7.3 Access Street Design Criteria requires the minimum asphalt
width for local access streets to be 30' wide and 40' wide for a commercial local access
street. Widening or restoring city streets is considered a capital improvement project.
Transportation improvements funded and scheduled over the next 20 years are listed on
the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Improvements to Riverside Avenue or
Hutchinson Road are not identified on the TIP. The City cannot require the adjacent
property owners to make improvements to the substandard streets unless development is
proposed. The paved widths do not meet the standard and the City has not identified
improvements to the streets on the TIP. Street widths are designed to address accessibility
and safety. Eliminating the intersection at Riverside and Argonne that allows exiting
vehicles from an arterial at 35 mph onto a narrow street increases safety by reducing
opportunities to vehicle and pedestrian conflicts.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2024-0002 Page l of 5
2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access.
The portion of Riverside Avenue and Hutchinson Road requested to be vacated are used
for access to the business on the north (Ultimate Truck, owned by MacPherson Holdings)
and the business on the west (Hyundai, owned by CANUSA Land Holdings). However, the
main access to Ultimate Truck is from Argonne with some exiting customer and delivery
traffic leaving through Hutchinson. Access to Hyundai occurs through a gate on
Hutchinson. The property has additional access through parcel #45184.1946, which abuts
Harrington, as well as informal access across the railroad to the Sprague Storefront site
on parcel #45184.9186.
The parcel located south of Riverside (Parcel #45184.9112) is currently owned by
CANUSA Land Holdings (Hyundai) but used by Ultimate Truck for display and parking.
The parcel has 33 offrontage on Argonne and 200' offrontage on Riverside and
Sprague. Per the SYSS 7.8.2. b and c properties are restricted to one access point on
arterials, except that when a property has frontage on two or more streets and spacing
requirements cannot be met the driveway approach shall be located on the street with the
lowest classification unless safety considerations dictate. In this case parcel access
would be from Riverside. If Riverside is vacated and the parcel remains, access would be
from Argonne or Sprague. Access from Argonne could not meet the approach widths
requirement noted in SUSS 7.8.5 nor the corner clearance from intersections of 75' in
SYSS 7.8.7.2. Due to the sloped bank between the parcel and improved Sprague access
onto Sprague is not practical.
The applicant has indicated that if the street vacation request is granted that parcel
#45184.9112 would be purchased and consolidated with the northern parcel with
Ultimate Truck. The applicant intends to purchase additional property from CANUSA
that would allow for the acquisition of the vacated ROW and all abutting property. This
would eliminate the access problem as once the parcel is combined it would have access
from Argonne. To preserve access for CANUSA owned properties, an access easement
shall be required.
Water, sewer, gas, electric, and cable lines exist throughout the right-of-way. Each utility
provider has expressed a need for an access and maintenance easement. Their continued
service needs are met if an easement is provided.
3. 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 there is no need for a new or different public way, but that it would improve
public safety if the street intersection and driveway were removed, and a single driveway
were to be constructed. The street functions as a private access for CANUSA and Ultimate
Truck and currently does not meet street standards or driveway separation standards.
Other businesses in the area have either direct access to Argonne, or direct access to
Hutchinson via Main Avenue. So long as access easements are retained for existing
utilities, the public interest is served.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2024-0002 Page 2 of 5
4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need
than presently exists.
Zoning may allow the parcels to develop more intensely. If the street vacation were
granted, and the abutting properties were consolidated into a single parcel, future
development would have safer access from Argonne Road and/or Hutchinson Road.
Properties to the north have direct access to Hutchinson and/or Argonne Road. Vehicles
traveling to those properties with Hutchinson Road frontage will travel south on Argonne
Road, which is a south one way arterial, and turn right on Main Avenue and then
immediately onto Hutchinson Road. Since Argonne is one way, the vacation of Riverside
Avenue will not impact the driving patterns of persons attempting to access properties on
Hutchinson located between Main and Riverside.
5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property
(exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies
or members of the general public.
Notice of the public hearing was made by posting written notice on the City's web page
and at City Hall; 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 the public or governmental agencies were received.
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-2024-0002 subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of the street vacation (STV-2024-0002) shall be completed within 1 year
following the effective date of approval by the City Council, unless otherwise approved by
the City Manager or designee who may grant a one-time extension of 1 additional year if it
is determined that good faith efforts have been undertaken.
2. The vacated property shall be transferred to the owners of the abutting parcels located on
Riverside Avenue (45184.9111, 45184.9112 and 45184.2263) and Hutchinson Road
(45184.9111 and 45184.2263) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with
Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 15. Such property shall become part
of each abutting parcel. Unless, if one abutting property owner wants the full right-of-way,
then a signed and notarized document from the owner forfeiting the right to acquire the right-
of-way after its vacated and authorizing it to go to the other property owner shall be provided.
3. A boundary line elimination shall be included in the record of survey that results in the
consolidation of parcel #45184.9111 and parcel #45184.9112, such that only one parcel
exists at the intersection of Argonne and Sprague. Alternatively, a shared access easement
may be established for parcel #'s 45184.9111. 45184.9112, and 45184.2263 and recorded
with Spokane County Auditor's Office. The AFN shall be shown on the record of survey.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2024-0002 Page 3 of 5
4. An access easement shall be established for parcel #45184.2263 and recorded with Spokane
County Auditor's Office if the record of survey shows the consolidation of
parcel#45184.9111 and #45184-9112. The AFN shall be shown on the record of survey.
5. The adjacent property owner(s) shall purchase from the City the public right of way to be
vacated consistent with Resolution 22-020. The exact cost of purchase shall be determined
by the final square footage of the area to be vacated according to the record of survey.
6. Only one driveway approach shall be permitted at Argonne Road and it shall be located at
the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Argonne Road. The existing curb returns, curb
ramps, and street signs shall be removed and replaced with Type B curb & gutter per Std.
Plan R-102, sidewalk per Std. Plan R-103, and a 30' wide driveway approach per Std. Plan
R-114. The driveway approach shall be installed as far north as possible to increase the
separation distance from Sprague Avenue.
The existing driveway approach serving 15 N. Argonne Road shall be removed and replaced
with Type B curb & gutter and sidewalk per Std. Plans R-102 and R-103, respectively.
8. Construction within Argonne Road right-of-way shall require a Right -of -Way Permit. A site
plan and traffic control plan for the required improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval prior to permit issuance.
9. An approach from Argonne is required from Argonne Road to a drive aisle on site that allows
for through access to Hutchinson Road
a. Access can be gated as long as the gate is 35' from the ROW per City of Spokane
Valley standard plan R-150 so a fire truck does not have to park on Argonne Road;
b. Gates require a Knox padlock or Knox key switch for fire department access to existing
building and hydrant "Emergency Access only sign may be placed on gate facing
Argonne Road.
10. At the intersection of Hutchinson Road and Harrington Avenue, a 30"x30" Dead End sign
(MUTCD W14-1) shall be installed mounted on a steel post per Std. Plan R-141.
11. The applicant shall coordinate with Avista a utility easement for gas and electric services
located in both vacated Riverside Avenue and Hutchinson Road. Easements shall be
recorded and referenced on the final Record of Survey.
12. The applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Hutchinson Irrigation District 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.
13. The applicant shall establish a public sewer easement acceptable to Spokane County Public
Works Wastewater System Division 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.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2024-0002 Page 4 of 5
14. The applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Lumen 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.
15. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a
record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of
Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and
all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future
utilities and services, shall be completed.
16. 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.
17. The Corridor Mixed Use 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.
18. 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.
19. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of
title by the City.
Approved this 1311 day of June, 2024
Planning Commission, Chairman
ATTEST
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2024-0002 Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: June 27, 2024
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Periodic Update Overview
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Growth Management
Act (GMA)
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Findings of Fact recommending adoption of the 2016 update to the
Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, October 20, 2016.
BACKGROUND: On April 17, 2024, the City received notice that it would receive a grant of $325,000 from the
Department of Commerce (DOC) to assist with the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Titles 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Generally these Titles are referred to as Development
Regulations. The City is mandated by state law, RCW 36.70A.130, to review and revise the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Development Regulations every 10 years. This mandated review is otherwise known as the Periodic
Update.
The purpose of the Periodic Update is to ensure that the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
are in compliance with state law, particularly as it relates to land use and planning. In 2022 and 2023 the Washington
State Legislature made some of the most significant changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA) since its
adoption in 1990. This update requires local governments to "plan for and accommodate" housing affordable to all
income levels. This significantly strengthened the previous goal, which was to encourage affordable housing.
The amended law directed the DOC to project future housing needs for jurisdictions by income bracket and made
significant updates to how jurisdictions are to plan for housing in the housing element of their comprehensive plans.
These new changes to local housing elements include:
• Planning for sufficient land capacity for housing needs, including all economic segments of the population
(moderate, low, very low and extremely low income, as well as emergency housing and permanent
supportive housing).
• Providing moderate density housing options within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), including but not limited
to duplexes, triplexes and townhomes.
• Making adequate provisions for housing for existing and projected needs for all economic segments of the
community, including documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability.
• Identifying racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing policies and regulations, and
beginning to undo those impacts; and identifying areas at higher risk of displacement and establishing anti -
displacement policies.
The amended law also requires local jurisdictions to develop and adopt a new Climate Element. This new element
includes two sub -elements to address climate resilience and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. While required
for the periodic update, there is a separate grant available to develop the Climate Element because the funding
source of the climate grant is different from the periodic update grant. As a result, work items need to be carefully
defined to not duplicate grant deliverables from the Periodic Update grant. This grant is also non-competitive, and
allocation is being prioritized to cities with periodic updates due in 2025 and 2026. The maximum grant available
to the City is $700,000.
RPCA for Periodic Update Review Pagel of 2
It should be noted that the WA State Legislature has essentially created a top -down approach to local comprehensive
planning where the State is dictating what development regulations local governments shall adopt. Prior to the
recent legislative changes, the state established broad goals allowing local governments the flexibility to mold their
comprehensive plans and development regulations specific to the local community's needs with state guidance.
Through this periodic update the intent will be to meet the requirements of GMA while tailoring the Comprehensive
Plan as much as possible to protect the character of our community. Unfortunately, there are many requirements
that must be adhered to for the City to have a compliant Comprehensive Plan and supporting development
regulations. It will be crucial for the Planning Commission and staff to clearly understand these requirements to
ensure the citizens recognize what is being mandated by the State. A robust public participation process will be
crucial throughout this update.
Tonight, staff will present information for discussion on the following: overview of local government in land use
planning, required changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, and a general
overview of grant timelines. The overview is not intended to provide suggested amendments or offer solutions, as
these will be developed out of the public engagement process for the Periodic Update.
Both grants require a letter of commitment from the mayor, or authorized official, to complete the application form.
ACTION OR MOTION: None
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings of Fact from October 16, 2016
RPCA for Periodic Update Review Page 2 of 2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE,
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DRAFT EIS
October 20, 2016
A. Backeround•
1. In 2006, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW (the GMA), the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted
its Comprehensive Plan.
2. In 2007, pursuant to the GMA, the City adopted Titles 17 through 24 SVMC as its development
regulations.
3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1) and RCW 36.70A.130(5), the City is required to review, and if
necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations to ensure the
Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations comply with the requirements of the
GMA. The GMA refers to the review as an update and requires the City to complete its update
by June 30, 2017 and every eight years thereafter.
4. The City has prepared the required review and revisions to update its Comprehensive Plan (the
Comprehensive Plan Update) and Titles 17 and 19, including the Zoning Map, of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130 SVMC, and
Appendix A of the SVMC (together the Development Regulation Amendments), which includes
an integrated non -project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Planning
Commission is considering the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated
Development Regulation Amendments pursuant to the requirements of the GMA, SVMC
17.80.140 and SVMC 17.80.150.
B. Mandate to plan under the GMA and to complete a periodic update: The City is required to plan
under the full mandates of the GMA as of the date of its incorporation on March 31, 2003.
Accordingly, the City is required to review and, if necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan and
associated development regulations to ensure they comply with the requirements of the GMA. The
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments meet the City's
requirement to conduct the required update.
C. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (chapter 43.21C RCW):
1. The City is conducting environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the
Development Regulation Amendments pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), and chapter
197-11 WAC. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-210, the City is integrating its environmental review
under SEPA with the update to ensure that environmental analyses under SEPA occur
concurrently with and as an integral part of the City's planning and decision making under GMA.
2. On January 29, 2016, the City made a Determination of Significance for the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments in accordance with SEPA
requirements.
3. Pursuant to the Determination of Significance, the City issued the non -project Draft EIS
September 16, 2016. The non -project Draft EIS is integrated with the Comprehensive Plan
Update consistent with WAC 197-11-210.
4. The Draft EIS includes concise analysis of alternatives and addresses the environmental impacts
associated with its planning decisions at this stage of the planning process. The Draft EIS
considers mitigation of those significant impacts identified as a result of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments.
5. On September 16, 2016, the Draft EIS was sent to agencies listed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS
and made available to the public for comment as required pursuant to WAC 197-11-455.
6. The City is accepting public comment on the Draft EIS concurrently with the public comment
period on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments.
7. A Final EIS shall be issued concurrently with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and
associated Development Regulation Amendments.
D. Public Participation: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the City has provided opportunities for early
and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associated Development Regulations that included broad dissemination of proposals and
alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for
open discussion communication programs, information services and consideration and response to
public comments. These opportunities included the following specific steps:
1. The City Council adopted a public participation program on January 6, 2015.
2. The Planning Commission conducted and or participated in the following meetings:
a. Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015;
b. Planning Commission study session, public hearings, and recommendation of Citizen Action
Requests on April 23, May 14, and June 8, 2015;
c. Joint City Council and Planning Commission interactive workshop on May 3, 2016;
d. Planning Commission study sessions on various components of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and Development Regulation Amendments on April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9,
June 23, July 14, July 28, August 11, and August 25, 2016;
e. Open house for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and
Draft EIS on September 8, 2016;
f. Planning Commission study session on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 22, 2016;
g. Planning Commission public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 29 and October 6, 2016, after proper
public notice; and
h. Planning Commission deliberation and recommendation on Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on October 6 and October 13, 2016.
3. Planning Commission received 32 written and 54 oral public comments at the properly noticed
public hearing on September 29 and October 6, 2016. All comments received up to
October 6, 2016, have been duly considered by the Planning Commission.
4. The Planning Commission deliberated on all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS in open public meetings on October 6,
2016 and October 13, 2016.
E. Review by Washington State Department of Commerce: Pursuant to GMA requirements, the
Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS were submitted to
the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 16, 2016.
F. Comprehensive Plan Update and Draft EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC
17.80.140, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to the Comprehensive
Plan Update and Draft EIS:
1. Consistency with County -Wide Planning Policies:
a. Spokane County (the County) has adopted its Countywide Planning Policies as a regional
framework for comprehensive planning pursuant to the GMA.
b. The Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments are
consistent with the County's Countywide Planning Policies. Each chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan includes references to applicable Countywide Planning Policies.
2. Consideration of Natural Resource Lands:
a. The City has not changed its designation of agricultural and forest resource lands pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.170. The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for
agricultural or forest resource lands.
b. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.131, the City has reviewed its mineral resource lands designations
as part of the update. Specifically, the City has requested and reviewed data from the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Department of Natural Resources)
relating to mineral deposits within the City. While the City has existing mining and mineral
extraction operations within the City limits, any lands with mineral deposits within the City
are already characterized by urban growth and do not meet the RCW or WAC criteria for
having long-term significance for the extraction of minerals. Accordingly, designation of
such areas as mineral resource lands pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 is not appropriate as
further described in the Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. Consideration of Critical Areas:
a. Consistent with RCA 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City considered and updated its critical areas
ordinances. Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan Update is entitled "Natural Environment
Element" and designates critical areas within the City, including wetlands, fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and areas
with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water.
b. The designation of critical areas in Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan Update
incorporates best available science and complies with guidelines in chapter 365-195 WAC.
Section 1.5 of the Draft EIS describes recent efforts that occurred as part of the City's
adoption of its Shoreline Master Program to identify, designate, and protect critical areas as
they relate to shoreline areas in accordance with best available science. The documents and
science used to ensure no net loss of ecological function of critical areas within shoreline
jurisdiction were extended to critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction as part of this
update in order to afford at least the same level of protection.
4. Required Elements of the Comprehensive Plan: Compliance with GMA:
a. The Comprehensive Plan Update includes all elements required by the GMA:
- Economic Development Element
- Land Use Element
- Transportation Element
- Housing Element
- Capital Facilities Element
- Private and Public Utilities Element
- Parks and Open Space Element
Further, as described above, the City has included the Natural Environment Element, which
includes required consideration of natural resource lands and critical areas. In 2015, the City
adopted its Shoreline Master Program pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, which is also
considered in the Natural Environment Element chapter. The Shoreline Master Program is
adopted and incorporated by reference in the Natural Environment Element.
b. The Comprehensive Plan Update is internally consistent. The relationship of each chapter to
other chapters is addressed in "The Comprehensive Planning Framework" section of Chapter
One, Introduction and Vision.
c. The Comprehensive Plan Update and each Element is consistent with and includes the
standards and requirements of the GMA.
d. The Comprehensive Plan Update meets the requirements of the City's required periodic
review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610.
5. Concurrencv: The Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Element require that new
development be served with adequate facilities and services at the time of development or within
a specified time frame and further calls of the implementation of a concurrency management
system for transportation, water, and sewer facilities. Growth, existing and future levels of
service, concurrency, and financing are all considerations addressed.
6. Urban Growth Areas:
a. Consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City analyzed the population allocated to the
City from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the office of financial management.
Specifically, consistent with Countywide Planning Policies, in 2009, the County allocated to
the City a portion of the growth projected within the County. Subsequently, in 2013, the
County adopted a different population projection that was greater than the projection adopted
in 2009. The County's resolution adopting its new population projection was challenged and
the Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the resolution. In 2015, the Court of
Appeals upheld the Growth Management Hearings Board decision. In November 2015, the
Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) voted to recommend a new population
forecast and allocation consistent with the Washington State Office of Financial Management
medium forecast for 2037. The City has determined that it has sufficient land capacity and
availability to meet projected growth under either the County's 2009 allocation or the
SCEO's 2015 recommended allocation.
b. The City, in the development of the Comprehensive Plan Update, reviewed the densities
allowed under the City's existing plan and those proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Update
and Development Regulation Amendments and confirmed that the City can accommodate the
projected population growth under either scenario. Accordingly, the City does not propose
expanding urban growth areas to accommodate its population. The City has considered and
included policies within the Comprehensive Plan Update to assess opportunities to annex
lands within the existing urban growth areas.
7. Land Use Maus: The Comprehensive Plan Update includes a detailed map identifying all
categories of land use within the City and its urban growth area boundaries (the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map).
8. Relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: The City has
considered the effect of the Comprehensive Plan Update upon the physical environment, open
space, streams, rivers, and lakes; the impact on neighborhoods and compatibility with and
consistency of all land uses within the City; the adequacy and impact on community facilities,
including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; the benefit to City
and region; the quantity and location of various types of land uses and density and demand for
such land; the current and projected population within the City; and the cumulative effect of each
Element within the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Planning Commission finds the
Comprehensive Plan Update bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment.
G. Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130
and SVMC 17.80.150, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to the
Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS:
1. Consideration of Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas:
a. The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for agricultural or forest
resource lands and has not changed its designations.
b. The City has not identified any applicable Department of Natural Resources or Commerce
model development regulations for mineral resource lands. Although the City has existing
mining and mineral extraction operations, the City has determined that designation of mineral
resource lands is not appropriate at this time, as further described in the Comprehensive Plan
Update. While the City has not designated any mineral resource lands, the Development
Regulation Amendments do contain provisions to allow the continuation of the existing
mining and mineral extraction operations.
c. The City has designated critical areas. The Development Regulation Amendments include
amendments to chapter 21 A0 SVMC, Critical Areas to protect such critical areas pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.060. The amendments to chapter 21.40 SVMC incorporate best available
science and comply with guidelines in chapter 365-195 WAC.
2. Required Development Regulations: Upon adoption of the Development Regulation
Amendments, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall be consistent with and implement the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with the
requirements of the GMA and meet the requirements of the City's required periodic review
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610.
3. Land Use Maps: The Development Regulation Amendments include a detailed map consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifying all land use zoning within the City.
4. SVMC 17.80.150:
a. The Planning Commission finds the Development Regulation Amendments are consistent
with and implement the Comprehensive Plan Update.
b. The Planning Commission finds the Development Regulation Amendments bear a substantial
relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment.
H. Planning Commission Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments: During its deliberations on October 6 and October 13, 2016, Planning
Commission considered the identified areas of focus that came from the community visioning
sessions, City Council goals, and public comments, as well as other considerations, and agreed to
recommend several changes to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation
Amendments. The proposed changes are described in further detail below:
1. Add a policy in Chapter 2 - Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods for
upgrades and new parks. This change allows the City to set an example for its citizens through
water conservation and usage on publicly owned parks property.
2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family
Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Out of
86 total public comments received to October 6, 2016, 68 were with regard to these four parcels.
The Comprehensive Plan Update would designate these four parcels Multifamily Residential and
the Development Regulation Amendments would apply a corresponding Multifamily zoning. Of
the 68 comments, 64 comments were against the Multifamily designation. The comments
reflected a desire to maintain the four parcels as SFR and R-3 to maintain the current character of
the neighborhood. Further, the comments highlighted concern that the traffic infrastructure
currently is not sufficient to meet impacts from multifamily within the area. Planning
Commission agreed that a change to SFR and R-3 will maintain the character of the
neighborhood and that the traffic infrastructure is currently not sufficient to meet the impacts
from multifamily.
3. Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of
Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the
same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). These parcels are adjacent to the parcels
described in (H)(2) above, and Planning Commission believed that until the traffic infrastructure
is improved, an SFR designation and R-3 zoning is appropriate in this area. Further, the current
uses are primarily single family homes and so this change will maintain the character of the
neighborhood.
4. Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be
inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial
accessory dwelling is located. Planning Commission acknowledges the benefit of an industrial
accessory dwelling unit to the owner/operator and its employees for those instances where it is
beneficial for them to live in the same facility in which they are manufacturing goods, but had
concerns that without a limitation on who could use such industrial accessory dwelling unit, there
was potential for projects to become multifamily dwelling uses instead of industrial uses.
5. Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings —
supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling —
supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC for consideration through a separate future code
text amendment process. Planning Commission acknowledges this is a new type of residential use
for the City to consider. Accordingly, it believes that it is appropriate to consider this issue and
type of use separately from the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments to give more detailed attention to the potential impacts, benefits, and
appropriate regulations for such use.
6. Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a
maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the
Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone. This change will provide further buffer between single
family residential and commercial zones and uses by limiting the multifamily density and
multifamily building height to the current density and height standards.
7. Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a
multifamily or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single
family residential use. This change will further protect single family residential uses from
impacts of multifamily, regardless of which zone the single family use is in. There are numerous
single family uses in multifamily zones.
All of these recommended changes are within the range of alternatives in the Draft EIS and will either
not create additional impacts or will reduce impacts identified therein.
I. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS meet the requirements of the GMA and SEPA and therefore
approval is appropriate.
I Recommendation: After reviewing and considering the Draft EIS, the Comprehensive Plan Update,
the Development Regulation Amendments, and public comment received, the Spokane Valley
Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Update and
Development Regulation Amendments, and consider the Draft EIS, with the following changes
proposed by Planning Commission at its October 6 and October 13, 2016 meetings:
1. Add a policy in Chapter 2 - Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods for
upgrades and new parks.
2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family
Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).
3. Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of
Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the
same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).
4. Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be
inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial
accessory dwelling is located.
5. Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings —
supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling —
supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC for consideration through a separate future code
text amendment process.
6. Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a
maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the
Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone.
7. Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a
multifamily or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single
family residential use.
Approved this 201 day of October, 2016.
J4"X A4�
Heather Graham, Chairman
ATTEST
Deann Horton, Planning Commission Secretary
Periodic Update Revie
1■t '1 ON ��r
lIll ■ :
Name: Chaz Bates
wo Date: June 27 2024
AK AWL AMAW
A imp ff,
1
,v
Spokane
Valley
Overview of Local
Planning
Processes
Government in
6/27/2024
Planning Process -Many Influences
► Local concerns and desires
► State and federal laws
► Court decisions
► Demographics
► Historical land use patterns
► Economy
► New trends and events
Stage
Prepare to plan
Understand current
challenges
Develop alternatives
Plan city-wide
Implement the plan
6/27/2024
Engagement Process
Longer term
More general
More public input
Near term
More detailed
Less public
influence
� 1 T
0
r
i
9
T
v� }
LI
k,
5
:7D
silt:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Spokane
Planning Division
v�jl�y
STAFF REMIUF ANO NOTICE OR DECISION
FILE No: SHP-2024-0003
STAPP REPORT DATE: March 27, 2024
REPORT PREPARED BY: Martin Palaniuk, Associate Planner, Planning Division
REPORT REv1Ew BY: Chaz Bates, AICP. Planning Manager. Planning Division
PROPOSAL Divide 22,000 square feel into few residential lots.
PROPOSAL LOCATION: Tax parcel number 55074.0883, addressed ae 2109 N Barker Road.
OWNER: Daniel Betz & Nikko Humphry, 2509 S Man O War Lane, Veradale, WA 99037
APPLICANT: Malt Kelly, Simpson Engineers, Inc, 909 N Argonne Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99212
SURVEYOR: Simpson Engineers, Inc, 909 N Argonne Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99212
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
1. Comprehensive Plan
2 Title 19 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) - (Zoning Regulations)
3. Title 20 SVMC -(Subdivision Regulations)
4, Title 21 SVMC-(Environmental Controls)
5. Chapter 22.20 SVMC- (Concurrency)
6. City of Spokane Valley Standard fm Road and Sewer Construction Ordinance
7. Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual
8. Spokane Regional Health District Regulations
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibith Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2: Preliminary Short Plat Submittal
Exhibit 3: Determination of Completeness
Exhibit 4: Notice of .Application
Exhibit 5: Agency CAmments
Exhibit 6: Development Engineering Traffic Menro
Exhibit 7: Preliminary Plat Map of Record
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The short subdivision will divide a single 22,000-square-foot lot into four residential Iota. The site is
on the southwest comer of E Riverway Avenue and Barker Road. The property is legally described
as a portion of Block "B" of Plat "A" of Greenacres Irrigation District and was platted in 1904. The
Preliminary plat map shows a single-family house that will remain on Lot 2.
The property will be subdivided into four lots. Lot 2 thru 4 will front on to Riverway Avenue and
take direct access to this street through an approach and driveway on each lot. Lot i will take access
to Barker Road through a single approach and driveway. Riverway Avenue is a local access street
and frontage improvements will be required consisting of curbs, gutters, stornwater swale, and a 5-
&dottpM aid Noace of Denvae for SHP-20N-0003
Mwd 27,2024
Agsl
Quasi-Judicial
Administrative
and
Process
Applying the Law
► Applies adopted policy/development
regulations to specific permit application
► Ensures permit application comply with the law
► Conditions applied in individual situations
► Public hearing notices are broad -based, but
also site -specific
8
Overview of Local
Planning
Key Players
Government in
6/27/2024
Participants in
Planning
► Residents
► Staff
► Elected officials
► Planning Commission
► Hearing Examiner
► Property Owners (neighbors and developers)
10
Required changes to Comprehensive
Plan and Development Regulations
• Climate Element
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• Middle Housing
• Housing for All Incomes
Reference Table: Who Must Create a Comprehensive Plan Climate Element
All fully planning cities and counties must adopt a climate change element. For 11 of the state's largest and
fastest -growing counties [see table below] and their cities with a population greater than 6,000, as of April 1,
2021; the full scope of new requirements includes adoption of a climate element with both a GHG emissions
reduction sub -element and a resilience sub -element.
For those fully planning jurisdictions not listed below, only the resilience sub -element is mandatory. However,
depending on their population and location, they may also have to update other mandatory comprehensive
plan elements, such as transportation and land use? Refer to Commerce's grant guidance for detailed
applicability.
O Benton X
O Clark X
O Franklin X
O King
O Khsap
O Pierce
O Skagit X
O Snohomish
O Spokane X
Thurston
O Whatcom X
6/27/2024
Climate Element
House Bill 1181
► Signed into law in 2023
► Requires City to have a climate element
► Climate Element must
► Include a resilience sub -element
► Include a greenhouse gas emission
X *Note: Thejurisdictions with the first
implementation progress reports due in sub -element
X 2029 are only required to update two
end drtacltheeelement(geelement
house ► Maximize economic, environmental,
x andaddaclimate element (greenhouse
gas emissions reductions sub -element �+
and a resilience sub -element). and social co —benefits to avoid
X worsening environmental health
disparities
12
Section 4: GHG Emissions Reduction Sub -element
4.1: Overview
Washington's cities and counties should use this GHG emissions reduction
(GHG reduction) sub -element planning guidance to measure, reduce, and
eliminate local GHG emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
via comprehensive plan goals and policies. The sub -element should be
developed with an overall target of reaching net -zero emissions by 2050.d9
When tracking progress, targets should be evaluated on a total and per
capita basis so that progress is not masked by population growth.
Mitigation measures should, at a minimum, include goals and policies
within the following sectors: Transportation; Buildings & Energy; and,
Zoning & Development. These are the sectors where local action can make
the biggest impact.
Commerce's Menu of Measures includes polices with a demonstrated ability to reduce emissions. Such
mitigation measures — which are within local jurisdictions' authority to implement via development
regulations and other actions — will help make Washington more resilient by reducing the rate and extent of
climate change.
Cities and counties should select measureable policies with a clear path to local implementation. Progress on
meeting GHG reduction sub -element requirements will be assessed on both how much emissions have
declined over time, and on whether the policies were implemented.
4.2: GHG Reduction Guidance
Minimum Requirements for Developing a GHG Emissions Reduction Sub -element:
HB718150 requires that a city or county's GHG reduction sub -element and its related development regulations
must identify the actions the jurisdiction will take during the planning cycle that will:
Requirement 1: Result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions generated by transportation and
land use within the jurisdiction but without increasing emissions elsewhere in Washington;
Requirement 2: Result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction but without
increasing greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in Washington; and,
Requirement 3: Prioritize reductions that benefit overburdened communities in order to maximize the co -
benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice.
Climate Element
Submelements
► Resilience sub -element
► Include goals and polices to improve climate
preparedness, response and recovery efforts.
► Preparing for natural hazards (flood, fire,
drought)
► Greenhouse gas emissions sub -element
► Include goals, policies, and regulations that
identify actions that:
► Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
► Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
► Prioritize reductions that benefit
overburdened communities
6/27/2024 13
Accessory Dwelling
Units
House Bill 1337
► Signed into law in 2023
► Applies to all cities fully planning under GMA
► Requires City to amend its regulations to:
► Allow 2 ADUs per lot
► Allow ADUs within accessory buildings
► Allow on lot line when abutting an alley
► The City may:
► Limit ADUs based on critical areas
► Prohibit ADUs if public sewer is not available
► Restrict ADUs used as short-term rentals
6/27/2024
Accessory Dwelling
A
U n i t s
Other preemptive provisions
► The City cannot:
► Prohibit the sale of an ADU
► Require owner occupancy
► Require street improvements
► Require maximum size less than 1,000 sq ft
► Impose design requirements more restrictive
than primary dwellings
► Require more off-street parking than
► 0 spaces ='/2 mile of "major transit stop"
► 1 space = lots < 6,000 sq ft
► 2 spaces = lots > 6,000 sq ft
X
6/27/2024
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
Cities with populations less than 25
Cities with population of at least 25k
that are within a contiguous urban
Cities with population of at least
and but less than 75k
growth area with the largest city in z
75k
county with a population more thar
I
275,000
-
Seattle 737,015 Redmond 73,256
Kenmore 23,914
Spokane
228,989
Marysville
70,714
Tukwila
21,798
Tacoma
219,346
Sammamish
Lakewood
67,455
63,612
Mukilteo
Mountlake
21,538
21,286
Vancouver
190,915
Terrace
Bellevue
151,854
Richland
60,560
Mill Creek
20,926
Kent
136,588
Shoreline
58,608
Covington
20,777
Everett
110,629
Olympia
55,392
Arlington
19,868
Renton
106,785 Lacey
53,526
Washougal
17,039
Spokane Valley
102,976
Burien
Bothell
52,066
48,161
Port Orchard
Lake Forest
15,587
13,630
Federal Way
101,030
Park
Yakima
96,968
Bremerton
43,505
Woodinville
13,069
Kirkland
92,175
Puyallup
Edmonds
42,937
42,853
Newcastle
Edgewood
13,017
12,327
Bellingham
91,482
Auburn
87,256
Issaquah
40,051
Liberty Lake
12,003
Kennewick
83,921
Lynnwood
I Lake Stevens
38,568
35,630
Fife
Airway Heights
10,999
10,757
Pasco
77,108
Middle Housing
House Bill 1110
► Signed into law 2023
► Three tiers of applicability:
► Tier 1: cities with pop >75,000
► Tier 2: cities with pop >25,000 but <75,000
► Tier 3: <25,000 within a UGA for largest city
and with county pop >275,000
► City population is 107,400 (April 1, 2023)
► Unless higher densities or intensities apply Tier 1
requires:
► 4 du/lot
► 6 du/lot if within '/4 mile major transit stop* or if
2 units are affordable
16
Duplex Side -by -Side
Cottage Housing
Multiplex Medium
Duplex Stacked
Townhouse Medium
Multiplex Medium
Middle Housing
Additional preemptive provisions
► Must allow a range of housing types (6 of the 9)
► Duplex through six-plex, townhomes, stacked
flats, courtyard apartments, cottage housing
► Unit density: minimum number of dwelling units on a
lot (versus dwelling units per acre)
► Development regulations cannot be more restrictive
for middle housing than single family dwellings
► Require more off-street parking than
► 0 spaces ='/2 mile of major transit stop*
► 1 space = lots < 6,000 sq ft
► 2 spaces = lots > 6,000 sq ft
*Different definition from ADU for "major transit stop"
17
Housing for All
House Bill 1220
► Signed into law 2021
► Changed the housing goal from encourage
affordable housing to "plan for and
accommodate" affordable housing
► Requires to City to:
► Plan for sufficient land capacity for housing
► Provide for middle housing types
► Make provisions that meeting existing and
project housing needs for all income
segments
► Identify and address racially disparate
impacts of housing policy
6/27/2024
&
Needs by County (Medium OFM
Housing for All
Additional provisions
► Requires City to allow emergency shelters,
transitional housing, emergency housing, and
permanent supportive housing
► City adopted provisions in 2022
(Chapter 19.45 SVMC)
► Requires WA Dept of Commerce to provide
existing and future housing needs for all
income brackets, and for emergency housing,
emergency shelters and permanent supportive
housing
► Counties and cities then work to allocate
these housing needs by income
Adams
1,753
276
200
197
333
127
88
532
19
Asotin
1,360
207
218
461
142
63
57
212
35
Benton
35,822
4,037
2,597
6,371
4,319
2,718
3,082
12,698
130
Chelan
10,032
1,226
912
1,725
1,678
803
728
2,960
294
Clallam
5,847
1,654
751
1,504
712
246
186
794
437
Clark
103,475
12,030
7,393
16,188
15,661
9,011
6,534
34,658
3,821
Columbia
98
48
30
20
0
0
0
0
1
Cowlitz
10,000
2,704
1,378
2,425
872
409
423
1,789
173
Douglas
6,755
912
0
826
1,095
573
668
2,681
33
Ferry
184
110
54
20
0
0
0
0
22
Franklin
20,608
1,786
1,804
2,408
3,729
1,935
1,717
7,229
150
Garfield
82
63
6
13
0
0
0
0
2
Grant
17,185
1,743
813
2,448
3,039
1,449
1,382
6,311
93
Grays Harbor
4,152
1,797
1,113
1,183
41
18
0
0
188
Island
8,475
970
833
1,754
1,476
689
654
2,099
262
Jefferson
3,985
1,599
247
558
444
174
221
742
556
King
336,591
84,873
42,993
50,971
25,309
17,395
19,734
95,316
59,616
Kitsap
24,066
5,494
2,646
4,589
3,144
1,393
1,365
5,435
1,280
Kittitas
5,217
1,870
570
1,011
352
271
261
882
0
Klickitat
2,319
565
135
476
337
85
145
576
89
Lewis
5,598
1,799
890
1,133
618
220
170
768
478
Lincoln
203
0
117
80
0
6
0
0
1
Mason
7,848
1,009
1,048
1,499
995
442
547
2,308
89
Okanogan
2,036
875
445
379
160
51
19
107
98
Pacific
1,399
954
217
144
55
5
4
20
255
Pend Oreille
911
221
84
146
146
58
43
213
0
Pierce
135,652
16,098
20,142
22,874
20,255
9,624
8,776
37,883
7,218
San Juan
3,097
560
48
500
418
250
252
1,069
34
Skagit
16,914
2,811
1,607
2,817
2,418
1,282
1,136
4,843
281
Skamania
1,672
569
61
169
190
145
150
388
63
6/27/2024
GRANT TIMELINE OVERVIEW
UNDER
CONTRACT
Apply for grant and
finalize contract with WA
Commerce.
CONSULTANT
SERVICES
Select and finalize
contract with selected
consultant(s)
BEGIN UPDATE
Exact scope and timeline
to be developed with
selected consultant(s).
NEW CONTRACT
End of state biennium
new contract required to
complete update
BEGIN ADOPTION
Expected end of public
workshops and final draft
for adoption process.
ADOPTION
Final drafts as
recommended from
Planning Commission
delivered to City Council.
6/27/2024 20
� its I its its � I - - � ��LI � ., .Y ��• � � � � \'I
• I
-$}.n .� • •—i - VALLEY
``•II �� i e mil■
T IMF I
/ °o••. l
THANK YOU! ANY QUESTIONS?
6/27/2024 �2