Agenda 11/08/2012 S�'TYol�ane
p
Valle �
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
November 8, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11, 2012, October 25, 2012
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
l. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
a. Deliberations: Shoreline Master Program—Restoration Plan
2. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing—CTA-04-12 Batch code amendments to Title 19.
Standards for Home Occupations, Accessory Dwelling Units,
Recreational Vehicles, and residential development in commercial and
mixed use zones, and Manufactured Homes in MH subdivisions.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR 70HN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
JOHN G.CARROLL
RUSTiN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: November 8, 2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent � old business ❑new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin.repoi�t ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Deliberations—Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act(SMA)under RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was held on October ll, 2012 and a public hearing
was conducted on October 25, 2012.
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed a Draft Restoration
Plan for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Restoration Plan is the fourth phase of the Shoreline
Update Process, and is required by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Washington
Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-201(2)(�)identifies the required elements for the plan.
The Restoration Plan establishes overall goals and objectives for citywide shoreline restoration efforts. It
addresses degraded areas and impaired ecological functions identified in the inventory and analysis
report, identifies and prioritizes restoration opportunities, and prescribes generalized treatment options
for various restoration scenarios. The Plan also identifies current and ongoing programs that contribute
to achieving these goals, as well as additional projects or programs necessary for success. Lastly, this
plan seeks to develop a draft implementation strategy, including funding options,proposed timelines, an
adaptive management strategy, and benchmarks. The plan is based on the inventory and analysis report
and a review of other plans and assessments aimed at improving the ecological health of the Spokane
River and Shelley Lake.
A public hearing was conducted on the Draft Restoration Plan on October 25, 2012. No comments were
received. The Commission opted to continue deliberations to the November 8, 2012 meeting when all
Commissioners would be present. At this time the Planning Commission should complete deliberations
and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Draft Plan was previously provided for review.
Attorney Tadas Kisielius reviewed the Draft Restoration Plan prior to the Technical Review Group. His
input was incorporated in to the draft at that time. Since no substantial comments have been received, he
has not provided written comments. He is not expected to attend Commission deliberations.
NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on October 5,
2012. The notice was consistent with the applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80150D.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 de�ne the process for approval of an SMP
and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented, recommend approval with
modi�cations,recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the Draft Restoration Plan be accepted as
presented.
1 of 2
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Restoration Plan—Previously provided.
2. Jeremy Sikes,DOE, email dated October 1,2012—Previously provided
3. Robin Bekkedahl,Avista email dated September 28,2012—Previously provided
2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: November 8, 2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business � new business
� public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-04-12
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40, 19.60, and 19.70 to clarify home occupations in nonresidential zones;
clarify Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify Recreational Vehicle (RV) use
in nonresidential zones; establish residential development standards in nonresidential zones; allow "used"
manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 1930.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was conducted with the planning commission on
October 25, 2012.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the following areas in the SVMC:
1. Home occupations in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
2. Accessory Dwelling Units in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
3. Recreational Vehicles in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
4. Residential development standards in the Mixed Use Center and Corridor Mixed Use zones;
5. Manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions.
Draft amendment language to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70 has been included in
Attachment A of the Request for Planning Commission Action(RPCA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Make a motion the planning commission forward the
proposed code text amendment as recommended by staff to the city council for approval.
STAFF CONTACT:
Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-04-12
CTA-04-12 RPCA for Public Hearing
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
�`pok,arle
�T�Il�� STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-04-12
STAFF REPORT DATE: October 31, 2012
HEAx�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: November 8, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
PxorosaL DESCxirTioN: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.60 to clarify home occupations in nonresidential zones; clarify Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify Recreational Vehicle (RV) use in non-residential
zones; establish residential development standards in nonresidential zones; establish standards
for manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions.
PxoPOlvE1vT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave,
Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
APPxovAL C�uTEx�A: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions.
SUMMARY oF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission
forward the code text amendment as proposed by staff to the city council for approval.
STAFF PLANNER Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Community Development Department
REVIEwED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70
Exhibit 2: SVMC Table 19.40-1
Exhibit 3: Community Development Director Interpretation
Exhibit 4: Manufactured Housing Legislation Overview
Exhibit 5: Home Occupation Standards
Exhibit 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following summarizes application procedures for the proposal.
Process Date
Pre-Application Meeting: N/A
Application Submitted: N/A
Determination of Completeness: N/A
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12
Process Date
Published Notice of Public Hearing: 10/19/2012 and 10/26/2012
Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 10/24/2012
Posted Notice of Public Hearing 10/24/2012
2. PxoPOSAL BACxGxoulvn: The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
19.40, District Purpose and Supplemental Use Regulations—Residential Zones, SVMC 19.60,
District Purpose and Supplemental Use Regulations—Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Zones,
and SVMC 19.70, District Purpose and Supplemental Use Regulations—Industrial Zones. The
following areas have not been fully addressed in the SVMC and require clarification. A brief
description of the issue together with the intent of the proposed amendment is provided below:
Manufactured Homes in Manufactured Home Subdivisions
Issue: The code requires all manufactured homes placed on individual lots to be "new". SVMC
defines "new" as not previously titled or set on a property. Manufactured home subdivisions
contain individual lots but are designed specifically to accommodate a manufactured home
community. In most cases all the homes within the subdivision are manufactured homes. As
written,the SVMC would not permit placing a"used"manufactured home within a manufactured
home subdivision.
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a"used"manufactured home to be placed within a
manufactured home subdivision. The amendment would require double-wide manufactured
homes be placed in subdivisions with predominantly double-wide homes and would allow single-
wide manufactured homes in subdivisions with predominantly single-wide homes.
Home Occupations
Issue: It is unclear whether a home occupation is permitted in a residence established in a
nonresidential zone. Home occupations are a permitted accessory use allowed in all residential
zones. The code provisions addressing home occupation is contained in the residential section of
Title 19 but is not addressed in the commercial,mixed use, office or industrial sections. CMU
and MUC zones allow dwellings and legally established dwellings e�st in other nonresidential
zones.
Intent of Code Text Amendment Clarify the status of home occupations in the nonresidential
zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing a home occupation to occur in
any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone.
Residential Development in MUC and CMU zones
Issue: Mixed use zones permit single-family and multi-family residential development however,
the mixed use section of the SVMC does not contain development standards for residential
development. These standards include density, lot width, lot depth,building height, lot coverage,
setback and open space requirements. In the absence of any standard the MF-2 zone standard for
density has been applied in the past together with a Community Development Director
Interpretation with respect to setbacks. (See attachment)
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Provide a residential development standard for residential
development in the MUC and CMU zone. The proposed amendment will refer to the MF-2
standard contained in SVMC 19.40 as the standard for residential development in the MUC and
CMU zones. The setback standards contained in the Director's Interpretation are added for
consistency with past development.
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12
Accessory Dwelling Units
Issue: It is unclear whether an accessory dwelling unit is permitted accessory to a single-family
residence established in a nonresidential zone. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) are permitted in
all the residential zoning districts. ADUs are addressed in the residential section of Title 19 but
they are not addressed in the commercial,mixed use, office, or industrial sections. CMU and
MUC zones allow single-family dwellings.
Intent of Code Text Amendment Clarify the status of accessory dwelling units in the
nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing an ADU to occur
at any single-family residence that has been legally permitted in the MUC and CMU zone.
Recreational Vehicles
Issue: The use of Recreational Vehicles in association with residential uses is addressed in the
residential section of the SVMC. Residential uses are permitted in mixed use zones and also
occur as legal uses in other nonresidential aones. The SVMC does not address RV use outside of
the residential section.
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow the use of RVs at legally permitted residences in
nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment establishes that an RV can be parked at a
residence in a noncommercial zone consistent with the restrictions on RV use found in the
residential zones.
Staff's recommended draft code text language to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70
has been included in Attachment A of the Request for Planning Commission Action (RPCA).
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it�nds that
(1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies
of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses, providing
affordable housing options, maintaining a fle�ble and consistent regulatory
environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below:
Land Use Goal LUG-9: Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster
community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional
transit.
Land Use Policy LUP-9.2: The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor
Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include:
• A full range of retail goods and services including grocery stores,
theaters/entertainment,restaurants,personal services and specialty shops;
• Public/quasi-public uses
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12
• Commercial uses that require large land uses but ha�e low employment density
and are auto-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries, warehouses and
auto dealerships, should be prohibited from either Mixed-use category.
Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the
residents of the community and region.
Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations
on the cost of housing.
Housing Policy HP-12: Streamline the development review process and strive to
eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses.
Housing Policy HP-1.3: Establish development regulations and incentives for greater
diversity of housing types, costs and designs, that may include bonus incentives,
clustering, and transfer of development rights.
Housing Policy HP-1.4: Encourage mixed-use residentiaUcommercial development
in designated areas throughout the City with the use of developer incentives and
design standards.
Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,
consistency,predictability and clear direction.
Economic Policy EDP-7.: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to
promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes
to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious.
Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure
clarity, consistency and predictability.
Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's
residential neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Policy NP-2.L Maintain and protect the character of existing and
future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the
City's land use regulations and j oint planning.
Neighborhood Policy NP-22: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use
regulations to provide for innovation and fle�bility in the design of new residential
developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-�ll development.
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment
Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare
and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide increased
affordable housing options, expand home occupations, and establish a more
consistent regulatory environment.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12
b. Conclusion(s):
Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type N application and has
been deemed sufficient for this proposaL No concerns are noted.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
c. Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has
been deemed sufficient for this proposaL No concerns are noted.
C. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable
approval criteria, recommends the proposal to allow home occupations and temporary RV use in all
zoning districts with a legally permitted residence; to allow accessory dwelling units in all aoning
districts that permit single-family dwellings; to establish residential development standards in the
CMU and MUC zones; and to allow "used" manufactured homes in manufactured home
subdivisions.
Allowing used manufactured homes to be placed in manufactured home subdivisions will increase
affordable housing options. Consistency with the type and size of predominant homes found in the
subdivision would be preferred.
Home occupations are permitted in any legally established dwelling in all residential zones.
Allowing a home occupation to occur in legally permitted residence regardless of zone provides
residents with flexibility in housing decisions and provides a use normally associated with a
dwelling.
MUC and CMU zones permit residential development. Establishing residential development
standards for these zones will provide regulatory consistency and certainty for future development.
Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted as an accessory use to a single-family residence. Allowing
ADUs in CMU and MUC zones will provide property owners with increased housing options and
may result in more affordable housing.
Temporary RV use is permitted in all residential zones. RVs are typically used in residential areas
when visiting family or friends. Allowing temporary RV use at any residence regardless of zone
will provide flexibility and consistency to residents.
E. RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-04-12 to the
City Council.
or
I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-04-12 to the
City Council with the following proposed changes:
(then the changes must be stated here.....)
Page 5 of 5
Table 19.40-1
—Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet)
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD
Single-Family Lot Underlying
40,000 10,000 7,500 6,000 3,600 2,000
Area/Dwelling Unit zone
Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling
6,000 5,000
Unit
Lot W idth 80 80 65�°� 50 45 20 30
Lot Depth 100 90 90 80 80 80 50
Minimum Front and Flanking Street
35 15 15 15 15 15 15
Yard Setback'�"3'
Garage Setback�z��3� 35 20 20 20 20 20 20
Rear Yard Setback�"�3� 20 20 20 20 10 10 15
Side Yard Setback""3' 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Open Space 10%gross area
Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 60.0%
Maximum Underlying
Building Height(In Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50
zone
��,
No accessory structure shall be located in the front or flanking street yard, and shall be set back not
less than five feet from any side or rear yard.
«�
Attached garages,where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the
principal structure.
Setbacks,when adjacent to a private road or driveway easement, are established from the inner
�3� edges of the road or driveway and are the same as noted above except the flanking road which would
be five feet.
�'� Duplex lots in R-3 zones may be a minimum of 60 feet in width.
�
;
, �
�
( .
Memorandum i
TO: Commiulity Develapment Depaitment
I
FRO�vI: ICathy McClung,Directar ��
DATE: December 4.2403
RE: �etbaelcs far resid.ential developnler�t izi Mited use Centex(MUC) a�id
Corridor Mi�.ed Use(CMU}Zones
�.`.�,r,.�.�....,�.,.r.�,,.,,.,,..,._..�,�...,.....,.,,....,�..�.,..�.,....,..�.:..Y...,........,,.....,.....NNr.�...�.,�,.,�.�..,,.,... i
i
Oii August 5,200$I n�.ade ar�admii�zsfxative deternunation rega�c3izzg setbacks foi s�ngle �
fanuly residential development in tlle Mixed Use Center(MUC)zoning district. This
dcterniixiation updatcs the August St�'deternzulatian tio include residential development in
the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU}Lo�lin�dist�zc;l. 'Table 19.60-1 in the Spokane Vailey '
Muizicipal Code addresses setbacics in the MUC and CMU zoiiing districts that apply to
conli�xercial uses;l�owe��er Table 19.64-1 does not adclress setbacics fo�•residential tises
- that are allowed 'zi�the disfricts. Therefoxe the followine setbacl:s shall ap�ly t�
residential itses ia�the I��UC aild CIvIU zoning districts; i
I
� Front yard setbacic: 20 feet �
Rear yard setbacic: 1 Q feet
Side yard-�la�lkin�stz�eet setback: 20 feet
Side yard (v��itl�.out living space rvindow): 5 feet
Side yard(witli Iiving space windaw): 10 feet
No accessory structure shall be in fl�e honfi or tlankiilg street yar•d. Oil�erwzse they sliall
be setbacIc a n�inin�utlz o�'S feet fi�orn ti�e propei�ty 1ine. (
��
Tlus decisioil zs made uiider t1Ze atifil�.ority of Sectioi�.17,50.41 Q of flie 5pakane Valley
I��Iunicip�tl Code.
�
�
I
�, - i
P:1Comniuiiity Deve(opment\Current PlanninelR4UC-CMU set�ack lvfemorandum.doc I2/4/2�D8
. ` I
�i
I
I
� � �C 1��� � �jc� i
� �
i
Memorandum
I
�
I
TO: Community Development Department
FROM: Kathy McClung,Director
DATE: August 5, 2008
RE: Setbacks for single family residential in Mixed Use Center(MUC) Zone !
�
i
Recently the Development Regulations were altered to allow single and multi-family
units in the MLJC. Table 19.60-1 addresses setbacks in the MUC for commercial uses
but does not address residential uses. Therefore,the following setback will apply:
Front yard setback: 20 feet j
Rear Yard setback: 10 feet �
Side Yard Flanking street: 20 feet
Side Yard: 5 feet w/out living space window; 10 feet with living space window. �'
No accessory structure shall be in the front or flanking street yard. Otherwise, they may i
be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. I
�
I
This decision is made under the authority of Section 17.50.010 of the Spokane Valley
City Code.
Fina19/22/08
I
Introduction and Overview of Manufactured Housing Legislation
2004 Legislation Sets New Direction for Manufactured Housing Regulation
The 20041egislature significantly changed the landscape of local land use regulation of manufactured
homes by the passage of SB 6593 (Laws of 2004, ch. 256),which became effective on July 1, 2005. This
law requires that, to protect"consumers' choices in housing," cities and counties must regulate
manufactured homes built to federal manufactured housing construction standards no differently than they
regulate other types of homes.
A second impetus for the 2004 legislation was, according to the legislative intent expressed in Section 1
of SB 6593,to provide for"affordable homeownership and rental housing." Whatever one's views
regarding manufactured housing, it cannot be disputed that manufactured housing today is quite different
from the mobile homes of twenty or thirty years ago or more. "Mobile homes," as they are commonly
thought of, are no longer being built, and "manufactured housing" has taken their place. Manufactured
housing is much more like traditional site-built housing than was the traditional mobile home. The
manufactured housing industry contends that there is no appreciable difference between the two. Being
generally less expensive than site-built housing, manufactured housing can provide viable housing
opportunities for low income families.
Prior to SB 6593,Washington cities and counties seemingly had the authority to regulate the location of
manufactured homes through zoning and even to ban them entirely. While local governments were (and
still are) "preempted" by federal law(the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974) from enacting construction, safety, and energy standards that are stricter than
those established by federal regulations adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), HUD had acknowledged that the federal legislation did not limit the authority of local
governments to regulate the location of manufactured housing, as long as they do not do so based on
compliance or noncompliance with stricter construction, safety, and energy standards. And, in
WashingtonManufacturedHousingAssn. v. Public UtilityDistrictNo. 3, 124 Wn.2d 381, 385 (1994),
the state supreme court,in dicta,noted that it is "clear that zoning laws that ban manufactured housing or
limit them to certain areas are not preempted if they are silent as to construction or safety standards." SB
6593,however, eliminated any previous ability of local governments in the state to restrict where
manufactured housing - at least certain manufactured housing - could locate. See RCW 35.21.684; RCW
35A21312, and RCW 36.01225
Nevertheless, cities and counties may under this legislation require that that these manufactured homes:
(1)be new manufactured homes (but see below); (2)be set on a permanent foundation; (3) comply with
any local design standards that may apply to all other homes in the neighborhood in which the
manufactured home is to be located; (4) are thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and/or(5)
otherwise meet requirements for a"designated manufactured home" in RCW 35.63160. (Because a
"designated manufactured home" under that definition is one that includes at least two sections, cities and
counties may still regulate "single-wide" manufactured homes differently than other types of homes.)
2008 Legislation Further Restricts Local Regulation
This legislation was amended by the 2008 legislature to provide that cities and counties may not prohibit
a mobile or manufactured home from locating in an existing mobile home park or manufactured housing
community(existing before June 12, 2008)based on the age or size of that mobile or manufactured home.
See RCW 3521.684; RCW 35A.21.312, and RCW 36.01225. Local jurisdictions are still permitted to
place age and dimension criteria on manufactured housing that is sited outside of mobile and
manufactured housing communities, or on housing to be sited in new mobile home parks or manufactured
housing communities (SSB 5524).
2009 Legislation Permits Recreational Vehicles as Housing
The 2009 legislature added a further limitation on the authority of cities and counties regarding
manufactured/mobile home communities.Under EHB 1227 (Laws of 2009, ch. 79),which became
effective on July 26, 2009, cities and counties may not have an ordinance that prevents the entry or
requires the removal of a recreational vehicle used as a primary residence in manufactured/mobile home
communities.However, cities and counties may enact requirements that utility hookups in
manufactured/mobile home communities meet state and federal building code standards for these
communities and that a recreational vehicle contain both an internal toilet and an internal shower(unless
the manufactured/mobile home community provides toilets and showers). See RCW 3521.684(3), RCW
35A21312(3), and RCW 36.01225(3).
Many local manufactured housing ordinances in this state have been on the books for a number of years
and do not necessarily reflect the current state of the law or of the industry. The Washington Manufacured
Housing Association has developed "model" regulations for local governments to adopt for the purpose of
complying with SB 6593. See Documents below. The model regulations do not,however, address the
2008 legislation, SSB 5524, or the 2009 legislation, EHB 1227.
Revised Code of Washin�ton (RCW) Definitions
"Mobile home" means a factory-built dwelling built prior to June 15, 1976, to standards other than the
United States department of housing and urban development code, and acceptable under applicable state
codes in effect at the time of construction or introduction of the home into the state. Mobile homes have
not been built since the introduction of the United States department of housing and urban development
manufactured home construction and safety act
"Used mobile home" means a mobile home which has been previously sold at retail and has been
subjected to t�under chapter 82.08 RCW, or which has been previously used and has been subjected to
tax under chapter 82.12 RCW, and which has substantially lost its identity as a mobile unit at the time of
sale by virtue of its being �xed in location upon land owned or leased by the owner of the mobile home
and placed on a foundation(posts or blocks)with�xed pipe connections with sewer,water, and other
utilities.
"Mobile home lot"means a portion of a mobile home park or manufactured housing community
designated as the location of one mobile home,manufactured home, or park model and its accessory
buildings, and intended for the exclusive use as a primary residence by the occupants of that mobile
home,manufactured home, or park model;
"Mobile home park," "manufactured housing community," or "manufactured/mobile home
community" means any real property which is rented or held out for rent to others for the placement of
two or more mobile homes, manufactured homes, or park models for the primary purpose of production
of income, except where such real property is rented or held out for rent for seasonal recreational purpose
only and is not intended for year-round occupancy;
"Mobile home park cooperative" or"manufactured housing cooperative" means real property
consisting of common areas and two or more lots held out for placement of mobile homes,manufactured
homes, or park models in which both the individual lots and the common areas are owned by an
association of shareholders which leases or otherwise extends the right to occupy individual lots to its
own members;
"Mobile home park subdivision" or"manufactured housing subdivision" means real property,whether
it is called a subdivision, condominium, or planned unit development, consisting of common areas and
two or more lots held for placement of mobile homes,manufactured homes, or park models in which
there is private ownership of the individual lots and common,undivided ownership of the common areas
by owners of the individual lots;
"Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling built according to the United States department
of housing and urban development manufactured home construction and safety standards act,which is a
national preemptive building code. A manufactured home also: (a) Includes plumbing,heating, air
conditioning, and electrical systems; (b)is built on a permanent chassis; and(c) can be transported in one
or more sections with each section at least eight feet wide and forty feet long when transported, or when
installed on the site is three hundred twenty square feet or greater;
"New manufactured home" means any manufactured home required to be titled under Title 46 RCW,
which has not been previously titled to a retail purchaser, and is not a"used mobile home" as defined in
RCW 82.45.032(2).
"Designated manufactured home" is a manufactured home constructed after June 15, 1976,in
accordance with state and federal requirements for manufactured homes,which:
(a) Is comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve feet wide
by thirty-six feet long;
(b) Was originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated
metal, or similar roof of nomina13:12 pitch; and
(c) Has exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site-
built uniform building code single-family residences.
Home Occupations
• Permitted accessory uses in residential zones;
• Property shall retain a residential appearance and character;
• All storage shall be enclosed within the residence or accessory structure;
• There shall be a limit of two employees not residing on the premises engaged in the home
occupation;
• One unlighted sign placed flush against the exterior wall of the principal structure not exceeding
four square feet in area is permitted;
• No window display nor shall sample commodities
• The hours of operation of a home occupation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
• Loading docks and mechanical loading devices are not permitted;
• Uses which are detrimental to the existing residential appearance and character are not allowed
as home occupations.
The following are NOT allowed as home occupations:
adult retail use establishment, adult bookstore or adult entertainment establishment;
auto repair;
welding or metal plating shops;
large appliance/electronics or equipment repair or service;
small engine repair;
truck hauling and/or tow storage yard;
vehicle sales;
cabinet making;
manufacturing and/or related storage;
kennel or stables;
wholesale or retail sales
restaurants/drinking establishments
ADU
• One per lot
• Must be a complete, independent housekeeping unit;
• Combined footprint of all accessory structures shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area;
• No home profession in the ADU
• Owner must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the ADU
• Parking space required
• 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the principal dwelling unit, nor be less than
300 square feet;
• Entrance located on the side or in the rear of the structure or in such a manner as to be
unobtrusive in appearance when viewed from the front of the street, and only one entrance
may be located on the facade of the principal dwelling unit in order to maintain the
appearance of a single-family residence;
• No more than two bedrooms
• Designed to meet the appearance of a single-family residence
������.. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Plannin Commission
g
Public Hearin
g
November 8, 2012
Code Text Amendment
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
19.40, 19.60, and 19.70
(CTA-04- 12)
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
B ack round
g
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) does not address placing "used"
manufactured home in manufactured home subdivisions
SVMC does not address the following in non-residential zones:
• Home Occupations
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• RV Usage
• Residential Development Standards
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Manufactured Homes in Manufactured Home Subdivisions
Issue: SVMC does not permit placing a "used" manufactured home within a
manufactured home subdivision.
• SVMC requires all manufactured homes placed on individual lots to be
"new"
• Manufactured home subdivisions designed for manufactured homes
• Most homes within the subdivision are manufactured homes
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a "used" manufactured home to
be placed within a manufactured home subdivision.
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
P�o osed Amendment
�
Chapter 19.40
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
SVMC 19.40.120 Manufactured housing.
E. Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the
predominant manufactured home txpe within a manufactured home subdivision may be
placed in the manufactured home subdivision without re�ard to the a�e of the
manufactured home.
��,������ - ' Department of Community Development ��►� "
�ti'�r�e� Planning Division � � ;'''`i�,. � � '� �
Home Occupations
Issue: It is unclear whether a home occupation is permitted in a residence
established in a nonresidential zone.
• Permitted use in all residential zones.
• Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones.
• Not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections.
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a home occupation to occur in
any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone.
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
P�o osed Amendment
�
Chapter 19.40
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS —
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
19.40.140 Home occupations.
A. Applicability. Any person, group or entity conducting a "for profit" enterprise from
a location whose primary use is a residence must obtain a home occupation permit. A
home occu�ation mav be established in a residence that has been legallv �ermitted.
Businesses may be exempt from the home occupation permit fee, as established by the
master fee schedule, if all of the following criteria are met:
S'"�ikan� � Department of Community Development � � -
���r�e�� Planning Division � �F�"• � �
��-
P�o osed Amendment
p
Chapter 19.60
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE
AND MIXED USE ZONES
19.60.010 General requirements.
A. Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maximum height requirements
shown in Table 19.60-1.
C. A home occupation mav be established in a residence that has been le�ally pennitted excludin�
caretaker dwellin�s.
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Residential Development in MUC and CMU zones
Issue: The mixed use section of SVMC allows residential uses but does not
provide any standards for development.
• Standards include density, lot width, lot depth, building height, lot
coverage, setback and open space requirements
• In the absence of any standard the MF-2 zone standard for density has
been applied
• Community Development Director Interpretation with respect to
setbacks was applied
Intent of Code TextAmendment: Provide residential development
standards for residential development in the MUC and CMU zones.
S'"�ikan� � Department of Community Development -
���r�e�� Planning Division � �F�"• � �
��-
P�o osed Amendment
p
Chapter 19.60
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE
AND MIXED USE ZONES
19.60.010 General requirements.
A. Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maximum height requirements
shown in Table 19.60-1.
B. Residential development shall meet the minimum residential development standards for the MF-2 zone
shown in Table 19.40-1 with the exception that the followin� setbacks shall apply:
Front vard setback: 20 feet
Rear yard setback: 10 feet
Side vard setback: 5 feet
Side vard—Flankin� street setback: 20 feet
Residential use adiacent to a nonresidential use
Side vard (without livin� space window): 5 feet
Side vard (with livin� space window): 10 feet
��,������ - ' Department of Community Development ��►� "
�ti'�r�e� Planning Division � � ;'''`i�,. � � '� �
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Issue: It is unclear whether an ADU is permitted in a residence established
in a nonresidential zone.
• ADUs are permitted in all residential zoning districts.
• CMU and MUC zones allow single-family dwellings.
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow an ADU to occur in CMU and MUC
zones accessory to single-family dwellings.
��,������ - ' Department of Community Development ��►� "
�ti'�r�e� Planning Division � � ;'''`i�,. � � '� �
Recreational Vehicles (RV)
Issue: The standard for RV use in nonresidential zones outside of Mobile
Home Parks is unclear.
• RVs are permitted in all residential zoning districts.
• Not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections.
• Legally established dwellings exist in nonresidential zones.
Intent of Code Text Amendment: Provide temporary RV use to occur in
any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone.
S'"�ikan� � Department of Community Development � � -
��r�e Planning Division � � _�����, � �
� �' .,:.
P�o osed Amendment
p
Chapter 19.60
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE
AND MIXED USE ZONES
19.60.010 General requirements.
D. Attached and detached Accessorv Dwellin� Units (ADU) are permitted in all zonin� districts that
pennit sin�le-family dwellin�s and shall adhere to the appearance of sin�le-family residences. An attached
ADU is an accessorv dwellin� unit that has one or more vertical and/or horizontal walls in common with,
or attached to, the principal dwellin� unit. A detached ADU is a freestandin� accessorv dwellin� unit that
is not attached or�hvsicallv connected to the �rinci�al dwellin� unit. Accessorv dwellin� units shall meet
all provisions contained in SVMC 19.40.100.
E. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwellin� units in any mixed use or
commercial zone except in manufactured home parks. Guests mav park and/or occupv a recreational
vehicle while visitin� the occupants of a dwellin� unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in
one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visitin� �uests and not to allow the
recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin� unit.
S'"�ikan� � Department of Community Development � ` -
���r�e�� Planning Division � � ;'�';�:, � �
P�o osed Amendment
p
Chapter 19.70
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — INDUSTRIAL
ZONES
19.70.010 I-1, Light Industrial district.
B. Supplemental Regulations.
10. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le�ally permitted
excludin� caretaker dwellings.
ll. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwelling units. Guests
may park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin� the occu�ants of a dwellin� unit
located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in one consecutive 12-month�eriod. The
intent is to accommodate visitin��uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as
a dwellin� unit.
S'"�ikan� � Department of Community Development � ` -
���r�e�� Planning Division � � ;'�';�:, � �
P�o osed Amendment
p
Chapter 19.70
DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — INDUSTRIAL
ZONES
19.70.020 I-1, Heavy Industrial district.
B. Supplemental Regulations.
10. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le�ally permitted
excludin� caretaker dwellings.
ll. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwelling units. Guests
may park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin� the occu�ants of a dwellin� unit
located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in one consecutive 12-month�eriod. The
intent is to accommodate visitin��uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as
a dwellin� unit.
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
• �
ues lons .
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
October 11, 2012
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates -Chair � � Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
John G. Carroll � �— Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Rustin Hall � �— Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Rod Higgins � � Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Steven Neill �� �--
Fred Beaulac � �
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair � � Deanna Grif�th, Secretary
The Chair hearing no objection declared Mr. Stoy's absence was excused.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the October 1l, 2012 agenda as presented.
This motion was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the September 27, 2012 minutes as presented.
This motion was passed unanimously.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioners Bates and Higgins reported they had attended a Planning Short Course offered
by the Dept. of Commerce October 5, 2012.
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 1 of 8
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta reported the advanced agenda would be updated by the next meeting.
He also reported during next meeting Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb would be conducting a
short training regarding Planning Commission members using City email addresses.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: Deliberations Shoreline Master Program, Shoreline
Environment Designations.
Sr. Planner Barlow recapped the events to date following the public hearing held
September 27, 2012. Ms. Barlow stated during the public hearing the Commission had
received verbal and written testimony and requested staff ask the City's outside legal
counsel to review it and comment on it. Ms. Barlow reported Mr. Kisielius reviewed the
comments and generally felt the City had addressed all of the points which had been raised
by Futurewise and their partners. However, staff did feel there were two changes which
could be made based on the comments received.
In the introduction the suggested change would be to add the words, "and assure".
Futurewise requested to change the reference to `no net loss' from a goal to a requirement.
Mr. Kisielius felt the reference should be consistent with the WAC.
New Text: This is necessary so that the Citv °'""•°';"° ''°T,°'"'�"'°"+will reasonably
protect existing uses and shoreline character and assure �� ±��+��� �+�+��-,;a� o��, ��r
"No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions �� °��°�.
Ms. Barlow stated the other change requested was to include all of the state required
policies in the aquatic environment section of the report. Staff reviewed the request,
conferred with Mr. Kisielius. Mr. Kisielius has recommended the Planning Commission
include any extra general policies to cover situations the City did not anticipate. In the
aquatic environment this would affect a few structures, primarily docks, piers, bridges,
utility corridors.
Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission during the public hearing she had included two
maps for discussion. The first map had three designations reflected the original draft. The
second map, identified as the Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map, had the staff
recommendations with the suggested expanded environmental designations, Shoreline
Residential — Upland, Shoreline Residential — Waterfront, Urban Conservancy, Urban
Conservancy—High Quality, and Aquatic, and the defined Ordinary High Water Mark near
Coyote Rock.
The Commissioners thanked Sr. Planner Barlow for her work and diligence and then
discussed a point of order regarding information and the handling the motion on the floor.
The Commissioners agreed the Alternative Map and the draft of the Environment
Designations presented with the two minor changes was what they wanted moved forward.
Commissioner Carroll commented he was concerned the Urban Conservancy — High
Qualiry would be confusing for people and felt it should be changed to Natural. However,
he would go along with the Commission vote.
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 2 of 8
The original motion was "to accept the Shoreline Designations as proposed". T�ote is 0 in
favor, 6 against, the motion fails.
Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Draft
Environment Designations and the draft Alternative Designation map as presented. The
vote on this motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passes.
B. New Business:
1. Public hearing on CTA-03-12 proposed amendment regarding setbacks for
multifamily development when adjacent to single family development.
Chair Bates declared the public hearing opened at 6:38 p.m. Commissioner Carroll
read the rules for a public hearing.
Sr. Planner Mike Basinger recapped for the Commissioners CTA-03-12, a City initiated
code text amendment regarding the setbacks for multifamily development when it is
adjacent to single family residential development. Mr. Basinger stated concerns in the
past have been of the bulk and scale of multifamily development when it has been
adjacent to single family development. As a result council asked staff to look into
possible mitigation options. Commissioners, at the study session, asked to have notice
sent to the development community. Staff did send a notice to the Spokane Home
Builders Association, who in turn sent the message to membership. Mr. Basinger said
he did receive some information from one developer and would share it with the
Commission in his presentation. The proposed amendment would set a 1:1 relational
height setback Mr. Basinger explained it would be predictable for development and
easy for staff to administer. However, a concern had been raised that it could create a
hardship for some smaller properties to develop.
Mr. Basinger then explained the new proposal which would allow a 35 foot building
height at the 10 foot minimum setback The setbacks would increase from there. A 50
foot tall building would have be set back 25 feet. There were no further questions or
discussion. The Chair called for anyone from the public to testify.
Dennis Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Rd.: Mr. Crapo stated he was a developer and he was
not opposed to the change. Mr. Crapo also stated he did not feel there was anything
wrong with the current regulations and that City struggled to apply the standards
consistently. Mr. Cra�o recapped his request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment on
property located on 4t near Sullivan. When he made his request for the Comprehensive
Plan amendment the Shelley Lake Homeowners became upset. The Shelley Lake
Home Owners Association (HOA) gathered together and came to the Commission and
to the Council and complained, therefore causing the creation of a developer agreement
in the Municipal Code in order to mitigate the impacts. Mr. Crapo stated it delayed his
project, did not feel it was fair when he had tried to accommodate reasonable
development with the neighbors, cost him money in attorney fees and the standards at
the time were adequate. Mr. Crapo then reminded the Commission during the last
year's Comprehensive Plan amendment process Mr. Arger came in for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, very similar to his, and citizens became upset, but
they are not as organized as the Shelly Lake HOA and Mr. Arger was not required to
have a developer agreement. Mr. Crapo stated he felt the rules should apply to
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 3 of 8
everyone fairly or the City would continue to get resistance against development and
there would be no certainty for developers. Mr. Crapo said whether the City stayed
with the current rules, or had new rules, citizens were going to complain when they did
not like new development next to them, and a developer will never know with certainty
what rules he will be using if the rules are allowed to change every time development is
met with resistance. Mr. Crapo said he felt staff had done a good job preparing a
reasonable compromise. Mr. Crapo said when a developer buys properry for high
densiry development they pay more for it, they expect be able to get more out it.
When asked by a Commissioner, Mr. Crapo said of the two options he would prefer the
second one. It would allow a 35-foot building at a 10-foot setback He said, of course
he would prefer not to change the regulation at all. He also said he did not feel it would
change the resistance in the community. This option would allow latitude to the builder
and the developer. Mr. Crapo again, stated, regardless of the change, he still would like
to see the standards applied evenly and fairly to everyone and predictability in the
regulations is key to developers.
Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. Commissioner Neill then requested
to ask Mr. Crapo a question. Commissioner Carroll moved to reopen the public
hearing. This motion was seconded and the vote was unanimously passed. The public
hearing was reopened at 6:56 p.m.
Mr. Crapo returned to the podium. Commissioner Neill asked if there could be a third
option for smaller parcels which would be difficult to develop under the new standard.
Mr. Crapo responded that he felt there is nothing wrong with current standard. The
third option would be current regulations. Mr. Crapo said, again, he feels the problem
is that regardless the standards single family homeowners are not going to be happy
when multifamily development happens next to them. Mr. Crapo said he would like to
be cooperative with staff, and will go along with which ever option is proposed. When
asked if he had spoken with other developers regarding the proposal, he indicated he
had. When asked about those responses he had received from them Mr. Crapo stated he
would not speak for any other developers. Mr. Crapo said after discussion he hoped the
Commission would look at the proposal from different angles.
Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Basinger if the Developer Agreements were in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger answered yes there are policies in the
Comprehensive Plan which support it, but the Municipal Code is where the guidance
for the developer agreements are located. Mr. Basinger also said he had mentioned at
the study session this proposal (15 foot option) would not work for all properties,
especially the smaller ones. The purpose of the proposal is to add some confidence in
our regulations which would mitigate the impacts of multifamily development when it
is adjacent to single family development. He reminded the Commission the City would
like to try and not enter into developer agreements. Staff would support either option.
Both proposals have a relational setback, but Option 2 would allow smaller properties
to develop a little easier.
Commissioner Hall stated the point Mr. Crapo is making is this type of regulation
would make developing more predictable. Mr. Hall asked staff's opinion if this change
would make developing more predictable? Would it resolve the problem? Mr.
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 4 of 8
Basinger replied when in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan amendments it should
do that.
Commissioner Higgins stated this change also makes the City's position, in subsequent
Comprehensive Plan hearings, defensible. Mr. Higgins pointed out dependability is
gone with developer agreements. He said if this change helps avoid that, he supports it.
Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioner Carroll asked Commissioner Hall if, as an architect, the proposals have
any issues he can see. Mr. Hall stated he does not have a problem with either option.
Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of CTA-03-12, clarify relational
setback as modified to 25 foot formula to the City Council.
Commissioner Neill stated he supported this amendment. He said he believed it would
help with smaller properties and with the City's responsibility to the citizens. He said
he thought it would help to alleviate some of the flashback to some of the issues the
Ciry has had regarding development in the past. He felt it had good balance.
Commissioner Carroll shared he was part of the Planning Commission when Mr.
Crapo's Comprehensive Plan was in submitted for approval Mr. Carroll said he
thought the Commission did not have the tools to help mitigate the issues. He said he
felt this would proposal was a more even way to deal with these issues.
Commissioner Hall said it would be nice if people would realize when they buy
property next to an open space it is possible development will be coming eventually,
but they don't. However, he felt the amendment was a good compromise.
Commissioner Higgins thanked Mr. Crapo for his comments, finding them very
educational. Commissioner Bates also thanked Mr. Crapo. Commissioner Bates
continued saying he felt this would not solve all of the Ciry's problems. We need the
tools to make good decisions. We still have a ways to ga Mr. Bates did not want to
take anything away from the current proposal; he felt it was a good regulation change.
Mr. Bates stated he felt the City needed to improve in the communications area. He
said he felt the communication, when it came to Comprehensive Plan amendments,
between the City, developers and the neighborhoods needs to be improved in order to
try and mitigate the problems we are continually dealing with. Mr. Bates stated he
intended to support the proposed
The vote on the motion was 6 in favor, the motion passed unanimously.
Commission took a break at 7:30 and returned at 7:40
2. Study session Shoreline Master Program—Restoration Plan.
Sr. Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation regarding the Shoreline Master Program
Restoration Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that the SMP Restoration Plan provides a
framework for restoration based on the inventory and characterization report, identifies
potential sites and opportunities for restoration and protection and provides guidance
for carrying out restoration in a comprehensive manner.
Ms. Barlow stated the Restoration Plan is a required element of the WAC. Jurisdictions
which ha�e impaired shorelines must prepare a plan. Based on the City's inventory we
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 5 of 8
know we have impaired sites. Some examples are bank erosion, degraded habitat with
large concentrations of noxious weeds, cleared and disturbed areas, eroding gully
slopes, erosion from heavy foot traffic, DOE metals clean-up sites.
Ms. Barlow said the WAC identifies items the Restoration Plan must address, which
include the following.
Identify degraded areas, impaired functions and sites with potential for ecological
restoration.
Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and
impaired ecological functions.
Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs.
Identify additional projects and programs to meet restoration goals.
Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and
programs and achieving local restoration goals.
Provide for mechanisms or strategies
Ms. Barlow then went on to explain each of the elements of the Plan.
Section 1 —Introduction: It is an overview of the requirements and how the plan is intended
to work in the SMP update process. It provides the City context for the plan which includes
collaborative planning, regulation, preservation of high quality shoreline areas, and
aiding community efforts to restore degraded portions of the Ciry's shorelines. The
City and restoration partners are intended to work together on securing funding to
implement the plan and attain the timelines and benchmarks in the plan as funding
allows. In this section there is also an overview of the requirements, and how the plan is
intended to work.
Section 2 Restoration Goals and Su�ortin� Policies: This section identifies the
restoration goals and policies and refers back to the goals and policies in the overall
SMP. It summarizes degraded shoreline areas and functions, prioritizes restoration
opportunities, prioritizes restoration possibilities with the greatest benefit, establishes
a implementation strategy, helps to identify opportunities which contribute towards
shoreline restoration efforts, and monitor restoration activities.
Section 3, Existin� and On-�oin�Projects and Pro�rams: Summarizes existing factors
limiting the functionality of the shoreline ecosystem. Limiting Factors are things
which impair the ecosystem processes and limit the capacity of the functions. They
are environmental variables whose presence, absence or abundance restricts the
conditions. They could be things present like noxious weeds, or adding shade trees. This
section identifies the limiting factors and causes and highlights e�sting and ongoing projects
and programs that may address those issues. Last, it identifies additional projects and
programs needed to achieve shoreline restoration goals. It addresses where the gaps are and
what can the City do about them. For example, even though we know there is a program to
clean up the toxic metals sites, often the projects do not include vegetation. This will allow
us to�gure out where the gaps are and how we fill them.
Section 4 Prioritization Methodolo�v: This strategy was put in place to address how
to prioritize projects for restoration when it became possible to complete them. The
scoring factors are: Ease of property acquisition, shade benefit, scale of restoration
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 6 of 8
activity, role within the context of surrounding habitat matrix and consistency with
other SMP goals.
Section 5 Restoration O�ortunities: There are two types of restoration opportunities.
One is programmatic opportunities (which are not site specific) such as public
education programs, shoreline regulations and enforcement, shoreline maintenance,
conservation futures and stormwater standards. The second opportunity is site
specific opportunities: Where the site could be restored to a properly functioning
condition. The opportunities are voluntary. Neither of the opportunities are a
requirement. The city is not obligated to fund any of the restoration opportunities.
However, the city is required to proactively identify restoration partners and pursue
funding opportunities — this requires staff involvement. Ms. Barlow gave an
example of how the program could work The City is currently working with State
Parks Dept. to stabilize the river bank east of Flora Road. The City would look at
what is impaired based on the plan and then look a� what is possible in some of the
conceptual approaches. The City has partnered with the State and has designed the
repair project for the state to implement.
Section 6 Im�lementation Plan: This section address an implementation plan which
identifies partners,potential funding sources, timelines and benchmarks. This section
has a list of organizations who have in the past demonstrated an interest in protecting
the City's shorelines. There is also a list of possible funding sources which are
possible if a project should become available for restoration. Timeline and
benchmarks for implementing restoration plan are also in this section.
Section 7 Monitoring, Maintenance and Ada�tive Mana_eg ment: The purpose of this
section is to provide steps for monitoring the successful implementation of this plan
and to have a process for monitoring site specific projects. This section also identifies
an alternative strategy if restoration benchmarks are not met.
Ms. Barlow said the public hearing for the Restoration Plan is scheduled for October
25th 2012. She told the Commissioners the next elements of the SMP to come before
them would be the Public Access Plan, then the regulations.
Commissioner Beaulac asked how successful could a restoration plan be in an urban
jurisdiction, especially when surrounding jurisdictions do not take care of their issues as
the City is doing. Ms. Barlow responded each jurisdiction in the state of Washington
who have shorelines of the state are required to have a restoration plan, and each of the
other jurisdictions are sharing a piece of the river. The City can only assume they are
sharing similar issues. Mr. Kuhta also indicated the City's situation provides more
opportunity for restoration because most of the shoreline along the river is publically
owned land, so partnership is easier. Private groups also help out, for instance there is a
group who just helped around the Mirabeau Park area, helping to define foot paths and
cleaning up the area. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Kuhta named examples of other cities where
shoreline restoration has occurred in highly industrialized, urban areas.
Mr. John Patrouch, with URS Corporation shared with the Commission the City has
good shoreline here, but it still needs to track no net loss of ecological functions. Mr.
Patrouch said the base line is the inventory, if nothing changed the simple wear and tear
along the trail would require restoration efforts. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 7 of 8
Ciry can't get the funding, would we would revert to public education. Mr. Patrouch
responded the City would do the site specific restoration at same time as programmatic
opportunities. Both efforts would be done at the same time.
Commissioner Neill asked if a benchmark were approaching and the City was not going
to achieve it would it put the city in a position to have to fund a shoreline project over
another dedicated project, like street preservation. Ms. Barlow said no, the city would
not be required to fund shoreline restoration. She further commented the biologist,
Noah Herlocker, who wrote the Ciry's restoration plan, has been recognized as having
written some of the best restoration plans around the state. The Plan as written does not
obligate funds above and beyond another priority project. The restoration plan will not
force the city to hire someone to keep track of the shoreline restoration projects. Staff
will keep track and document projects and incorporate when possible restoration
concepts identified in the plan.
Commissioner Hall asked if staff could foresee any possible conflicts in potential
partners. Staff responded there could be some — every group has an agenda and there
could be a conflict, in that case they may not be a good partner for that particular
project. However, with most potential partners there are commonalities.
Staff discussed how projects would come into the City and be reviewed to determine if
it requires an environmental review and if these would be a potential for restoration in
the project and parmering possibilities.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioners Carroll and Higgins will not be able to attend the October 25, 2012 meeting.
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
.� � .�.�
Bill Bates, Chairperson
�.
J
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 8 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
October 25, 2012
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates -Chair � � John Hohman, Community Development Director
John G. Carroll �— � Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Rustin Hall �— � Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Rod Higgins � � Martin Palaniuk,Planning Technician
Steven Neill �� �
Fred Beaulac � �
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair � �— Deanna Grif�th, secretary
Hearing no objection Commissioners Carroll, Higgins and Hall were excused from the
meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the October 25, 2012 agenda as presented. This
motion was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Stoy excused himself from the vote on the approval of the October 11, 2012
minutes because he was absent from the meeting. The approval of those minutes was
postponed to the next meeting for the lack of a quorum.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
.The Commissioners had no report.
Planning Commission Minutes 10-25-12 Page 1 of 5
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Hohman informed the Planning Commission on the progress to update the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
There was no unfinished business.
B. New Business:
1. Public Hearing— Shoreline Master Program—Daft Restoration Plan
Chair Bates opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m.
Senior Planner, Lori Barlow, gave a presentation regarding the draft Shoreline Master
Program Restoration Plan explaining the Plan and its elements.
Commissioner Bates asked who set the Plan's timeline and benchmarks. Ms. Barlow
replied the City set the timeline. The timeline is set as a long term work plan. The Plan
is also required to be reviewed at regular intervals and the timelines can be adjusted if
they are not being met.
Commissioner Stoy asked who would be responsible for monitoring restoration Ms.
Barlow and Mr. Hohman explained the City would issue permits and follow up and
monitor the work.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if the Plan would apply to the Centennial Trail. Ms.
Barlow stated the Centennial Trail is on state owned property which is currently
maintained by the City; capital improvements are the responsibility of State Parks. The
Plan does include some restoration projects that indirectly affect the trail. She describe
a shoreline stabilization project, currently under review, that stabilized the shoreline in
order to preserve the Centennial Trail. Commissioner Beaulac also asked if matching
funds would be required to in order do a restoration project. Ms. Barlow discussed how
the funding partners and funding would be approached and stated that matching funds
would not be pursued without Council approval. .
Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m.
Commissioner Stoy moved to continue the deliberations of the Restoration Plan to Nov.
8, 2012. This motion passed unanimously.
2. Study Session: CTA-04-2012 —Proposed Amendments to Title 19.
Planning Technician Martin Palaniuk gave an overview of the proposed amendments to
Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regarding the following:
• Proposing to allow used manufactured homes in a manufactured home
subdivision. The current regulation only allows for new manufactured homes
to be placed in manufactured home subdivision.
• Proposing to allow home occupations to occur in any residence that has been
legally permitted regardless of the zone. The code is unclear whether a home
Planning Commission Minutes 10-25-12 Page 2 of 5
occupation would be permitted in a residence which has been legally
established in a non-residential zone.
• Proposing residential development standards for residential development in
the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zones.
The mixed use sections of the code allow for residential uses but it does not
provide any standards for development. These standards would be lot width-
depth, density, lot coverage, setbacks and open space requirements.
• Proposing to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in any residence that
has been legally permitted in the CMU and MUC zones. The code does not
address if an ADU would be allowed in a residence in a non-residential zone.
This would address the ADU being permitted as in a residential zone, but
would not include a caretaker dwelling.
• Proposing to provide standards for the temporary use of an RV, outside of a
mobile home park, to occur at any residence that has been legally permitted
regardless of zone. It is permitted in a residential zone for an RV to be
occupied, for no more than 30 days, to allow for guests of the residents.
However, the code does not address this use in a non-residential zone.
Commissioner Stoy asked if ADUs had standards in and of themselves. Staff replied
they did, and those standards would be maintained in the non-residential zones the
same as they are in residential zones. The only change proposed is to allow an ADU
on a legal residentiallot in the mixed use zones.
Commissioner Neill asked if an RV is allowed to be occupied outside of a residence,
who would monitor the length of the stay. Staff discussed code enforcement of the
regulations and when the City would respond to a complaint. This proposed
amendment would allow the City to be able to enforce the time limitation in non-
residential zones as is currently being done in residential zones. The City would only
respond after a complaint had been made.
Commissioner Beaulac wanted to know if allowing used manufactured homes in a
manufactured home subdivision would cause issue with covenants, or if the covenants
over-ruled the municipal code? Mr. Palaniuk explained covenants are a civil matter
between the home owners association and home owners. The City does not get
involved in those types of issues. If the home owners association had an issue with the
home, it would be their responsibiliry to enforce it through civil means.
Mr. Palaniuk said the public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for
November 8, 2012.
3. Brainstorming: Should used manufactured homes be allowed on individual lots?
Currently the SVMC only allows new manufactured homes to be placed on an
individual lot in all residential districts. State law does not allow for discrimination
between a stick built home and a manufactured home on an individual lot. The Ciry has
had requests to allow used homes to be placed on individual lots. Staff presented a
comparison to ten other jurisdictions (Cheney, Ellensburg, Liberty Lake, Pullman,
Spokane, Spokane County, Spokane Valley, Wenatchee, Walla Walla, and Yakima),
Planning Commission Minutes 10-25-12 Page 3 of 5
only one allows used manufactured homes (Spokane County), one (Liberry Lake)
specifies " similar to surrounding"
The Commissioners and staff discussed the subject. The following topics were
discussed :
Manufactured homes can be affordable housing, and property owners should be
allowed to put whatever type of home they want on their own lots, as long as it is
decent looking.
Kit homes do not qualify as a manufactured home,. Staff provided the state definition
which specifies that a manufactured home is built on a permanent chassis, and
transported in one or more sections.
Should an allowance, such as a size or age limit be considered?.
Some discussion followed that noted that manufactured homes did provide an
affordable housing option, while other goals in the Comprehensive Plan direct the City
to protect the character of the neighborhoods. There could be places in the Ciry where
it might not fit to have a used manufactured home. Mr. Beaulac mentioned that
allowing a used manufactured home on an individual lot could diminish the properry
value of the surrounding homes. Mr. Neill noted that individual lot owners cause
property value to be diminished if they do not take care of their lots. A used
manufactured home would not necessarily diminish the property value just by being
placed on a lot. Everything becomes a used eventually. Mr. Beaulac maintained that
,the wrong home in a neighborhood could devastate some neighborhoods.
Commissioner Beaulac suggested that this topic be brought back after the new year,
when the new Commissioners were present, and that information be included regarding
how Liberty Lake enforced the requirement of "similar to surrounding." All
Commissioner's agreed with this suggestion. No motion was made. GOOD OF THE
ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
..� �
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 10-25-12 Page 4 of 5
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 10-25-12 Page 5 of 5