2016, 11-08 Regular Meeting AMENDED- 6:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT MEETING
Tuesday,November 8, 2016 6:00 n.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations—Mike Basinger
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Transportation and Infrastructure Utility Tax- Chelsie Taylor
3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-019 Comprehensive Plan&Development Regulations—
Mike Basinger [public comments]
/I. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16 018 Transportation&Infrastructure Utility Tax
Chelsie Taylor [public comments]
ADJOURNMENT
Council Amended Agenda 11-08-2016—6 pm Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings since 2014 regarding various
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated development regulations.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1), City of Spokane Valley is required to
conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every eight years.
The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017.
On May 3, 2016, staff conducted a joint workshop with City Council and the Planning
Commission to provide direction to City staff and the consultant team on the land use
alternatives as well as goal and policy focus areas. On June 7, 2016, staff provided the results
from the joint workshop with the City Council. Staff received feedback from City Council on the
workshop results providing further direction on the development of the land use alternatives and
the goals and policies. On June 28, 2016, staff provided a presentation on residential
development in our region to offer context for the proposed residential development standards.
On July 26, 2016, staff provided an overview of the draft land use map and the correlation to the
existing conditions report, with an emphasis on the focused analysis of Medium Density
Residential, Mixed Use, Office, and Neighborhood Commercial. On August 9, 2016, staff
provided an overview of draft goals and policies. On August 30, 2016, staff provided an
overview of the draft development regulations. On September 6, 2016, staff provided an
overview of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
On September 16, 2016, the City issued a Notice of Availability for the Comprehensive Plan
Update, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation amendments to start a 60-day notice
period required by the GMA. The notice period also meets SEPA notice requirements for the
Draft EIS. On September 29, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation amendments.
The September 29, 2016 public hearing was continued to October 6, 2016. At the public
hearing, 86 people provided written and verbal comments. A summary of the public comments
is included with this report. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission began
deliberations. On October 13 2016, Planning Commission continued its deliberations on the
Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation amendments.
After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approve the
2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and amendments to the zoning map, and amendments to
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 17 and 19, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and
22.130, and Appendix A, and Draft EIS, with the changes agreed to by Planning Commission at
its October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2006 meetings.
On October 25, 2016, staff provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS,
and development regulation amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The
discussion will include the changes recommended by the Planning Commission at its October 6
and October 13, 2016 meetings as part of its voted recommendation.
Tonight, City Council will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS,
and associated development regulation amendments. After that time, it will consider a first
ordinance reading to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated
development regulations.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
— Presentation
— Zoning Map
— Staff Report dated September 16, 2016
— Summary of public comments received by Planning Commission
— September 22, 2016 Planning Commission minutes
— September 29, 2016 Planning Commission minutes
— October 6, 2016 Planning Commission minutes
— October 13, 2016 Planning Commission minutes
— Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations
— Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and Development Regulations, including the
Zoning Map (yellow binder— provided separately)
Legislative Update
Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Overview
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Spokane
Walley
Legislative Update
■ 4 Public Meetings
■ 25 City Council Meetings
■ 14 Planning Commission Discussions
■ Planning Commission Public Hearing
• September 29, 2016
• October 6, 2016 (continued)
■ Planning Commission Deliberations
• October 6, 2016
• October 13, 2016
Spokane 2
Valley
Community Vision
■ Increase focus and access to parks and trails
■ Consider a specific focus area around new City Hall
■ Provide for a greater variety of housing types
■ Preserve the character of the neighborhoods
■ Locate housing near amenities like retail, healthcare, parks, and transit
■ Increase business opportunities and reduce barriers
Spokane 3
Walley
Council Goals
■ Streamline land uses and maximize flexibility
■ Preserve established neighborhoods
■ Provide for a variety of housing types like tiny homes/cottage houses
■ Change the mixed-use designations along Trent
■ Consolidate Office and Garden Office or change to Corridor Mixed Use
■ Expand and designate new areas of Neighborhood Commercial
Spokane 4
Walley
.......... ........ ...iiim
Draft Comprehensive Plan Approach
• Economic Development focus
Spokane
j V ley
• Innovative and data driven
0
0
• Easy to navigate with an attractive design a ;
• Concise and understandable __
1� rM
• Includes existing studies
• Retail Recruitment Spokane Valley
• Tourism Comprehensive Plan
2017-2037
• Existing conditions reports
Date Adopted
• Includes strategic actions
,,. ,�„.. 0.6.„�„�„ , .0.60.61,...../.0.,..,�, ,.M.C. „H,
Spokane 5
Valley
.........m... ...... ...iiiiiim
Land Use Map
.5',5 _ �. • Created one
tll a_LU ._
1� multifamily
_ _ _! v
L'_■� �_,.�...r..�_ . Iamh. .
1 designation
m
• ■
�-, ■ 1/2 mile buffer
-- �� — �— •'� E around bus stops
Spokane Valley Public Transportation
l I Bus Stops 112 mile Buffer , j
Bus Stops 1!2 mile Buffer • Proposed STA
HighPertormance Transit Network COw
—Red Line w
—Blue Line �'
—Green Line Redline 6 minute
—Bus Routes
Municipal Boundaries /
1=1Spokane Valley service
VA Spokane Valley Urban Growth Area(UGA)
Parks,Recreation&Open Space /
/ 0 OA 0.2 0.4 0.6
Miles
I /1
Spokane 6
Valley
---'"""'"
Land Use Map
• Designated new areas for parks and open space
• Land by Mirabeauit '
• Appleway Trail ROW x I 1°04 :L
tI11ii____ _ r ,-
._,._. .
,,,,-- f _,..„___i
■It SIL T■IL 1 ='ArEra , us e l- . ,....-../;57,,,,-,///-/-7 , „ ,x
11■1■ ■1■I ■ ■��■�y►.yyl/�src ■■■.i. J-■1111:�i■■� ■. .s Hi �!
li 1■�■■■■111:�� ri■■�11■-. `�i Rsirii 'i6 :l` ■ uiil� 111111 ■��_ m1.1,67.1; 11■1 /
11 ■ 1 II■1■pi:iii/r1 1.! op 1 1L-111.1 mi'•�.■ ■■■■■1■.Fi 11■I
1_=P ir-■ IF p:61. _. I I�mom: C01! i nvi // .
1 i1 _� J 1 11-■-gym... 0 rm • ■ I./ /
1 J. 1111 ■1 c.7y-,rkora[ IEEE= I1�m ==CJS■ .{."'1 ir'
' ■ 1•■ i.i►11yy�J74R11!d�r11 !1�r� 1 1 It 1 i ► !W;110;/
I ■I;II,�I� 1■^�RAS ,�7i9yifil- '• ' I 1 � �Arollsorarommi I7/7;7'. >,r', �
r _ / -// fYf J iI -.'
Um ro
ER5
101111211511"1117.11100, 111-=■:7�III� 1 ISI -=•II•-= 11 I===_ um 7 ... .on. ' ; .
Il�un ■■ ■■■ 11� i ILL
Rf7 -•■-� 1 ■ ■ .■ I-�-• - IIIIII■11111n ■■■■■■a ■.1 _}_ --- --It .
Ri.f3i1i15 if4 i+4 0i®r PE CZ rp��■'� f- •■ L� 'III --11111111111111.-1r1210... ,�
.. gri,-Amir 1SjJE Ri on .s�al-... _ Ir�I I I �.... .■■ .. . .-■1■IIII■■1■■■■■■i ■ _
II inunnnii.■1■■ 1111..11111E I !=1a 1 j_':�1�� 1■IIIIIIIIIIIu--�iislfl� '_
Spokane 7
Valley
..........m... .......... .iiiiiiim
Land Use Map - 0ofiAd � .
IrlJ1111161■4 VA1 -
_unll 1 I■u■�- a- ----
pro-
_
im
Frof
.:�r9rre ■11--
1■1111 i-2A1 e1� 1■■ �I rv,
■ Changed Off •
ice to Corridor Mixed Use '== ®' " ' =
■_g_� -- .7,.
• Multifamily, office, retail, and light manufacturini-EIr g/ mill =91■
'111,e, ..- 111'.111„■-1
-■■■■■1111 Ike■ I■� n E
. PEIHEE
— _ — - �— — "■■ Ilil[11111 ■� I III fiiill��u
:IIIIII.I=■111 ■II,� �F:i. 1-
� ,• r�• r '% �€ IIIµ=E111 �yl� f yllMg
l■
r �4.._ - _ I■■111119111C I �-l;el 11:III��III mi
in /%/+J/yKg J �� J pr���5�/�/ 9 _ ._• ii■_N11 ry■W.a7.//yy/�y/r.LEI wow,N`--mill{
jO� Pi 11■1111 iiss ■ 0, — II■■ III�mG/.r ..nyi n1 ,=E111
AG i!
. 6 x111111 -m ■n f .......1L ii■sr -I 1sr r:
■ y ob 11 11■1■1 I■ r 1.�7 / •.��ri. ti-l m■■
ill AIPII.I� Ann 11111 . • iLL �. ��.;
up
►l ,o0;Peer11 11111 ■ ��■. ►�11�� - 1 ■ ■ C ■ ri,,,,. .,..,Frim
r aSrll■0 r5
an! ' %f -■! ■1111 III Distaie----------- --_L1. 11 '�' $
r�i► ■■11■1■ 11:1 11�: -- y—■ ■ .� r7E16ti1■■ do�11�! ._ ...■11■1■■I■ t■■■tl1f h --iV■=- = -.. ■ it iII11:II ne 1,01 M •4.A.
1P= rsr■■■■■111111E1 1111111■■1 ■■■■1■1■■11 I rG SI, ■ - = �-5■=i/MOM I
s�� �■1■■F�'; 11111111■111 ■�■-��=� .-��■�■ � � ■ rte �s f i��
ma I 1■11111■sl '■■■■1■ one mow: �/1■■1■■11■11■ �� =per�■�. ♦ — �.� i
ma /r RiIII!••_. ■■11.1 ■■ 111 iii w 5a■:— �M 1:- _M_==CZ ■�.,., ii ■. ^w —MA L�
Ji
•■■■■1.1.11.1.1 1■■■ ■1■■111 ( ! i!J.PtM
1=.- E .11'!:117M ti? ' ,,
I1 fe�yos— I I 1 i1[0R 151 - - •1 I I !_ y s ,04 '1,:••---.:-------b-' ='
Spokane 8
Valley
.........m... ....... ..iiiiiin
Land Use Map
• Integrated Community Commercial into Corridor Mixed Use and Regional Commercial
—14
11/ 22 11 =_ 11111 III - J %G�i1■■�n i�' � 6r31�I- ---1-i-3.
Ii J ' ,�.f • ///�/
r III III I I Jam ` f� rri
I -- ■■ ■ w■1 r . a. I . -
_ P r /. /
//
/
i.. I
y
II
l ,! `; �AJ
,ii, IF
BJ►. ! i V'
ir,
_ , f , l m,k l
R
E
� 1p --T
L1 '
r/ ` ' —fi r ;• r
ig
1 1
/i / !/- If /rL / I ZA
I ifM■ :Lipp i ■
r ■■ C; � ,,
'f/✓'.! 1f:• ' 4 Ell . ///yr,
/fr
/ / f / ��,ff/flp, 1
-JtlpplrrJ t 1fr
/� / 4 ' `?/,/- Il � ;, f% ,/// -//-/I /�A/// /// /r /t 7
AL[• fJr , r i !, Add AL, 7///_• , /A.,,, ,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,/,/,,./ , T 4
If. /r ` I — a'l `.7ff/ //5 / I� / //,/` � f /, j
'" t i // fH f , i./ {ff // if
r'e/ (, . , /-•.///////2_ '`/ 7,—/.7////,/,rs !`JJ_�f / I s7 /Ir / i'`I Ffli . j J/-p
J 1 ----I _ ` " J f 1 / // J J Ifl ./ ..--,iv, s Ai I�-],-,
Spokane 9
Valley
..........m... .......... .iiiiiiin
Land Use Map
• Designated new areas for neighborhood commercial development at
major intersections in close proximity to existing neighborhoods
,
rrr T ilPll .�e �� I"Jr + 1 1, ani $a
* it
""r 6 " ;g 1
s
1 i e i A m gi c FA. l
Spokane 10
Valley
Land Use Map
• Created Industrial Mixed-Use designation along Trent Avenue
• Allows for light industrial (contractors and tow yards)
• Continues to allow for commercial uses
- -
I I_Hi
•E
8 aad ve V.Z.Z> : -
9
•
LI Ali ■
.., .,. .0 1:5 ,
•
•rr1 .. R ■
• E Her4y Ave 4.! frd. �. a ■
ells Ave jr� //moi 0.
- {/7/ - . VA"
f�•
i_ ` .r :///,,.,.,,,5,.`7:(0,:::;)
E Rich Ave v f .
all
E
�' ZorweI I Ave '/
...-....--..-7i rr d j ;' F /•::•.:•0„v.:-.
R_
27.6 f
.,-,-„,-,'/-2,-/-7,1 r /r1r
1,_-'‘./.., /f , /' . ',Al
. LacrassBLnC- £�fr917 ///1,/ / -
fes.,'
t E Industri-I ParkA St }
Spokane 11
Valley
Land Use Map
• Consolidated the industrial designations
:III-E! I Iillll�l" ',,M71 .-111,mir■■��-" C = 1.11111:Pq■■■i■ e■■t ',.�I �� ■� X`
ire.S.'�� OE-1111R— III !ii L.
III u. E■IfWin'I:■�!■iw�jli _ Pr Affer/ 4
_ 35{III.f1111�1 ■ � v
i■ ■�1 ■IIII�■�Ilf�ti =:..,,,:134.211.11.441...0 F _. r -
ryl] a n■E �.. ■ �_ = at. t-. - _ -
�� 0-7.00727.,,,,,
I
'
..smilialil I...u.. 7 ijAmil
fo,
_, _
. . ,...,c, _•,-.._-__-__,. --- ,,,_ _,,,,rEmmi,...k......., mw, ,
. -:69. re rer.41.4.
' { ..
WI
0011111- 1111°"'
.firinlinj r .4, ,..m..; Ar„.... , _.
_ E ..dam.:
graP !I f.-4-1,1 I I 4.---ir 11 : alli - 2 miii ,
--,-,- -/O Are1
. .:
11111111741pAk1-7,, N. r N „„._ _______ i-4 ill a -.ar. g. °--- . - _.„- -,4.-e2
: iliarkaW.- ' .
2iw.xtg Iii will' 7,•• ..,,,,— ; 1,7---i, ,-, ',-: , ,.; i, n . :. ,,,,,„,„,1,10,04... ,...1. ._ ..e,
' s� 'p! '-
111
•1i•1• 71
■
q
. ,, a�i '�miring ■: . " ,' ''''44: '
Y31
pi
-<€.- 1 {al" ' IIILint;;;Ziditisim;j'i""'
-„di irImmlibhat...... , r 555ff°' ' - ---'-' r .7
y. y,iiiiN rr 1Ilh
4i5ix1 ;.
:1"::',__ Afrow. iiir Wil.2,-.-+IF In 7.11.1 .`'..;'i tIl.... ,
INNW-
re�,
�.;7=AWL._�
r �� � � lir■1� +11�l� :0,!....;....%.1,,..' '�r-
!r I�S f � me g ,,roll j ......- ,-
-1.1
. 1111 ;!�■ .. ■ ii
III- Fjj! :!is " s 'v .IRI
Spokane a 12
Valley
..........m... .......... .iiiiiiiin
Land Use Map
•
1.__
Spokane MEav Mining , .
• Created language in
develo ment re ulations -%' , � h , � t. A _
p g
}
.% 1r'� 4' ....n.
to allow existing mining 1' — - . ,_. _— i1.
a r R
operations to mine } - -
1- ikt
within their permitted 1 �' '`
wk o
rights FQ
�, '1.:, I s
s
y�
Y ' A�- L
0
�,�Jp^ r 4.
Spokane 13
Valley
.........m. ........ iiiiiiiiiin
Community Prosperity
Existing Map (12 Designations, 17 zones) Proposed Map (9 Designations, 11 zones)
- Or
�1ir��� p ice+
- -ion �o ,' If = y.' -. ` ■ •on 4_ r! II
4 .
I../� inn a �� __ wi ��- a _ m ■
PM
g ;��c �� R �v u sm� tic'
fir. Mill um:.:'
, ..'tip^.:
Development Regulations Revisions
■ Title 17 General Provisions
■ Title 19 Zoning Regulations, including zoning map
■ Title 21 Environmental Controls
■ Title 22 Design and Development Standards
■ Appendix A Definitions
Spokane 15
Walley
Title 17 General Provisions
■ Develop a stronger interpretation process
■ Modify sign requirements for Public Hearing Notice
■ Hearing Examiner change of conditions
■ Added vesting provisions
Spokane 16
Walley
Title 19 Zoning Regulations
• Reorganized Title
• Modified zoning district and zoning map to be consistent with the land use map
• Modified permitted used matrix to reflect new zoning districts
• Incorporated language for small dwellings
• Modified Density and Dimensional standards
• Created Transitional Standards
• Modified Administrative Exceptions
Spokane 17
Valley
Alternative Residential Development
■ Provides options & standards for non-traditional single-family development
• Accessory dwellings units
• Industrial accessory dwelling units
• Cottage developments
• Duplexes
• Manufactured homes
• Small residential dwellings
• Townhouses
Spokane 18
Walley
Density and Dimensions
■ Adjusted standards in R-3
• Min lot size 5,000 sq. ft.
• Eliminated min lot width and length
• Retained density (6 units/acre)
■ Adjusted standards in MFR
• Eliminated density
• Eliminated building height
■ Eliminated non-residential dimensions except for NC
Spokane 19
Valley
.........m... •••••••••• •••••••
Transitional Provisions
• Reduces impacts on adjacent uses
Si
sI 1' • Ground level setback 10'
BI , T
M I • Landscaped per 22.70.070
• Limited uses allowed
I
I 3'
J ■ Upper level setback is a 1 to 1
a 25'
ctI
1 15' ratio starting at a height of 15' at
the property line of the protected
Protected Zones 10'min. Zones Providing Protection zones.
setback
Spokane 20
Valley
Title 21 Environmental Controls
• Created a SEPA infill exemption to promote development
• Consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan Critical Areas
regulations
• Updated methods and references to reflect best available
science
Spokane 21
Title 22 Design ik Development Standards
• SVMC 22.50 Off-street Parking and Loading Standards
• SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening & Landscaping
• SVMC 22. 130.040 Street Standards
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ Public Hearing on September 29, 2016 and October 6, 2016
■ 86 people provided written (32) and verbal (54) comments
• Sprague and Barker designation change to Multifamily Residential (80% of total)
— 64 against
— 4 supported
• 3001 N Pines Road designation change to Mixed Use
— 4 against
— 2 supported
• Other comments related to supporting elements of the plan such as parks and trails,
alternative housing, impact fees, preserving neighborhoods and commercial zoning
changes
Spokane 23
Walley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ Deliberations occurred on October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2016
■ Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, supporting development regulations, and zoning
map with changes
■ The following slides provide an overview of the Planning Commission's
recommended changes and the City Council's direction relayed to staff on
October 25th
Spokane 24
Walley
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Add a policy in Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation,
and sustainable park management methods in future City park
improvement projects
• -- a ar,
��=+• ': ._,.,�`r is - , R £
as a3sw
0'}icer f
Spokane 25
Valley
City Council Decision
• Add a policy in Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan Update to allow for the potential inclusion of
xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management
methods in future City park improvement projects
,'' y► f
S'
-� ir-tet v t
litimaratv.,„,„ ii, '**, k 'Ilk ,Nr• , -
Spokane 26
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
• 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).
pve
Gov- a me P i I°II I P PI P 1 1"-- (2
1 .__‘-‘ Pf
i rPaas I've wxart Ave
„400fY
• E Riversi se Ave
■
SpoIII
kane 27
Valley
................. ...miiiiii
City Council Decision
■ Retain existing zoning
17.111"111,141119 1
'I 'ikii ‘ Nsk . .,,,N•chN..,4%. 4,b4:1, 11.[P—,_. "..„.,:,.,-,.)>- witi • III 4. 40111164;isimmilla i
,), S,ItkItiu-s-.441i.4 , 44 ,‘,‘-‘,4„,4,‘:,\-.N.,_-- lib. gii. Inoue hi 0 A oig 4% 1
* it‘1464:44.4X%''' .Vhb` b4444%11411* Ali 1 I Ild NA to iiimpilib
..\
N1NSII.°eNV141411°"11 el EINE. mviamemossing MEE
ll
;Si*****4ezf '%a:1%1%;4%. millii NOME
%so.,. .z. Nsk%Ift4INtsi ME Ill
IN
ii• I= mullum MIT
911- Wil simi Innumulph.sumimmawkiwrim
Spokane 28
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
• 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).
pave �
G'N
s me P"' ii
o
i r �0� 'v gilt woo, Ave
„400
i
' E Riversie Ave
III
Spokane 29
Valley
City Cou nci I Decision
• 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) as recommended by PC.
A\le
fGMe W.-- ,Iiii VI 13)
•\e\
uIIil .
0 ‘X+n Ave
o E Riversi•e Ave IIM
1111. E
2
Spokane 30
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Use the annual amendment process
• Proposal to change parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone the same
parcel as Mixed Use (MU).
E Mirabeau Par
r` . ric I o
� 0
Spokane 31
Valley
City Council Decision
• Change parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone the same parcel
as Mixed Use (MU).
E Mirabeau Par
- seri k Ave
i- '
L
1111
MIN
Spokane 32
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ Use the annual amendment process
• Proposal to allow greenhouse/nursery, commercial on the identified parcel.
r st Ave-
Dish
0
•
seg
o � Dr
4
Spokane 33
Walley
City Council Decision
• Consider a code a text amendment for future PC analysis
t St Ave
o
_0 41i
eo
14p%, ii,
Fv`
ti *->%' 4
oittiii 4
�VjjflDr
„..„,.
Spokane 34
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory
dwelling units be inhabited by the employer or employee of the
company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located.
Spokane 35
Walley
City Council Decision
• Retain the proposed language in SVMC 19.40.050.
Spokane 36
Valley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ Remove SVMC 19.40. 100 small residential dwellings and small
residential dwellings — supportive housing
■ Consider through a separate future code text amendment process.
Spokane 37
Walley
City Council Decision
■ Discuss further
Spokane 38
jValley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ 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.
Spokane 39
Walley
City Council Decision
■ 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 as recommended by PC.
Spokane 40
Walley
Planning Commission Recommendation
■ 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.
Spokane 41
Walley
City Council Decision
• Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070( D) adding language to provide that
full screening is required when a multifamily project abuts a single family
residential use in multifamily zones.
Spokane 42
Valley
N ext Steps
■ Continue to compile agency comments as received
■ Staff modifies documents as directed by City Council
■ November 22, 2016 — anticipated Second Reading
Spokane 43
Walley
Questions
Spokane 44
Walley
r
4llr %X 0:1r-rival:Jan Arca
00. --------•-•":..' r:'____,'
~i
' ce
i '..•/' -_ _1 *
04• ---,—(1,0.
�
kik ' / ll
, Camp Selz ate . i � £
i ! A14,--......7-.... T ,
Sdr�
rat -":4"41'ri3 '. , IMPI ,:„.17A—__77---;.- .111-- ..——-.--•••\^ 7‘,...,,.--r—'::'' --. , i
—
,�% F Ewid G
•
_.
;LI i4
• gilts Field ,__ TA ._.. ...look ,—
e'firr /�,1` �p -
�� t_ • "mss///._.. / - L�b¢rtY
f +t:-j ►T,�y-' ,� fes -�>, i a 1 - L �n9� J , E MLSNdi Av4
SwF_ eilizt....: WV
‘../.....
igmt iy. ‘-` i --.,
.1 pit
,
VialABdw�v Awe S .w^ � 11111--r_ M Broadway .■ Ave�r
. .Dr
ig onsg1F
Aeo•',I,,
71110 Q
c, MEh •r ..monls N ,.
_ , , i iya. - _iffeziopm, yr"-, -
+My of Spokane Naneyza / _.. �a �
Milaildipalammeariex ,Aril -,+
",�5aoka�ecw;�crurba��:rnki:,NV} x,�. 7 '-E :yvo
,ar�wtaTatan,pCc -- J ..—_my .__._.__r....
Caril..*Ocartnotko — , 1411 prIA VA',
.. =pa$ /7/V;- ' IN ir 47. ''''1":"- .. • . I
•
,ARG �.a/I" rs �` - r - �j; i- N. /
I
onSaa • f
p-„
iT L L Ai:t.Hos +
7‘ N LUZreh C ,
® Area-Smith Unit - ' I
�arne
,'y
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
>�Cin'C
p0 ane STAFF REPORT TO THE
Wa�le!�T" PLANNING COMMISSION
• J 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS
STAFF REPORT DATE:September 16,2016
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 29, 2016, 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.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1) and RCW 36.70A.130(5), all cities and
counties planning under chapter 36.70a RCW (the Growth Management Act or GMA) are required to
review and, if needed revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the
comprehensive plans and development regulations meet the current GMA requirements. The review is
referred to as a periodic update and is required to be completed by 2017 and every eight years thereafter.
Based on the requirements of the GMA,the City's update is due no later than June 30%'', 2017. The City
has prepared the required review and revisions to update its Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan
Update) and associated development regulations, which includes an integrated non-project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The draft Comprehensive Plan Update and associated
development regulation amendments are being presented for Planning Commission consideration
pursuant to the requirements of the GMA.
GENERAL,OVERVIEW
The Comprehensive PIan evaluates growth and land use for a 20-year planning horizon and provides a
policy statement of the City Council and the City for planning over the 20-year period.
Several important sources of information go into the City's Comprehensive Plan Update, including
GMA-required elements, linkages to the Spokane County Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) and
other local plans and policies, input from citizens and other stakeholders, and identified best practices
based on established knowledge and recent trends.
Development regulations are required to implement and be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, Thus,the City has updated and is proposing amendments to development regulations so that they
comply with current law as well as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update.
A more detailed description of the Comprehensive Plan, associated development regulations,and DEIS is
provided below.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The GMA requires that review and revision of Comprehensive Plans include early and continuous public
participation. The City has engaged in extensive public participation as part of the development of the
draft Comprehensive Plan Update that included input from citizens and stakeholders; hundreds of people
participated in the engagement process and their feedback was essential. Engagement activities included
three open house workshops to support visioning, numerous City Council and Planning Commission
Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Update
Associated Development Regulation Amendments
Draft EIS
meetings, a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to refine draft goals and policies, a
thorough process to evaluate citizen-initiated amendment requests (CABs) and a public meeting to
present the draft Comprehensive Plan Update.
In the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City has included elements for Economic Development, Land
Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Natural Environment, and. Parks and Open
Space. Each element includes specific components, including goal's, policies, maps and analytics. In
addition, the City has included an implementation matrix with prioritized strategic actions and timelines
for completion.
The City has taken the periodic update as an opportunity to not only revise the Comprehensive Plan to
ensure compliance with the GMA, but to also implement much of the policy direction received through
the public process. As part of this development, the Comprehensive Plan Update and supporting
development regulations have thus been streamlined and revised significantly from the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan and many supporting development regulations
are presented. as new documents and should be considered as such rather than as mere changes to the
existing Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
Below is a description of each chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan Update.
Chapter 1 —Introduction &Vision:
Chapter 1 introduces the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update and specifies the requirements for
the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the GMA. It identifies the Comprehensive Plan as the City's
official statement regarding its vision for future growth and development over the next 20 years.
The introduction also provides background on Spokane Valley and the process to develop the
Comprehensive Plan Update, including the use of several important sources of information such as GMA-
required elements, linkages to the Spokane County CWPPs and other local plans and policies, input from
citizens and other stakeholders, and identified best practices based on established knowledge and recent
trends.
Chapter 2—Policy Plan&Strategy:
The statutory goals and requirements of the GMA guide the development of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan Update are consistent with GMA requirements
and provide the necessary guidance to realizing the community's vision..
The Policy Plan guides the City's effort in realizing the community's vision. Chapter 2 echoes the
community's vision and is consistent with the GMA. Chapter 2 contains goals that are broad statements
of purpose, policies that provide specific direction to the City,and strategies that identify concrete actions
for implementation.
The strategies in the chapter are not binding components of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather offer
opportunities for action to link to other plans and policies.
Chapter 3—Economic Development Element;
Economic development creates living wage jobs, builds valued community amenities and generates
additional municipal revenues that may be used to maintain service levels, infrastructure and facilities. In
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Update
Associated Development Regulation Amendments
Draft EIS
order to attract and retain companies, increase their productivity and grow the local and regional
economy, effective policy from all other Comprehensive Plan elements is required. In that sense, the
Economic Development Element is integrative, and depends on effective land use regulations, quality
parks and recreation amenities, efficient transportation infrastructure, reliable utilities and infrastructure,
affordable housing opportunities, sustainable resource management, and responsible fiscal policy.
Proactive and innovative economic development efforts are responsible for attracting, recruiting and
retaining office, industrial, and commercial and residential uses within a city. This element is therefore
focused on harnessing market forces to encourage the implementation of Spokane Valley's vision.
Chapter 4—Land Use Element:
Land use regulations determine and balance what may be built, at what density, and in which location. In
considering Spokane Valley's anticipated growth over the next 20 years, the Land Use Element provides
a framework to accommodate future development while enhancing the community's quality of life. In
many ways, the recommendations of the other elements in the Comprehensive Plan depend on effective
planning in the Land Use Element.
Chapter 5—Transportation Element:
An analysis of the existing state of the transportation system is a required component of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It identifies how the transportation network and the
surrounding land uses influence the way people travel and how convenient that travel is for commuting,
shopping, recreating, and other needs. Based on this analysis and an extensive public outreach
component, challenges and opportunities for the transportation network are identified that will be
addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Effective transportation planning ensures that Spokane Valley continues to be accessible, enjoyable and
competitive.
Chapter 6—Housing Element:
Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of a community because it ensures a
balance of land uses and complements employment-generating uses by providing opportunities for
workers to live near their jobs. The availability of housing types that match Spokane Valley's job profile
and enhance the livability of local neighborhoods is therefore an important competitive advantage for
economic development.The Housing Element leverages key data to inform the development of goals and
policies, which will set a course toward the City's vision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane
Valley residents.
Chapter 7--Capital Facilities Element;
The Capital Facilities Element helps the City manage its investments related to facilities needed for
growth, including water, sewer, solid waste, transportation, schools, libraries, stormwater, law
enforcement,parks and recreation, fire and emergency services, and other capital facilities, and responds
to specific (IMA requirements. The element relies on. a Capital Facilities Plan (CEP), which helps the
City use its limited funding wisely and efficiently, and ensures that facilities are in place when growth
occurs. The CFP includes a six-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with estimated costs and proposed
methods of financing. The plan also anticipates needed investments to support the City's economic
development initiatives.
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Update
Associated Development Regulation Amendments
Draft EIS
Chapter 8 Private&Public Utilities Element:
Spokane Valley residents rely on facilities and services that help define their quality of life. These
facilities include those provided by several privately owned utilities in the region.Although many of these
utilities are privately owned or owned by other public entities and regulated at either the state and/ or
federal level, coordinated planning at the local level is essential to ensure that adequate utility service is
available to all citizens.
The Utilities Element is an opportunity to identify ways of improving the quality of services provided
within the City. The City will use this element to identify priorities and develop implementation
strategies to ensure that provision of utilities is properly coordinated with land use.
Chapter 9 Parks and Open Space Element:
The Parks Element provides the backbone to building formal and informal public spaces that support
resident and visitor leisure time. The element provides a formal statement of the community's priorities
as they relate to parks, recreation, open space, and art. Parks add to the quality of life for residents and to
the value of nearby neighborhoods. The Parks Element provides the full range of urban living when
combined with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 10—Natural Environment Element:
The Natural Environment Element combines several related topics, including natural resource areas,
critical areas, surface water,shorelines,and air quality.
The diversity of Spokane Valley's natural environment is illustrated by ecosystems that range from the
foothills of Mt. Spokane to the low-lying Rathdrum Prairie floodplains along the Spokane River.
Throughout the region, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and associated riparian areas provide linkages and
corridors for wildlife. Spokane Valley's natural environment also includes the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer,one of the most productive aquifers in the United States.
By ensuring the availability of clean air and water and preserving critical areas and certain natural
resource areas,Spokane Valley will continue to grow as a healthy,sustainable and inviting community.
The City is required to identify arid designate,where appropriate,certain natural resource lands, including
mineral resource lands. The City does not have many of these lands, such as agricultural and forest lands,
and so such designation is not appropriate. After undertaking a review, the City has determined not to
designate mineral resource lands. This element discusses natural resource lands in more detail.
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS
The development regulations implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The City's
development regulations are currently contained in Titles 17 through 24 SVMC. Development
regulations are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to implement the draft
Comprehensive Plan Update, City staff is proposing significant amendments to Title 17 SVMC,Title 19
SVMC, chapter 2120 SVMC, State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas,
chapter 22.50 SVMC, Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards, chapter 22.70 SVMC, Fencing,
Landscaping and Screening, SVMC 22.130.040, Street Standards, and Appendix A,Definitions.
Title 17 SVMC, General Provisions: This title has -been updated and rewritten to develop a stronger
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Update
Associated Development Regulation Amendments
Draft EIS
interpretation process, allow applicants to waive the rebuttal period, modify certain requirements for
public hearing notice, provide clear direction on processing change of conditions applications, and
provide local vesting provisions in compliance with State law. Further, numerous minor grammatical and.
"clean-up"Changes have been made for consistency with current drafting practices (e.g., the capitalization
of"Director").
Title 19 SVMC,Zoning Regulations: The title has been updated and rewritten to modify zoning districts
to reflect the new land use map, modify the permitted use matrix to reflect new zoning districts and
consolidate uses, incorporate language for new housing typologies, modify density and dimensional
standards, modify language to support new neighborhood commercial development, adjust residential
standards to support infill development, and create transitional standards.
Chapter 21.20 SVMC, State Environmental Policy Act: This chapter has been updated to remove the
SEPA checklist and added a categorical exemption for SETA infill as allowed by State law.
Chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas: This chapter has been updated and rewritten to incorporate best
available science,as required by Washington law. These provisions apply to any development that occurs
within a designated critical area. These provisions largely track similar changes that were made as part of
the City's Shoreline Master Program adopted in 2015.
Chapter 22.50 SVMC, Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards: This chapter has been updated and
rewritten to streamline language, add criteria for electric fencing, and update the clearview triangle area to
be consistent with Street Standards.
Chapter 22.70 SVMC,Fencing,Landscaping and Screening: This chapter has been updated and rewritten
to provide flexibility of types of landscape and location of landscaping, remove aesthetic corridors, and
add more options for visual screening.
SVMC 22.130.040, Street Standards: Chapter 9 of the adopted Street Standards has been revised to
clarify performance surety criteria and requirements, to allow warranty surety bonds, and to remove the
requirement that form sureties be included in the adopted Street Standards.
Appendix A, Definitions: This appendix has been updated and rewritten to remove unnecessary
definitions,strengthen use category definitions, and combine zones to allow flexibility.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The City of Spokane Valley, as the lead agency, has determined this proposal is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required
under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)and is included.
An.EIS that evaluates planning-level proposals, such as changes to a city comprehensive plan, is referred
to as a programmatic EIS. A programmatic EIS does not evaluate the impacts associated with a specific
development project; rather, it contains broader, planning level analyses that emphasize cumulative
impacts, policy-level alternatives, and program-level mitigation measures. The City's Comprehensive
Plan Update EIS contains programmatic analyses of potential significant impacts associated with adoption
of the EIS Alternatives. Individual development projects occurring under the policies of the updated
Comprehensive Plan will be subject to any SEPA review required by state,county,and City regulations.
Two action alternatives are analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Plan/EIS: Citizen Focus (Alternative 2)
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Update
Associated Development Regulation Amendments
Draft EIS
and Community Prosperity (Preferred Alternative), and as required by SEPA, a No Action Alternative.
All the alternatives accommodate the City's population allocation for 2037 of 14,650 for a total 2037
population of 109,913 without the need for an Urban Growth Area expansion.
Community Prosperity (Preferred) assumes the implementation of the Citizen Focus Alternative, the
preservation of the Low Density Residential designation as presented in the No Action Alternative, and
the implementation of community priorities developed in the public visioning process. The key features
of this Alternative include:
— Renaming of five land use designations,
— Consolidated four land use designations (Medium Density Residential, Office, Community
Commercial and Light Industrial)into appropriate existing land use designations.
— Creating one new land use designation(Industrial Mixed Use)
— The creation of transitional zoning provisions to protect single-family zones from multi-family,
commercial,mixed use,and industrial zones.
— Allow for a 5,000 square foot lot size in the R-3 zone but retain six units per acre density in order
to allow infill within City's unique development pattern.
-- Proposes a corridor Level of Service (LOS) standard in addition to existing intersection LOS
standards.
Citizen Focus Alternative assumes the implementation of the Citizen-Initiated Amendment Requests
(CARs) related to Land Use Map changes. The CARs process allowed comm unity members to propose
changes to the adopted Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map or to existing policy language. All of the
CARs considered for this Alternative are site-specific future Land Use Map amendments. As part of the
analysis, some of the CARs were expanded to include nearby parcels to avoid creating unique islands of a
land use designations.
This Alternative also proposes changes to the existing policy framework. The key features of the
proposed changes include:
— Eliminating redundancies and to create clear and concise policy statements.
— New policies to support the City's economic development initiatives.
— Allow for a 5,000 square foot lot size in the R-3 zone but retain the six units per acre density in
order to allow infill within City's unique development pattern.
— Proposes a corridor Level of Service (LOS) standard in addition to existing intersection LOS
standards.
The No Action Alternative assumes that existing land use designations and regulations would remain in
effect, the existing zoned-density in the City would not be increased and the existing UGA boundary
would remain unchanged. This Alternative assumes that development would occur within the City in a
manner consistent with previously adopted plans and policies.
NOTICING
The City issued a threshold determination for this proposal on January 29, 2016, The City issued a
Notice of Availability on September 16, 2016. The comment period for this proposal will end on
November 15, 2016 at 5:00pm. Public notices have been issued in accordance with the City's adopted
noticing process.
Page 6 of 6
Comprehensive Plan Public Comments
Index Number Date Received Name e _-- Subject - Against Support
Written Comment CO1 9/29/2016 Ton-es,Oscar Requesting a change in zoning at 3001 N Pines Road Support
Written Comment CO2 10/4/2016 Frederiksen,Daniel&Cassandra Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment CO3 10/4/2016 Rambo,Jay City wide Commercial zoning changes Support
Written Comment C04 10/6/2016 Lathan,Athlan and Rachelle Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment COS 10/5/2016 Spokane Transit(Karl Otterstrom) Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Support
Supporting Transit
Written Comment C06 10/5/2016 Schultz,Kevin Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C07 10/5/2016 Petersen,Larry Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C08 10/5/2016 Currier,Danyel Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
_Written Comment C09 10/5/2016 McLean Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C10 10/5/2016 Walton,Matthew Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C11 10/5/2016 Cote,Kathryn Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment Cl2 10/5/2016 Smith,CIyde&Zita Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C13 10/6/2016 Southern,Charles&Janice Zoning change at Barker and Laberry Support
Written Comment C14 10/6/2016 Mitchell,Neldon Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written,Comment C15 10/6/2016 Clark,Marshall City wide Commercial zoning changes Support
_Written Comment C16 10/6/2016 Riley,Meghan Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C17 I0/6/2016 Arthur,Andrew Improve noticing for zoning changes and apartments Support
_ Written Comment C18 10/6/2016 Arthur,Ashley Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C19 10/6/2016 Calvin,Casandra Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C20 10/6/2016 Willis,Ann Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C21 10/6/2016 Nelson,Doug Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment(77 10/6/2016 Krajack,Scott _Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Support
Written Comment C23 10/6/2016 Phillipson,Andy Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C24 10/6/2016 Colombo,Barbara Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C25 10/6/2016 Alexander • Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C26 10/6/2016 Crapo,Dennis Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Support
Written Comment C27 10/6/2016 Olson,Ryan Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Support
Written Comment C28 10/6/2016 Ewasko,Brian Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C29 10/9/2016 Smith,Clyde&Zita Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against,
Written Comment C30 10/9/2016 Vinway Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C31 10/12/2016 Kaiser,Suzan Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Written Comment C32 10/12/2016 Werden,Gene Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C33 9/2912016 Currier,William Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C34 9/29/2016 Colombo,Stephanie Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against ,
Comprehensive Plan Public Comments
Index Number Date Received. Naanc > --._. Subject — Against Support
Oral Comment C35 9/29/2016 Colombo,David Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C36 9/29/2016 Roberts,Frank Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C37 9/29/2016 Torres,Oscar Requesting a change in zoning at 3001 N Pines Road Support
Oral Comment C38 9/29/2016 Ewasko,Brian Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
_ Oral Comment C39 9/29/2016 Krajak,Scott Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Support
Oral Comment C40 9/29/2016 Campbell.Tera Preserving Neighborhoods Support
Oral Comment C41 9/29/2016 Roberts,Frank Zoning change at 3001 N Pines Against
r Oral Comment C42 10/6/2016 Howard,John Improve noticing for rezones Support
Oral Comment C43 10/6/2016 Korn,Pat Zoning change at 3001 N Pines Against
Oral Comment C44 10/6/2016 Misterek,Clara Zoning change at 3001 N Pines Against
Oral Comment C45 10/6/2016 Mason,Donita Zoning change at 3001 N Pines Against
Oral Comment C46 10/6/2016 Kovacs,George Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C47 10/6/2016 Haveman.Amber Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C48 10/62016 Currier.William Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C49 10/6/2016 _Roberts,Frank Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C50 10/6/2016 Smith,Zita Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C5I 10/6/20I6 Board,Nancy Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C52 10/6/2016 Colombo,Stephanie Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C53 10/6/2016 Colombo,David Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C54 10/6/2016 Vinson,Wayne Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C55 10/6/2016 Shepard,Norman Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C56 10/6/2016 Moseman,Marina Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C57 10/6/2016 Lathan,Athlan Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C58 10/6/2016 Crapo,Dennis Request to change property designation on parcel Support
_ 45333.1807 on Sands Road
Oral Comment C59 10/6/2016 Boucher,Russ Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C60 10/6/2016 Nilson,Lee Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C61 10/6/2016 Neil,Kurt Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C62 10/6/2016 Belfry,Paul Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C63 10/6/2016 O`Shogay,Karen Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C64 10/6/2016 Gallion,Karen Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C65 10/6/2016 Cook,Gilbert Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C66 10/6/2016 McCord,William Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C67 10/6/20I6 Robertson,Ian Alternative dwellings,tiny homes Support
Oral Comment C68 10/6/2016 Plaggemeir,Lynn Imposing impact fees Support
Comprehensive Plan Public Comments
Index Number Date,Reeelver __— Name Subject A anst Support
Oral Comment C69 10/6/2016 SEEZIMIIIIIM Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C70 ]0/6/2Qi6 Zlateff,CharitF Parks and trails,multiuse development,increase transitional Support
provision setbacks&set multifamily height limit
1 Oral Comment C71 10/6/2016 Williams,Dallas Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against Mi
Oral Comment C72 10/6/2016 Hunter,Taffy Zoning change at Barker and Sprague CM
Oral Comment C73 10/6/2016 Bonner,Kayloni Zonin chantre at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C74 10/6/2016 Petibone,Kris Zoning change at Barker and Sprague 1322E1
Oral Comment C75 10/6/2016 Alexander,Kim Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against M1
Oral Comment C76 10/6/2016 Kroko,Caroline Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C77 10/6/2016 Harris,Raymond Zoning chain at Barker and Sprague Against ME
Oral Comment C78 10/6/2016 Olson,Ryan Zoning chan•e at Barker and Spranue —Support
Oral Comment C79 10/6/2016 Stallinga,Jacque Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C80 10/6/2016 Richardson,Chuck Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against —:
Oral Comment C81 10/6/2016 Smith,Clyde Zoning change at Barker and Sprague IIMMI
Oral Comment C82 I0/6/2016 Kautzman,Andy Zoning chane at Barker and Sprague Against
1 Oral Comment C83 10/6/2016 Lippincott,Marc Zoning chane at Barker and SpranueMil
�
Oral Comment C84 10/6/2016 Ross,Sarah Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Against
Oral Comment C85 10/6/2016 Arnold,Nicole Zoning change at Barker and Spra4ue Against
Oral Comment C86 10/6/2016 Williams,Jackie Zoning change at Barker and Sprague Anainst
86 68 18
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
September 22,2016
Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Elisha Heath took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Heather Graham John Holman, Community&Economic Development Director
James Johnson Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley Gloria Mantz, Economic Development Engineer
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos Elisha Heath, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the September 22, 2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the August 25th,2016 minutes as presented. The
vote to approve the minutes was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Graham reported that they
attended the Comprehensive Plan Open House on September 8, 2016.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Basinger reported on
the schedule of future meetings including the Public Hearing scheduled for September 29th with a
continuation on October 6`h, if necessary. Followed by a meeting on October 13th for deliberations and
recommendations to City Council on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger stated that there is a
possibility to separate the deliberations and recommendations into two separate meeting.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Study Session: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) Proposed Updates; and SEPA Analysis for Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Prior to the beginning of the presentation by Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger,
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the mandated date by the state in which the Comprehensive
Plan needed to be completed. Staff stated the date is June 30, 2017. Commission Stathos followed
up with the question of why the schedule is set for the Comprehensive Plan to be completed by
November 2016. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb replied that it is the expressed desire of the City
Council for the Comprehensive Plan Update to be completed by the end of 2016.
Mr. Basinger introduced Economic Development Engineer Gloria Mantz and Economic
Development Specialist Chaz Bates,who were present and would assist him in answering questions
the Commission might have about the document at the conclusion on his presentation on the draft
Comprehensive Plan Update. He requested that Commissioners submit any housekeeping items
including grammar to staff for correction. While substantial changes to the document be discussed
amongst the Commission in order to form a consensus of future action. Mr. Basinger proposed
discussion points for the Planning Commission in relation to the overall document including the
Goals and Policies must be consistent with the community's vision and that the regulations that
implement the Comprehensive Plan are consistent i.e. SVMC Title 19, Zoning.
The community vision is an important piece to the Comprehensive Plan Update as it aligns closely
to the City Council's vision for the plan. The plan has a strong economic development focus, it is
data driven as well as easy to navigate and understand for the community and staff. The approach
includes a specific section on goals and policies to have them located in one place. The
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
implementation matrix is completed. Mr. Basinger presented the following changes related to
zoning:
• Creation of one Multifamily Zone, all new Multifamily designation is located within one
half'mile of a bus route.
• Designated new areas for parks and open spaces, Mirabeau and Appleway Trail.
• Changed Office to Corridor Mixed Use, allowed for multifamily, office, retail, and light
manufacturing.
• Designated new areas for Neighborhood Commercial.
• Created Industrial Mixed Use, allowed for contractor's yards and removed Multifamily.
• Consolidated Light and Heavy Industrial into one Industrial.
• Integrated Community Commercial into Corridor Mixed Use.
• Consolidated R-3 and R-4 to R-3.
• New Mixed Use Area, existing mining pit which in the future use could change.
• Created language in the Development Regulations to allow existing mining operations to
mine within their existing permitted rights.
The proposed Land Use Map has 9 Comprehensive Plan designations and 11 zoning designations
and the current Land Use Map has 12 Comprehensive Plan designations and 17 zoning
designations.
Development Regulations were reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; compliant with current laws; in addition streamline regulations so they are easier to
understand.
Implementing Regulations that were reviewed for changes include SVMC Title 17 General
Provisions; SVMC Title 19 Zoning; SVMC Title 20 Subdivisions; SVMC Title 21 Environmental
Controls; SVMC Title 22 Design and Development Standards and SVMC Appendix A Definitions.
• SVMC Title 17 General Provisions created a stronger interpretation process. Removed
rebuttal period, modified sign requirements for Public Hearing notices, and reviewed
Hearing Examiners' change of conditions. Added vesting provisions.
• SVMC Title 19 Zoning reorganized the entire title, modified the zoning districts to be
consistent with the new Land Use Map. Modified the permitted use matrix to reflect new
zoning districts. Incorporate language for small dwellings i.e. tiny homes and cottage type
housing. Modified the density and dimensional standards, created transitional provisions,
and modified administrative exceptions.
• Reconfigured the Permitted Use Matrix to have the information more accessible.
• Created new section for supplemental uses and uncategorized uses within the broad use
category.
• Transitional provision limited uses allowed in 10 foot set back with landscaping,the upper
level is a one-to-one ratio starting at 15 foot. Provision to assist with zoning within the
right-of-way, it will be at the zone providing protection instead of the middle of the right-
of-way.
• Created a SEPA in-fill exception to promote development.
• Consistent with Shoreline Master Plan
• SVMC Title 22 Design and Development Standards reviewed off-street parking, loading
standards, fencing, screening and landscaping, street standards.
Mr. Holman addressed the question of why the Comprehensive Plan was a brand new document.
He explained the first Comprehensive Plan was put together to be compatible with the Sprague-
Appleway Revitalization Plan which was ultimately removed and the Comprehensive Plan was
modified with the final product being a hollow shell, thus, making it more effective to start from
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
scratch on the current Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Anderson commented on the
difficulty analyzing changes when the two documents are not identical. There was additional
concern expressed by many Commissioners that there was a limited amount of time available to
review the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
Discussion turned to the 5,000 square foot lot within the R-3 zone with the underlying density
remaining at six lots per acre. The Commissioners opposed to the reduction of the minimum lot
size to 5,000 square feet, sited the desire to preserve the feel of the neighborhood as well as lack of
market in the Spokane Valley for smaller lot sizes,The Commissioners supporting the change,sited
the quick sale of 5,000 square foot lots outside the City limits but within the valley area in Spokane
County and the City's Urban Growth Areas.The City of Spokane's older neighborhoods have these
same sized lots; this also creates an opportunity for in-fill development.
Next item for discussion was the Land Use Map specifically the change of zoning on the corner of
Barker and Sprague to Multifamily on staff's recommended map. The Commission expressed
concern over the change due to previous public opposition to the change of the zoning for this
location due to traffic issues already present on Barker.
Commissioner Anderson inquired why there were areas on the Land Use Map that are currently
developed are presented as a change in zoning to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Basinger
explained that many of the properties are located on major intersections throughout the City; if they
wanted to redevelop in the future it would allow more flexibility.
Tiny homes became the next topic for discussion. The opposition stated that it does not encourage
home ownership; does not improve prosperity of the community;
Erik Lamb further explained changes in SVMC Title 17 General Provisions, as it is the general
administrative practices which are applicable to SVMC Title 18 Boards and Commissions through
SVMC Title 24 Building. There is a new section for code interpretation pulled over from SVMC
Title 19. The goal was to strengthen and provide more direction to City staff. Permit processing
procedures in SVMC Section 17.80.110 the notice provision for the distribution of public hearing
notices, the previous requirement to notice homes within 400 feet, added that persons outside of
the 400 feet where there is criteria and circumstances to expand the noticing area. The process for
processing Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments found in
SVMC Sections 17.80.140 and 17.80.150 added clarifying language. SVMC Section 17.100
Compliance and Enforcement changed dates for consistency. Completely new SVMC Section
17.80.170 relates to project vesting. Currently when a complete application is submitted, that
application will be considered under the development regulations in affect to allow for certainty for
developers.Any application set forth in SVMC Table 17.80-1 there is an option for wavier of vested
rights by developers to have the project considered under the current development standards.
The Commission took a break at 7:56 p.m. returning at 8:03 p.m.
Ms. Mantz further explainedthe changes and additions made to SVMC Title 19 Zoning. SVMC
Chapter 19.25 Nonconforming Uses and Structures,only minor inconsistencies were made to assist
in implementing the code. SVMC Chapter 19.30 Changes and Amendments: a section was
removed which addressed development agreements when used with Comprehensive Plan
amendments. This process was not being used. Mr. Holtman commented this section had been
used for one project and staff would not want to it used again. SVMC Section 19.30.015 is the
section in the current code if the Commissioners would like to go read that section. SVMC Chapter
19.35 Residential Density Bonus,this section from the old code has been removed. This was taken
out because there is no density requirement in the Multifamily zone so there is no requirement for
it. The Growth Management Act does require for the City to plan for affordable housing but Mr.
Lamb does not know if this would be applicable. SVMC Chapter 19.40 is a new section to address
Alternative Residential Development Options such as tiny houses,cottages,duplexes,townhouses,
industrial accessory dwelling units (ADU). Commissioner Anderson asked what an industrial
accessory dwelling unit was. Mr. Basinger said there has been a new drive for live/work
environments and being able to live where people work. Commissioner Kelley said he has a client
who is currently looking for this type of set up, live/work/office use. The Commissioners are
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
concerned about small parcels coming up with ten ADUs but it would be different titan ten trailers,
there was considerable discussion regarding concern over allowing these ADUs. Mr.Hohman said
he understands why there would be a desire to try and look at the old and new codes side by side
however trying to compare some sections, like this one,make it very difficult to do. This was one
of the reasons why the old code was so confusing the staff worked to try and make sure the new
one would encompass what was good of the old one but would clearly define what was important
in the new one.
SVMC Chapter 19.50 Planned Residential Developments(PRD),Table 19.40-1 shows which zones
the PRD is allowed. Cottages are allowed in a PRD. Commissioner Phillips said he was in favor
of the cottages in a PRD. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be smaller access roads for
these types of developments, or parking being hidden. Mr. Basinger said a cottage development
would require a Conditional Use Permit,which requires a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner.
A PRO would still have to meet the City's Street Standards. Tiny homes as supportive housing is
an issue for some of the Commissioners. Some Commissioners don't feel the tiny homes don't fit
in an R-3 zone. A question came up as to how small it would be sanitary to allow a `home' to be
and if the Health Department had concerns in the size. The Health Department is concerned about
sanitary conditions but the Building Code's smallest allowable space is 300 square feet.
Ms.Mantz continued with SVMC Chapter 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations,this section
number is new but the contents are not new because it was gathered from three sections in the old
code. This addresses some uses and where they are allowed. SVMC Chapter 19.70 is a new
section with the new residential standards:
• Adjusted standards in R-3
• Min lot size 5,000 sq. ft.
• Eliminated min lot width and length
• Retained density(6 units/acre)
• Adjusted standards in Multifamily Residential
• Eliminated density
• Eliminated building height
• Eliminated non-residential dimensions except for Neighborhood Commercial
SVMC Chapter 19.75 has the transitional regulations in it and this is new section to the code. The
ground level setback is ten feet, but must be landscaped and has limited uses which are allowed in
the setback.. The upper level setback is a ratio of one to one starting at a height of 15 feet at the
property line. The height of the building next to a protected zone may increase one foot for every
foot of horizontal distance from the nearest protected zone (R-1, R-2 or R-3) boundary. If there
were multiple properties in a zone, it would apply to the whole project. There are no height
restrictions in the multifamily/commercial zones. The transitional regulations should control the
height of the project. If there is a single family home in a multifamily zone, this protection would
not apply to that single family home.
Ms. Mantz said if the Commissioners wanted to concentrate on the new information being added
to the code in SVMC Title 19 the Chapters would be 19.40, 19.70 and 19.75. She said SVMC
Chapter 19.50 had some changes to the Permitted Use Matrix and many of the categories have been
condensed. Mr.Lamb stated there had been no changes to the marijuana regulations since they had
been adopted earlier in the year.
Commissioners asked why the line for multifamily became along 4th Avenue, instead of the other
side of Sprague Ave. Mr. Basinger said it was a red line for Spokane Transit Authority (STA)
which means it is served by transit on Sprague. Mr. Hohman said currently there is medium and.
high density along 41h Avenue and it has access to the Appleway Trail currently or will in the near
future. The intent is to limit amendments moving forward and to concentrate development in the
smartest places, where it has been developing. Development of multifamily housing on or near
Sprague makes sense for new development.
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:09 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
1
ge>o-0 ���1ii�vz/ 1011,311
!a
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Afretel _J
Elisha Heath, Secreta►y
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers City Hall
September 29,2016
I. Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Heather Graham Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager
James Johnson, absent-excused Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley, absent-excused Gloria Mantz, Economic Development Engineer
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Development
Michelle Rasmussen,absent-excused Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Suzanne Stathos Henry Allen, Development Engineer
Deanna Horton, Commission Secretary
Hearing no objection, Commissioners Johnson, Kelley and Rasmussen were excused from
the September 29, 2016 meeting.
IL Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the September 29, 2016 agenda as presented.
The vote was four in favor; zero against and the motion passed
III. Minutes: There were no minutes to approve.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Public Hearing: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) Proposed Amendments Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning, Title 2I
Environmental Controls,Title 22 Design and Development Standards and SEPA Analysis
for Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Graham read the rules of a public hearing and then turned the meeting to Economic
Development Coordinator Mike Basinger in order for him to give a presentation outlining the
update to the Comprehensive Plan and the corresponding changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code.
Mr. Basinger began by sharing the vision gathered from the community through a public process:
• Increased focus and access to parks and trails
• Consider a specific focus area around new City Hall
• Provide for a greater variety of housing types
• Preserve the character of the neighborhoods
• Locate housing near amenities like retail, health care, parks, and transit
• Increase business opportunities and reduce barriers
Which echoes the vision the City Council has for the City:
• Streamline land uses and maximize flexibility
■ Preserve established neighborhoods
■ Provide for a variety of housing types like tiny homes cottage houses
• Change the mixed-use designations along Trent
• Consolidate Office and Garden Office or change to Corridor Mixed Use
• Expand and designate new areas of Neighborhood Commercial
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
Mr. Basinger stated based on this vision the Plan has been completely rewritten in order to be:
• Economic Development focus
• Innovative and data driven
• Easy to navigate with an attractive design
• Concise and understandable
• Includes existing studies
• Retail Recruitment
• Tourism
• Existing conditions report
• Include strategic actions Specific section for goals and policies
• Includes strategies in the goals and policies section
• Includes an implementation matrix identifying:
• Strategies, which are included in the sidebar of the Plan
• Primary Element
• Related Elements
• Lead &Partners
• Timing
• Priority
The elements which will be included in the Plan are as follows however there will be a separate
chapter up front which will have all of the goals and polices in it so anyone looking for them will
not have to search the whole document looking for them,they can find them all in one place right in
the front of the Plan.: We also made sure other documents were consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Economic Development
• Land Use
■ Housing
■ Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Utilities
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space
• Natural Resources
Each element will be organized in a similar fashion: Why the element is important
• Planning Context
• Current Conditions
• Approach
• Challenges and Opportunities
• Community and Economic Development Priorities
• Best Practices
Mr. Basinger continued explaining the changes to the Land Use designations. He stated staff
combined the former two multifamily designations and zones into one.The medium density zone was
moved into the R-4 zone or the MF-2 zone, which ever was more appropriate.The new Multifamily
Residential (MFR) designation was looked at being near services and along transit routes. A buffer
of one half of a mile around bus stops was considered. Spokane Transit Authority has stated their
"Red Line" along Sprague Ave has the second highest ridership of all routes and they are working
for six minute service. A good deal of the MFR has been concentrated near Sprague, near the
Appleway Trail and near transit service.
The City designated new areas for parks and open space. Designated space near Mirabeau Park and
the Appleway Trail right-of-way. The Office designation has been absorbed into Corridor Mixed
Use, which will allow multifamily, office, retail and light manufacturing. New areas for
Neighborhood Commercial designations have been placed at major intersections in close proximity to
existing neighborhoods. An Industrial Mixed Use designation was created for the land along Trent
Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies and
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
continues to allow for commercial uses.Mr. Basinger continued to explain the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code has also been updated in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. The Municipal
Code is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, comply with current laws and was
rewritten to streamline the regulations.
SVMC Title 17 General Provisions was completely rewritten to streamline the processes, to
develop a stronger interpretation process, remove the rebuttal period, modify lettering size
requirements for Public Hearing notices, in certain instances we will notify outside of the boundaries
required,the Hearing Examiner change of conditions, and adding vesting provisions.
SVMC Title 19, Zoning, is where the bulk of the changes occurred. Since the regulations must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it has been update to reflect all of the changes in the Plan. IT
has been completely reorganized to make it easier to use. The zoning districts have been modified
to be consistent with the Land Use map. The Permitted Use Matrix has been update to reflect the
new zoning districts, remove the old zoning districts, incorporated language for small dwellings.
The density and dimension standards have been modified and transitional provisions have been
added to protect residential neighborhoods when they are adjacent to a more intense zone. The
Administrative Exceptions have been modified to make them clearer. Created zoning districts to
implement the Plan. Residential districts R-3 and R-4 have been combined into one R- 3 zone with a
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The MF-1 zone has,based on our studies,not been performing
since before incorporation of the City.One Multifamily zone has been created and the MF-1 has been
absorbed into either the MF-2 or Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) whichever was appropriate. Light
Industrial and Heavy Industrial have been combined into one Industrial zone. However, a new zone
has been created called Industrial Mixed Use to be able to take care of the properties along Trent
Avenue where Council had requested staff look to create zoning which would be more appropriate
for the uses along this corridor. Added some alternative dwelling types, such as tiny homes and
cottages. The Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to reflect the removal of the Office, Garden
Office, Community Commercial and Light Industrial zones from the code. Medical, retail uses were
added into broad use categories as well as creating a broad use category for marijuana uses.
Supplemental uses were put in one place so they were easy to find. Uncategorized uses were also
placed in its own section, such as home businesses. Density and dimension standards were adjusted
in the R-3 zone to have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and removed the minimum lot width
and length but the density still remains at six units per acre. We adjusted the standards in the MFR
to remove the density and the building height. We also eliminated nonresidential dimensions except
in Neighborhood Commercial. In order to reduce the impacts of reducing these dimensions,staff added
Transitional Provisions. There is a ground level setback of ten feet. Within this setback there are
limited uses allowed and it must be landscaped per the landscaping requirements. There is an upper
level setback which is a one to one ratio starting at 15 feet at the property line starting at the property
line.
Title 21, Environmental Controls,a SEPA exemption created to promote infill development. We also
make sure it was consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. We also made sure to update methods
and reference to reflect best available science.
In Title 22, Design and Development Standards, the off street loading requirements, clarified the
clearview requirements, streamlined buffering and screening requirements, modified landscaping
requirements and modified surety requirements.
In Appendix A,Definitions any unnecessary definitions and strengthened the use category definitions,
Mr. Basinger covered the schedule moving forward. The public hearing is tonight, the possibility to
continue the public hearing or begin deliberations will be on October 6, 2016. The regular meeting
and continued deliberations is scheduled for October 13, 2016. The findings and recommendations
are scheduled for October, and there needs to be time for staff to put together the Commission's
recommendation to the City Council. The Administrative Report to the City Council is scheduled for
October 25, 2016. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing and the first reading of the
ordinance adopting the new Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 2016, with a second reading
scheduled for November 22, 2016.
The Chair called for those people who wished to testify:
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
William Currier, 110 N Barker Rd.: Mr. Currier requested the side-by-side Land Use Map
comparison which had been in the presentation be returned to the screen in order to reference it in his
testimony. Mr. Currier, referring to the corner of Sprague and Barker, stated that the 'cow pasture'
had already been zoned multifamily, but now his home and the land that Viking Homes had bought
multifamily.He said he finds it odd that he was here a year ago fighting against and it was unanimously
turned down, or recommended to the City Council to be rejected and now we are back here again.
When he looks at that map and sees that 'tiny brown spec', (meaning the properties designated as
multifamily on the Land Use Map at Sprague and Barker), if you look at the map on the right there is
nothing like it. He stated if you are trying to have a cohesive plan of things that flow, why would you
not take that little spot that is a cow pasture and it is multifamily and turn it back into what it should
be. It was turned into that under somewhat weird circumstances,he doesn't know all the details to that,
but it doesn't make any sense to hint. He said he was sure a lot of the people are going to say all
kinds of things about the traffic and stuff. It just doesn't make sense and you are trying to make
things flow and put things together, and it is actually a really good idea but that doesn't flow.
Stephanie Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue:Ms. Colombo stated she was there to discuss the
property at Sprague and Barker. She said she did not think it fits as one individual dark spot on the
map. Referring to the last person who spoke,his property had been referred to as the `island property,'
and how that does not work in the City development plan. She wanted to know how making a new
island property made sense. She said since it was not a specific person trying to change it but the
City allowing it,people did not need to be notified and she did not feel this was fair. Especially with
all the previous testimony against it,how the change happened has upset her. She said at the beginning
of the meeting, one of the goals was `maintain current neighborhood standards.' She said making
that corner a multifamily designation is not going to help the area. She offered there are no services
or good transit in the area. She appreciates the community or homeowners who put up a sign so
she knew to come and dispute the changes you want to make.
David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Colombo said he was talking the property at
Sprague and Barker. He said he felt that the change to this property had been buried in other
changes and that they may need to be changed, but he didn't know anything about them they are so
far away from him. But he felt this property (change) being put into this group was ridiculous and
felt it should be addressed separately. He said the only way he knows about it was from a guy's
homemade sign. He said 'that guy' won't be able to keep his home. If you change this, you will
destroy that man (pointing to the same man previously identified) right there. He said this sickened
him that government, especially the Valley, could do this. He said he has lived here 40, almost 4.5
years now and this used to be one of the most awesome places to live. Be wishes he knew the
numbers but since you have buried them in all the other numbers he can't figure what it is. He said it
makes him ill thinking this could actually happen where he has lived this long. There are so many
other things that he did not know about. He said he has cars and now he is being told he has to give
his cars up because other people don't like the looks of them even though according to the City
standards they are not junk. He said "they" are still saying the cars are, and that is what is going to
keep on happening if this (change) goes through. He feels this change needs to be put back on its
own situation, not buried in with all of the stuff that is going on here. Obviously you did a good job,
there is not as many people here this time as there was last time. He stated didn't get a letter and this
would be in his back yard. He thanked the Commission for listening to him and for getting hot under
the collar.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he said he lives across from the post
office. He said if you put the apartment complex and do the rezone you want to do, lie said he
would be more consumed with building up the industry in this town rather than the apartment
complexes. He said it is like every piece of spare dirt you see in this valley, as soon as you see it
available, it is an apartment complex. If you drive down Indiana past the mall, and see all the big
apartments down there, He said a friend of mine lives down there, He said his friend now has
people looking into his kitchen from three stories up, He was troubled by the prices that they charged for
rent, There needs to be two or three people or families living in one unit in order to afford to live in
those apartments. Where is the $15-$20 per hour jobs in this town? There aren't any, they are all
working in the service industry at Wendy's, McDonalds or WallyWorld. He has lived here 61 years
and in the same house since 1975, it used to be a nice place. It used to be all pastures, farms, apples,
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
and residential. The same people who bought that seven acres of land, they put houses a block
down the street, but that is not good enough. They are out of Hayden Idaho,which is a right to work
state. They can pay their workers next to nothing. They can build their three story apartment complex
and it will cost them next to nothing, because they have a right to work state. We can't get out of
our driveways now as it is.
Oscar Torres, 204 S Koren Road: Mr. Tones provided a letter, which was handed out to each
Commissioner.Mr. Tones stated he was speaking on behalf of the Mirabeau Chapel Church. He said
the property is located at 3001 N Pines and is approximately 7.94 acres. He stated his client was
interested in having their proper re-designated from Single Family Residential, to Mixed Use,
which is just across the road. Mr. Torres said the request to change the designation is consistent
with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following criteria: the property
is adjacent to other similarly designated properties. He said as he has studied the current and
proposed Land. Use map, the designations are still the same. The property is located along a main
arterial and will allow for existing infrastructure to be used more efficiently. The property is located
near housing and therefore will create a positive economic development impact to the area. It is also
consistent with the existing transit system. Mr.Torres said this request to change the designation on
this piece of property met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Plan.
The new designation will encourage mixed use development where adequate facilities and services
already exist. The mixed use will not adversely affect neighboring properties as it will encourage
development consistent with adjacent properties and encourage economic development. Therefore,
the property owners ask that the change to this property be included in the Comprehensive Plan
update.
Brian Ewasko, 1109 S. McMillan Court: Mr. Ewasko stated he wanted to discuss the property at
Barker and Sprague. Mr. Ewasko stated the last time this property was up for rezoning the room was
packed. The City Council voted unanimously to keep it single family. Some of the reasons which
were brought up before he felt he needed to remind everyone,were the neighborhood was determined
to be more a rural urban neighborhood area. There are plenty of subdivisions, tons of development
going on, but as of right now there are no sidewalks, no grocery stores or shopping centers which
are relatively close by to meet all the requirements for an apartment complex. He said he was aware
there are plans to make Barker bigger but right now with the existing developments happening right
now, the traffic is getting ridiculous as it is. Developers are not required to have to help fix it. A
new apartment complex would not help things. The impact on the schools hasn't been addressed
adequately. He said it does not make sense to him, and he could speak for everyone in the Twin
Bridges neighborhood as well as most of the surrounding neighborhoods around there, to put an
apartment complex there. They are aware there is already going to be 10-20 homes put there and it
is not ideal, but it is absorbable. But to put 100 families there, into schools which are already
overcrowded is not great. There would be a negative impact that an apartment complex would have
on the existing home owner's property values. He said recent construction has increase the amount
of people who are not nominally in the area. This in turn has brought a recent increase in break-ins in
the community.
Scott Krajack, 19425 E Broadway Avenue: Mr. Krajack stated he was the property owner of the
piece of property located at the corner of Sprague and Barker. Mr. Krajack stated in the report
which has been presented,there is not enough affordable housing in Spokane Valley. He said there are
a lot of residents who talk about this, and it is a statistics of the report. Not only affordable single
family, but affordable multifamily is under served in the Valley. He stated the location, at Barker
Road does have problems.There is too much traffic on it. He has been caught in it and he knows the
people to the south have been caught in it. He commented the developments to the south, they
have more homes in them and more homes are being proposed than if the corner were to be
multifamily. He said the traffic is not going to stop coming imp Barker Road. So the thing to do is to
fix the problem. There are a lot more homes going in at Morningside,a lot more homes inTwin Bridges
and all those areas, so if you can widen the road, improve the road, put in sidewalks, you can start
eliminating the problems up and down Barker Road.
Tera Campbell, 7603 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Campbell stated she was here to discuss preserving
neighborhoods. She said she moved into an area she thought was protected by CC & Rs
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6
(Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) and zoning laws. She said they found out later that the
developer did not record any covenants for their development. She ended up in a law suit because the
one of her neighbors built a large shop behind her which does not preserve the value of her property.
She said she wanted other people to understand what they were getting into when they buy property.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he used to live in the area (12104 E
Fredrick)of the church on Pines which had been mentioned previously at 3001 N Pines Road.He said
he remembered the neighborhood fighting for years, before the church bought the property, to keep
apartment complex from going on that property. He said the neighbors fought it for years, some of
the neighbors contributing to an attorney to fight the apartment complex.
After some discussion the Commission consensus was to continue the public hearing until October 6,
2016.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT; Commissioner Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
j(editili3IY/3/i
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
gi?-0/1/7a.- •
Deanna Horton, Secretary
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
October 6,2016
Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Kelly Konkright, Special Council
Heather Graham Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
James Johnson Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Development
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Commission Secretary
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 6, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote
was seven favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: There were no minutes to approve.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he belongs to an online neighborhood
community called McDonald.Nextdoor.com and he had shared the opportunity to comment on the
Comprehensive Plan with these neighbors.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Continued Public Hearing: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) Proposed Amendments Title 17 General Provisions,Title 19 Zoning,Title 21
Environmental Controls,Title 22 Design and Development Standards and SEPA Analysis for
Draft Comprehensive Plan.
This is a continuation of the public hearing from September 29, 2016
Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger gave an overview of the update to the
Comprehensive Plan and the corresponding changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
Mr. Basinger began by sharing the vision gathered from the community through an extensive public
participation process:
' Increased focus and access to parks and trails
• Consider a specific focus area around new City Hall
▪ Provide for a greater variety of housing types
• Preserve the character of the neighborhoods
• Locate housing near amenities like retail,health care, parks, and transit
' Increase business opportunities and reduce barriers
Which echoes the vision the City Council has for the City:
• Streamline land uses and maximize flexibility
• Preserve established neighborhoods
' Provide for a variety of housing types like tiny homes cottage houses
• Change the mixed-use designations along Trent
• Consolidate Office and Garden Office or change to Corridor Mixed Use
• Expand and designate new areas of Neighborhood Commercial
Mr. Basinger stated based on this vision the Plan has been completely rewritten in order to be:
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8
• Economic Development focus
• Innovative and data driven
• Easy to navigate with an attractive design
• Concise and understandable
• Includes existing studies
• Retail Recruitment
• Tourism
• Existing conditions report
• Include strategic actions
• Specific section for goals and policies
• Includes strategies in the goals and policies section
• Includes an implementation matrix identifying:
• Strategies,which are included in the sidebar of the Plan
• Primary Element
• Related Elements
• Lead&Partners
• Timing
• Priority
There will be a separate chapter in the front of the document which will contain all of the goals
and polices, making them easier to locate. We also made sure other City documents were
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The elements included in the Plan are as follows:
• Economic Development
• Land Use
• Housing
a Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Utilities
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space
• Natural Resources
Each element will be organized in a similar fashion:
• Why the element is important
• Planning Context
• Current Conditions
• Approach
— Challenges and Opportunities
— Community and.Economic Development Priorities
— Best Practices
Mr. Basinger continued explaining the changes to the Land Use designations. He stated staff
combined the former two multifamily designations and zones into one Multifamily designation and
zone. MF-1 was moved into the R-4 zone or the new zone,which ever was more appropriate. The
new Multifamily Residential(MFR)designation was looked at being near services and along transit
routes. A buffer of one half of a mile around bus stops was considered. Spokane Transit Authority
has stated their "Red Line" along Sprague Avenue has the second highest ridership of all routes
and they are working for six minute service. A good deal of the MFR has been concentrated near
Sprague,near the Appleway Trail and near transit service.
The City designated new areas for parks and open space. Designated space near Mirabeau Park
and the Appleway Trail right-of-way. The Office designation has been absorbed into Corridor
Mixed Use, which will allow multifamily, office, retail and light manufacturing. New areas for
Neighborhood Commercial designations have been placed at major intersections in close proximity
to existing neighborhoods. An Industrial Mixed Use designation was created for the land. along
Trent Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies
and continues to allow for commercial uses.
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8
Mr. Basinger continued to explain the Spokane Valley Municipal Code has also been updated in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. The Municipal Code is required to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan,comply with current laws and was rewritten to streamline the regulations.
SVMC Title 17 General Provisions was completely rewritten to streamline the processes, to
develop a stronger interpretation process, remove the rebuttal period, modify lettering size
requirements for Public Hearing notices, in certain instances we will notify outside of the
boundaries required, the Hearing Examiner change of conditions, and adding vesting provisions.
SVMC Title 19, Zoning, is where the bulk of the changes occurred. Since the regulations must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it has been update to reflect all of the changes in the Plan.
It has been completely reorganized to make it easier to use. The zoning districts have been modified
to be consistent with the Land Use map. The Permitted Use Matrix has been update to reflect the
new zoning districts, remove the old zoning districts, incorporated language for small dwellings.
The density and dimension standards have been modified and transitional provisions have been
added to protect residential neighborhoods when they are adjacent to a more intense zone. The
Administrative Exceptions have been modified to make them clearer. Created zoning districts to
implement the Plan. Residential districts R-3 and R-4 have been combined into one R-3 zone with
a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The MF-1 zone has, based on our studies, not been
performing since before incorporation of the City. One Multifamily zone has been created and the
MF-1 has been absorbed into either the MF-2 or Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) whichever was
appropriate. Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial have been combined into one Industrial zone.
However, a new zone has been created called Industrial Mixed Use to be able to take care of the
properties along Trent Avenue where Council had requested staff look to create zoning which
would be more appropriate for the uses along this corridor. Added some alternative dwelling types,
such as tiny homes and cottages. The Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to reflect the removal
of the Office, Garden Office, Community Commercial and Light Industrial zones from the code.
Medical, retail uses were added into broad use categories as well as creating a broad use category
for marijuana uses. Supplemental uses were put in one place so they were easy to find.
Uncategorized uses were also placed in its own section, such as home businesses. Density and
dimension standards were adjusted in the R-3 zone to have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet,
and removed the minimum lot width and length but the density still remains at six units per acre.
We adjusted the standards in the MFR to remove the density and the building height. We also
eliminated nonresidential dimensions except in Neighborhood Commercial. In order to reduce the
impacts of reducing these dimensions, staff added Transitional Provisions. There is a ground level
setback of ten feet. Within this setback there are limited uses allowed and it must be landscaped
per the landscaping requirements. There is an upper level setback which is a one to one ratio
starting at 15 feet at the property line starting at the property line.
Title 21, Environmental Controls, a SEPA exemption created to promote infill development. We
also make sure it was consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. We also made sure to update
methods and reference to reflect best available science.
In Title 22, Design and Development Standards, the off street loading requirements, clarified the
clearview requirements, streamlined buffering and screening requirements, modified landscaping
requirements and modified surety requirements.
In Appendix A, Definitions, we removed any unnecessary definitions and strengthened the use
category definitions.
Mr. Basinger covered the schedule moving forward. The regular meeting and continued
deliberations is scheduled for October 13,2016. The findings and recommendations are scheduled
for October 20, 2016, and there needs to be time for staff to put together the Commission's
recommendation to the City Council. The Administrative Report to the City Council is scheduled
for October 25,2016,The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing and the fust reading of the
ordinance adopting the new Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 2016, with a second reading
scheduled for November 22, 2016.
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8
Commissioner Johnson confirmed multifamily is allowed in Corridor Mixed Use, there was no
change to this..
Chair Graham reminded the public of the rules for the public hearing and called the first person to
testify.
John Howard, 11616 E.Jackson Avenue: Mr.Howard commented regarding why people did not
receiving notices about zoning changes and about people building apartments.
Pat Korn, 12103 E. Frederick Avenue: Ms. Korn stated site was opposed the request to change
the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines.
Clara Misterek, 12025 E Frederick Avenue: Ms. Misterek stated she was opposed to the request
to change the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines.
Bonita Mason, 12012 E.Frederick Avenue: Ms.Mason stated she was opposed to the request to
change the zoning on the property at Mirabeau Chapel on Pines Road.
George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Kovacs stated he was against the rezoning of
the properties at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Amber Haveman, 18722 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Haveman stated site was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
William Currier, 110 N Barker Road: Mr, Currier stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at the Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential..
Zita Smith,16 N Harmony Road:Ms. Smith testified she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Nancy Board, 315 S Barker Road: Ms. Board testified she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Stephanie Colombo,18921 E Valleyway Avenue:Ms.Colombo said she was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. She does not agree with the
Corridor Mixed Use moving farther into the neighborhood or removing the height restrictions.
David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Colombo said he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Wayne Vinson, 117 N Barker Road: Mr. Vinson testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Baker to Multifamily Residential.
Norman Shepard,602 S Barker Road: Mr. Shepard testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential,
Marian Moseman, 630 S Michigan: Ms. Moseman stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Athlan Lathan, 1302 S McMillan Road: Mr. Lathan testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Dennis Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Road: Mr. Crapo requested a piece of property he owns located
on Sands Road, have the designation change to Regional Commercial to allow at use of
Greenhouse/nursery commercial.
Russ Boucher, 10 N Harmony Road: Mr. Boucher stated lie was against the rezoning of the
property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Lee Nilson, 101 N Barker Road; Mr. Nilson commented he was against the rezoning of the
property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kurt Neil,19724 E Sprague Avenue:Mr.Neil testified he was against the rezoning of the property
located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential,
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8
Paul Belly, 18807 E Second Avenue: Mr. Belfry testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Karen O'Shogay, 105 S Barker Road: Ms. O'Shogay said she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Karen Gallon, 18605 E Turtle Creek: Ms. Gallion commented she was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Gilbert Cook,303 S Barker Road: Mr. Cook testified he was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
William McCord, 18816 E 4th Avenue: Mr. McCord stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential,
Ian Robertson,11919 E 30"'Avenue: Mr. Robertson said he was supportive of allowing the small
residential dwellings in Spokane Valley. It will support home ownership.
Lynn Plaggemeir, 11708 E 19th Avenue: Mr. Plaggemeir stated he was supportive of impact fees.
Jerry Clue, 18406 E 10"'Avenue: Mr. Cline stated he was against the rezoning of the property at
Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chariti Zlateff, 628 S Moen Street: Ms. Zlateff stated she was supportive of parks and trails.
Supportive of multiuse functions,residential and commercial in same building, She was in support
of increasing transitional setbacks,not exceed four stories,and restricting the Multifamily building
height.
Dallas Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Mr. Williams stated he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Taffy Hunter, 18820 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Hunter stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kayloni Bonner, 19124 E 2" Avenue: Ms. Bonner stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kris Petibone,18009 E. Cowley:Ms.Petibone stated she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kim Alexander-Byrd, 18820 E 4th Avenue: Ms. Alexander-Byrd testified she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Caroline Kroko, 805 S Harmony Road: Ms. Kroko commented she was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Raymond Harris, 18520 E Bow Avenue: Mr. Harris stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Ryan Olson, 18904 E. 12' Court: Mr. Olson stated he was in favor of changing the zoning in the
area near Barker and Sprague.
Jacque Stallinga, 19025 E Riverside Avenue: Ms. Stallinga commented she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chuck Richardson, 18808 E Valleyway Court: Mr.Richardson said he was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Clyde Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Mr. Smith testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Andy Kautzman,18502 E Sprague Avenue: Mr. Kautzman stated he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Marc Lippincott, 19004 E 2"`r Avenue: Mr. Lippincott stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8
Sarah Ross, 18703 E 13'h Court: Ms. Ross testified she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Nicole Arnold, 17322 E Alki Avenue: Ms. Arnold attested she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Williams commented she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chair Graham closed the public hearing at 8;19 p.m.
To summarize the evening's testimony there were:
• 35 people testified they were against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to
Multifamily residential
• One person testified in favor of the zoning change at Sprague and Barker.
• One person testified against Corridor Mixed Use in the Sprague and Barker area
• Three people testified against the request to rezone the property located at 3001 N Pines to
Mixed Use.
• One person requesting a change in designation on his property located on Sands Road to
Commercial.
• One questioning why people did not receive notices for rezones and apartment construction
• One testified supporting impact fees
• One testified increasing the transitional provisions setbacks
• Two people testified against unlimited heights,one requesting four story height restriction.
• One testified in support of alternative housing,specifically tiny houses
• One testified supporting parks and trail development
• One testified supporting mixed use development
• Many people commented regarding the goal of preserving the neighborhood character
• Many spoke regarding the impact of development on schools. Schools in the area being
over crowed,the need to bus local children to other schools because they are over capacity.
a Many spoke regarding the need for infrastructure improvements to the intersection at
Sprague and Barker. Several people commented it is necessary to have a traffic officer on
Sunday mornings in order to handle the traffic coming from the church at that the
intersection at Sprague and Barker.
• Many spoke of the need for infrastructure improvements to Barker Road before the area
would be able to handle any kind of influx of development. One person noted Spokane
County is approving homes south on Barker in Twin Bridges, Turtle Creek, Morningside
and the Morrison Ranch is expected to subdivide 200+ acres before too long, which all
impact the same intersection and Barker Road,which has no sidewalks, is unimproved and
is the only access for the area to the freeway.
There was consensus between the Commissioners to begin deliberations and to start with the
change of designation at Sprague and Barker. The Commissioners discussed the zoning of the
properties at the northeast corner of Sprague and Barker.
Commissioner Graham stated she did not think the zoning west of Barker, south of Bow Avenue
and north of Sprague Avenue which had been changed to Corridor Mixed Use was right for the
arca.
Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about overflow parking from multifamily
development, increase in noise from the development of 400+homes south of the intersection. He
also commented regarding the schools not being able to handle the increase in students as well as
being able to handle special needs students. The Commissioners asked staff what the plans were
to improve Barker Road and this intersection. Mr. Basinger stated he could.not speak to the specific
improvements planned for Barker but he was aware that it was on the 6-year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP). Mr. Kelley stated impact fees are a difficult sell, but they do help with
improvements down the road. He also stated he was supportive of parks and trails.
10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Rasmussen stated she felt the infrastructure needed to be in place ahead of
development. She said she was concerned about the schools being over capacity. She is concerned
the zoning does not seem to fit in this one place. She is not advocating no growth, but this one
place does not seem to fit.
Commissioner Stathos stated she was in support of impact fees. She not in favor of the change of
zoning of the properties at the Sprague and Barker. She believes in a better notification system for
the public.
Commissioner Phillips stated the area at Sprague and Barker is a good location for multifamily
because they are both arterial roads,which is why it was probably designated this way in the new
plan. He also said he did not feel it was the right time for it based on the lack of infrastructure to
support the additional traffic.
Commissioner Graham clarified there is no density restriction in the MFR zone. Mr. Basinger said
there Transitional Provisions would reduce the impacts to adjacent residential development. She
then commented if the property were zoned MFR only the people to the south and east would be
protected. She would not be supporting this change.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the recommendation was not to support the suggested MFR what
would the recommendation be for the property at Sprague and Barker. Commissioner Graham
stated her recommendation would be for the property to be R-3. She said she is ok with the
properties west of Barker and north of Bow Avenue being zoned CMU but not the properties south
of Bow. She said if they were zoned residential previously, they should remain residential.
Commissioner Johnson clarified she was considering leaving the CMU zoning west of Greenacres
Road and north of Bow Avenue.
Conunissioner Kelley stated this would be the correct place to put multifamily in the future,because
it is close to bus routes and when the infrastructure is in place, it will be an ideal place for it.
Commissioner Graham stated if you drive this particular part of Appleway, businesses have a hard
time staying in business. There are not supportive businesses going in this area. Commissioner
Kelley offered there would be in the future. Commissioner Graham said she felt the development
of those kinds of businesses would be going on the north side of the freeway, toward where a
medical center had developed. She said there is a bus stop but where would it take them.
Commissioner Johnson offered the Medium Density Residential has been eliminated from the
Comprehensive Plan,and it could be returned. It would make more sense to have a medium density
development at that corner instead of high density. Townhouses would be better than apartments
lie offered. He said increasing the density for medium density to 16 units per acre, which would
make it more financially viable, given the increasing property values people are seeing. He feels
there is a pent up demand for small reduced cost home ownership.. Commissioner Johnson said he
would support the CMU as was stated previously and make medium density from Greenacres Road
to the east side of the parcels which have been in discussion at the corner of Sprague and Barker.
Commissioner Kelley said he would support MFR up to 24 units per acre but would not support it
being unlimited, but keep it just as one density not as a medium and a high. Commissioner Graham
countered this would not solve the issue at Barker and Sprague. She said she was not opposed to
townhomes, they promote home ownership and stability and have a nicer look than apartments.
They would still change the feel of the neighborhood but not as much as apartments would.
Commissioner Stathos clarified the City is required to update the Comprehensive Plan every eight
years. However, there is still an annual amendment process in which a property owner is allowed
to come in and request a change to their property every year if they wish.
Commissioner Johnson moved to extend the meeting to 9.3O p.in. The vote on this motion was fve
in favor and two against with Commissioners Anderson and Phillips dissenting. Motion passed
Commissioner Johnson suggested bringing back a medium density residential with a maximum
density of 16 units per acre and a height restriction of two stories. It was pointed out this would
allow apartments as well. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in favor of MFR on the property
but not at this time, not until the road is improved. Until the road is improved,he feels it should be
0-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8
left as residential. He said the property owner can come in and ask to change it every year,and the
neighborhood asks why they have to come back in and fight it every year, He said because that is
the law. There are 5 acres and he can put 30 homes on it, He is not in favor of bringing back
medium density residential and redesigning the whole thing. Commissioner Anderson stated with
the change in minimum lot size it would be easier to configure the lot. Commissioner Kelley
commented that townhomes are not necessarily residential homes, they can also be rented.
Commissioner Johnson said apartments are rarely owner occupied, but townhomes could be.
Commissioner Johnson said if left residential, then there could only be six units per acre, but Mr.
Basinger said there was a small difference in standards for townhomes. Mr. Basinger clarified that
R-3 zoning allows townhouses.
Chair Graham confirmed the consensus of the Commission was that lot at Barker and Sprague that
is currently zoned R-3 remain residential, not moved to multifamily.
Commissioner Graham moved to the zoning between Greenacres and Barker Road, and south of
Bow Avenue. She was ready to make a recommendation on it. Commissioner Anderson looked
for an explanation why this area to CMU? Mr.Basinger responded with the deletion of the Medium
Density Residential, CMU was an appropriate designation for this area which allows for single
family residential outright. Commissioner Anderson noted so does multifamily. Commissioner
Kelley noted he could see since there is CMU along Appleway,he could understand the designation
following along this path.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER:There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. The vote on the
motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
NdG zbh / D/zlo 2a►t,
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
tila_Clik/j7D
Deanna orton, Secretary
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
October 13,2016
I. Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretaiy Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community& Economic Development Director
Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney
James Johnson Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist
Michelle Rasmussen Gloria Mantz,Economic Development Engineer
Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 13, 2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven infavor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the September 22, 2016 minutes. The vote on
this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. Commissioner Anderson moved to
approve the September 29, 2016 minutes. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against,
motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Graham reported she attended the debate for the
candidates for the office of Superintendent for Public Instruction.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Deliberations: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) Proposed Updates; and SEPA Analysis for Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Director John Hohman began the meeting with an outline of the process
for the Comprehensive Plan(Comp Plan, Plan)which began in 2014. He said it has been conducted
in three phases,with the consultants who assisted in writing and compiling the document itself and
associated reports. The first phase was conducted from November of 2014 to May/June of 2015
which entailed the public participation plan and community vision report. This process validated
the City's mission statement: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can
grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper." All public involvement which the City
conducted validated this mission statement. Phase II looked at the land quantity analysis, existing
conditions report, audited the goals and policies. SEPA analysis was conducted and it was
determined the City needed to do an Environmental Impact Statement. The City did quite a bit of
this work while it waited for the population allocation number from Spokane County. The City
waited for this number until November of 2015. Phase III began in February of 2016 to start the
writing of the Comprehensive Plan and associated regulations. In the beginning of September staff
provided the Commissioners initial draft of the document, and then a final draft two weeks later.
There have been three consultant teams working on this, Van Ness Feldman has taken the lead as
project management, legal aspects as well as the drafting the regulations, Community Attributes
who worked on the extra studies and wrote the draft Comprehensive Plan, and Fehr and Peers did
the transportation analysis. Mr. Hohman explained all of the meetings and the subjects which had
been covered with the Planning Commissioners since the beginning of the process leading up to
the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and associated regulations. Mr. Hohman said there
had been 16 meetings, 11 being specific study sessions regarding Comp Plan topics, Existing
Conditions, the Comp Plan process, Retail Improvement, Tiny Homes, Comprehensive Plan Joint
Workshop, Land Use standards, Goals and Policies, and changes to the development regulations.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of$
This lead to the public hearing on September 29, 2016 and October 6, 2016 in which comments
received were as follows:
• 86 total written and oral comments were received
o 04 of those were in favor of changing the zoning at Barker and Sprague
o 64 of those were against changing the zoning at Barker and Sprague
o 02 of those requested a change to the zoning at 3001 N Pines Road
o 04 of those were against changing the zoning at 3001 N Pines Road
o 01 of those were in favor of changing the zoning at Barker and Laberry
o 02 of those were in favor of the changes in Commercial zoning changes made City-
wide
o 01 of those were in favor of more parks and trails,multiuse development, increased
transitional setbacks and setting a multifamily height limit
o 01 of those were in favor of alternative dwellings and specifically tiny homes
o 01 of those were in favor of imposing impact fees
o 02 of those requested a change to the zoning to property on Sands Road
o 02 of those supported more noticing for rezones and building apartments
o 01 of those supported preserving neighborhoods
o 01 of those supported transit driven changes in the Comprehensive Plan
Mr.Hohman said there had been questions from the Commissioners about why this had to be done
on this schedule,why it could not wait longer to be finished. The City Council is receiving pressure
from citizens and businesses who are waiting for the Plan to be finished. There are people who
want to make investments in our community but they want to wait for the changes they support in
the updated Comp Plan. He shared someone,just two days before this meeting, was in wanting to
know when it would be done, he had a project he was waiting to complete. Realtors have sales
waiting to be completed along Trent, waiting for the Plan to be finished. If there are grammatical
issues please feel free to submit those to staff and we will review them to make sure they are
updated. Mr. Holman said staff is willing to meet for as many nights between now and next
Thursday to work with the Commissioners to cover all of their issues, however the schedule must
be maintained because the City Council's public hearing has already been noticed and published.
Mr. Hohman. said he was looking to the Commissioners to help maintain the schedule for the
community. Commissioner Johnson stated there has been a great effort by staff and the community,
and if it is possible to maintain the schedule it would be great. However, he feels that receiving the
final draft three weeks ago,and if it took three more weeks to review it,that would double the time
they have had to look at it and only delayed the overall process three week. If someone has already
been waiting six months,another three weeks would not be a huge impact. Commissioner Stathos
stated she concurred with Commissioner Johnson. She said it took two years to craft the document,
and they were only allowed three weeks to review it, two of which were public comments. Mr.
Holman reiterated he was asking to work on the issues tonight and see how much forward progress
could be made in the review of the document. Commissioner Johnson stated he felt there were
people who left the meeting before commenting. He said he did not feel the comments received
were totally representative of the community's feelings. Clearly it showed the feelings of the
citizens at Barker and. Sprague and that community was very organized. He doesn't feel there are
other areas which are as organized in order to be able to comment. Mr. Holman suggested the
schedule should be maintained even more in order to allow those in other neighborhoods the
opportunity to comment at the public hearing noticed for November 8,2016.
Economic Development Coordinator,Mike Basinger offered the list of policy items and regulations
the Commissioners have noted they are having issue with and the other land use changes which
were brought up during the public hearing.
Commissioner Graham stated she wanted to bring up four goals from the Growth Management Act
which she felt were important: Encourage affordable housing and preserve existing housing, she
offered this was a goal of the Council; Promote economic development throughout the state and
respect regional differences, she feels respect regional differences had been lost by using out of
area consultants; Respect property rights and protect property owners from arbitrary actions, she
feels some of the changes to the Land Use map are arbitrary; Insure public facilities are in place
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8
before development, she feels at Barker and Sprague `we' have not done the due diligence to make
sure the facilities are in place, particularly roads.
Mr. Hohman said barring some grammar and minor editorial comments, are there any major
concerns regarding the Comp Plan document itself? The Commissioners generally agreed they
liked the shape and feel of the document, it was easy to read and understand.. Commissioner
Johnson said he wanted to talk about the goals and policies in the Housing Element. He feels the
identity of the Valley has always been and probably always should be a majority of the residences
being owner occupied, When reviewing the goals for example he feels HG-1 states Allow for a
broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs the community 'and encourage owner
occupancy"should be added. He said we are not trying to create a city of rental properties and then
have those people move someplace else. There would be gains in the schools system, investments
in fire, police and roads would be encouraged with owner occupancy. Commissioner Kelley does
understand the concern but does not know how it would be accomplished. Commissioner Johnson
said it could be a separate goal. Mr. Hohman offered the Commissioners needed to keep in mind,
when you have a goal, you would have a corresponding policy;the policies lead to a development
regulation. He did not know how the City could write a regulation which would enforce this goal.
Commissioner Anderson and Graham supported the thought, but said that the zoning would be
where to allow the development to support these types of housing.
City Attorney Cary Driskell, noted for the Commissioners that based on the Growth Management
Act RCW 36.70A.020 (4) Goals and Policies, says housing "Encourage the availability of
a ordable housin. to all economic se.ments o the o 'dation o this state romote a varleto
residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." He
said there a lot of competing interests listed here and the one thing the City would not want to do
is to have something, which on its face looks like we are working against that goal. While it could
result in a community that might be more desirable, someone could look at it and say you are
putting a barrier to Goal 4 related to broad housing types. Commissioner Johnson said a broad
variety of housing types does not mean rentals which are between $800 and $2,000 per month
before they get to a home which might cost them $180,000. A broad variety of housing types
includes homes which are between $100,000 and $125,000. The way you would accomplish this
would be in a multifamily type structure, condominium or row houses. Single family residential
allows row houses but you can only have six per acre and then what would you do with the rest of
the land, hope it is turned into a park. However if 16 row house were on an acre, then it would be
a viable situation. Mr. Basinger said staff looked at what kind of density would be allowed in
certain zones and six units per acre should be allowed in a single family zone. That is the character
piece that we are trying to maintain. In order to get that density other zones would have to allow
this type of use. There is talk of this type of development happening in along the river, but
Commissioner Johnson said he hoped that would not be the only place allowed.
Commissioner Johnson said in Capital Faculties policy CF-P9 Continue planning for domestic
water needs. He did not see anywhere protecting the area's water resources in some way. Mr.
Hohman said that during the joint workshop the City Council did not want that type of language in
the Plan. However if the Commission felt strongly enough about it, they could make a
recommendation regarding this. Commissioner Johnson said the City should lead by example. Mr.
Hohman explained xeriscaping, and of conservation in landscaping. Commissioner Kelley offered
he would not be in favor of going back and tearing up a park, like Mirabeau Park which is a gem
of a park in order to use this type of landscaping. Commissioner Phillips agreed with Mr. Kelley,
he does not see the advantage to convince people to conserve in the parks and turning them into
less than green. Commissioner Rasmussen stated there has been advances in parks using
sustainable methods. Commissioner Graham said some of her favorite parts of the Centennial Trail
which were natural states. Commissioner Anderson said he supported this idea. The
Commissioners agreed this should be promoted in future City capital projects.
Commissioner Graham asked about how strategies, such as a white water course would be funded.
Mr.Hohman explained there is a group who went forward with the downtown Spokane Whitewater
course and they are looking at a place just stream of the Sullivan Bridge and expanding Sullivan
Park. This came out as part of the Tourism Study which was conducted as part of the Comp Plan.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8
Commissioner Phillips stated he wanted to go on record this was an easy to read,well written,good
plan. His only issue was the paper map included in the document was difficult to read, Mr.
Basinger stated when the Conip Plan is online there will be links to an online maps from the
document,but recognized this might not be perfect for everyone and there will be larger paper maps
available for anyone who asks for them.
The Commission discussed the two requests which were made during the public hearing for Comp
Plan. One was for a change at 3001 N. Pines Road, owned by the International Foursquare Church
and one for parcel 45333.1807 along Sands Road which belongs to Dennis Crapo. The
Commissioner discussed and agreed to not review this items based on the fact they had not been
submitted during the Citizen Action Request (CAR) process for the Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission felt it would be unfair to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the people who had
already submitted a CAR at the appropriate time to review these requests at this time. Mr. Drisk.ell
concurred with this. The Commissioners agreed to these requests can be submitted during an
annual request period in the future.
Commissioners reviewed a decision they made at the October 6, 2016 meeting. The decision was
to recommend the `whole square' which includes four parcels Barker and Sprague to be changed
to Low Density Residential, R-3.
The discussion moved to the area between Barker and Greenacres Road, south of Bow Avenue and
north of Sprague Avenue.. The recommendation from staff is to change it to this area to Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Basinger stated the intention to change this area from Medium Density
Residential,which has been eliminated in the new plan,to CMU was as. Barker starts to handle the
traffic necessary to support the 1,000 units being planned in Spokane County,the area will change
significantly. Staff wanted the people who live in the area to have options if they needed it. There
will more noise, more traffic from the increase in development south of the intersection. This will
increase the traffic by 10,000 trips per day. Commissioner Graham stated she said the people are
expecting this but she feels the people want to maintain the residential feel of the area. The lots in
the area are larger than in other parts of the City. She said she felt the CMU everywhere else it was
placed in that area, but she did not feel putting it that far into the neighborhood is not appropriate.
Commissioner Kelley clarified no commercial uses are allowed in the R-3 zone. Corridor Mixed
Use would allow multifamily and commercial uses. Commissioner Graham said she feels that only
R-3 would be appropriate in this section and would vote no on ally other recommendation.
Commissioners Anderson and Stathos agreed. Commissioner Johnson wondered if there would
not be a time when there could not be a grocery store or something which would serve the
neighborhood in the future. Commissioner Kelley said he feels there could be some kind of
neighborhood commercial, mixed use development. Commissioner Phillips noted this would be a
down zone to change it to R-3, and if he owned property in there he would be upset if his property
was down zoned. Commissioners Rasmussen and Kelley agreed to not down zone the properties.
Commissioner Graham stated if this is CMU then the owner of the property at the corner of Barker
and Sprague could come in and ask for a zone change for his parcel again. Mr.Hohman said since
there has been considerable testimony regarding the parcels at Sprague and Barker and staff have
not made any progress on the traffic issues, Council is going to be very sympathetic regarding the
citizens who live in the area. There will be another Comp Plan update in eight years,and changes
in the area could have occurred by then. The Commission consensus was then to recommend the
area between Barker/Greenacres/Bow/Sprague be turned to R-3.
Title 19.40.100 Alternative Residential Developments,Commissioner Graham said she was having
an issue with the community buildings. Mr. Basinger noted that (B)(2) The dwelling structure
shall not exceed 910 square feet, excluding porches, and shall require a building permit.' Based
on the building code you are allowed to build any size structure as long as it meets the building
codes. So the size is arbitrary. The building code was changed in 2015 to require a means of
sanitation, a sink and a bathroom, there is no minimum on the size of the building. Staff believes
section B could be removed. The Commission had consensus to remove section B from the code.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb confirmed all tiny dwellings must be on a foundation.
Commissioner Graham stated section (C) supportive housing, this is allowed, and Commissioner
Stathos said these types of developments can then turn into places which are not desirable, The
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8
Commission should look at the Permitted Use Matrix and think about which zones these types of
housing developments should be in. Mr. Lamb stated the consultants worked to come up with
regulations because this is not common on this side of the state. If section B is removed, he would
suggest section A is also removed, which leaves just supportive tiny homes. `Wheels are
prohibited' should be left in the code and this was agreed upon. Commissioner Phillips said he
feels there should be water and sewer required in the dwelling. The requirements in section A
could be moved into section C. This type of development would require a Conditional Use Permit
and go to the Hearing Examiner for approval. Mr. Lamb said there could be a provision that
requires a host, such as a church or a non-profit group for these supportive tiny homes.
Commissioner Anderson said there has never been any discussion regarding any of these types of
housing. There has little input about how this should work. Mr. Basinger said the new sections
are 19.40.060 Cottages, 19.40.050 Industrial Accessoiy Dwelling Units, and 19.40.100 Small
Residential Development. Commissioner Anderson is recommending to remove these sections
from the draft and make them a separate code text amendment. He said this is completely new and
we have not had any input from the community about how this should work. Commissioner Kelley
clarified the regulations were written well enough now to enable staff to make good decisions
moving forward. Commissioner Phillips said he supported cottages, and tiny homes if they were
connected to water and sewer. Cottages can be used as buffer between multifamily and single
family. Commissioner Johnson said there could be more work done on these sections.
Commissioner Rasmussen said she agreed with Commissioner Phillips, she was fine with the
cottages, and the industrial dwelling units, but does have a problem with the supportive housing,
which need water and sewer. Commissioner Stathos stated she has questions on each of the sections
and would like to see them all removed for discussion. Commissioner Kelley said there was enough
instruction in order to allow staff to make the good decisions, but asked what the hang ups were.
Commissioner Graham said she was good with the cottages and industrial dwelling units. She had
a problem with the community facilities in the tiny homes. Those homes in the supportive housing
do not have their own water, sewer or refuse receptacles, could this be a small change.
Commissioner Kelley said he would agree with this. Commissioner Johnson said the idea for
supportive housing was to provide extremely low cost housing,but it need to be done right, which
is why he is in favor of taking this out for further review. There were discussion regarding where
churches are allowed and where the tiny supportive housing could be allowed. Commissioner
Anderson said cottages there is a section which said two times the density of the maximum allowed
in the zone. He feels this should be discussed. There is consensus to leave the cottages 19.40.060
alone in the code. Commissioner Johnson clarified the maximum allowed industrial accessory
dwelling units was ten units per site. The Commission recommended adding language to 19.40.050
to clarify they must be owner/operator or employee occupied. The Commissioners recommended
19.40.100 be removed from the draft for separate code amendment and discussion.
Commissioner Anderson asked how the Neighborhood Commercial was laid out in the map. Mr.
Hohman stated staff looked at intersections in the City which could be in neighborhoods which
might be underdeveloped and Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard drove the City and provided a list of
recommendations as to where to provide it. The possibility for redevelopment and being located
on an arterial were defining factors.
The Commission moved to 19.70 the Development Standards. Commissioner Graham said the
residential lot size at 5,000 feet, she felt most of the Commissioner were not necessarily in
agreement with it but would not stand in the way of moving it forward. She said the consensus
would be to move that subject forward. Commissioner Stathos stated she wanted to go on the
record she was not in agreement with this minimum lot size, but she would not fight it. The
discussion turned to Multifamily Residential{MFR)standards. Commissioner Anderson is in favor
of retuning to 22 units per acre and a 50 feet height maximum. Commissioner Kelley asked if
builders had come in and asked. for more height limits. Commissioner Johnson clarified there
would be no height limit or density for multifamily in CMU and he felt this was right for this zone.
He still feels there should be two multifamily zones. He discussed two CARs requesting to change
from medium density to high density. The room was full of people speaking against the proposals,
and only two in favor, which were the property owners. He said he feels increasing the density in
an MF-1 zone would make it more viable. Commissioner Phillips was in favor of no limit on the
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8
density or height limits in MFR. Commissioners Kelley, Rasmussen, Graham and Stathos agreed
with adding back the density and height restrictions. There was consensus to recommend in the
MFR a density of 22 units per acre and a height limit of 50 feet. Mr. Hohman responded to MF-1
suggestion stating the properties which have been ME-1 have been zoned as this way for years prior
to incorporation of the City. This zone did not work, staff talked to several developers, there has
not been a MF-1 project in the City since incorporation except for one but this project was done to
maximize the density to allow for more dense development in the future. Mr. Hohman said the
return MF-1 would limit the potential of those properties for another 10-15 years. He strongly
recommends to not bring this back. Commissioner Johnson countered lie respected the point of
view but he feels there has been an economic situation over the last 10 years which has impacted
growth. He has seen the east coast has more townhouse/row house situations and that there is a
pent up demand which will explode and people will want to buy their own home. The City will
need those low cost housing opportunities. We talk about having as many different options for
housing and home ownership. Mr. I-lohnaan said those can be built in the MFR zone.
Commissioner Johnson said it isn't what they are going to build. He feels there are going to be
rental properties from one end of the City to the other. Commissioner Kelley offered there is no
limit to the minimum density they can build. The other Commissioners did not want to bring back
the medium density residential designation.
The Commission was fine with the standards in the other zones, after discussing building codes
governing the building safety.
Commissioner Phillips moved to extend the meeting to 11;00 p.m. The vote on the motion was five
in favor, two against, the motion passes. The dissenting votes were from Commissioners Anderson
and Stathos.
Commissioner Anderson stated he has a problem with the Transitional Provisions because this only
applies zone to zone, not use to use in SVMC 19.75.020. Mr. Hohman explain if a residence is
zone as Low Density Residential(LDR)and it abuts a MFR zone,then the Transitional Provisions
would apply. However, if the same residence was in a MFR zone already and the parcel next to
them was developed as a multifamily use, then these provisions would not apply. There are many
instances in the Valley where a business might not be able to use their property because there are
remnants of single family homes in industrial zones,example Eden and Tshirley,a heavy industrial
owner might not be able to use or expand their property because of these provisions. Commissioner
Anderson feels the home owner has rights and should be protected. Mr.Basinger said the only way
to do this would be to do this based on use. Mr. Hohman said staff was aware that this was an
overriding issue for the citizens was protecting the neighborhoods as does the Council. How do
you do that? You limit the proliferation of multifamily projects into other zones. You allow those
projects to occur in the zones they are supposed to occur in. If you are going to have a Multifamily
or an Industrial zone then you have to be ok with the uses which are allowed there. The other
properties eventually have to convert. It is more appropriate for those properties to convert or to
have those projects further into an R-3 area. This is what keeps the individual requests coning in.
If we are trying to put them into this corridor,then you have to allow them the flexibility to do the
projects in those zones. Bringing in use to use,will limit that and then push people into the single
family zones Commissioner Johnson said the problem is as a body we have agreed to eliminate
the medium density, so all those in this area between the trail and 4th Avenue they could have a 50
foot structure 25 feet from their property line. Mr. Hohman said there is no intent to push these
residents out, they can stay as long as they want. Commissioner Stathos clarified the properties
along the north side of 4t Avenue have been zoned medium density residential since some time in
the 1990's. If you put a developer in a position where he can't do what he needs to do,he will look
for property in a single family zone to convert. Commissioner Kelley said these properties(MFR)
are close to services and close to transit. Commissioner Graham clarified the transitional provisions
would apply across the street, if the zone were different. Commissioners Kelley, Phillips,
Rasmussen and Graham were in favor of leaving it zone to zone, Commissioners Anderson,
Johnson and Stathos were in favor of adding changing it to use to use.
Commissioner Phillips suggested changing the code numbering system to having the middle
numbers being three digits, ie: 19.050.150 as it would make it follow better.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8
SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas, this sections of the code needed to be consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program, and adopted best scientific practices. The Commissioners did riot have any
comments on this section.
SVMC 21.20.040 categorical exemptions,this is the areas on the Land Use map which were looked
at regarding transportation. Mr. Basinger stated this was specifically areas where the intent was to
zone MFR. These areas were studied for transportation so when someone comes in to develop on
those properties they would not have to do SEPA and the project could be expedited. These are
specific infill areas. Commissioner Johnson asked about SVMC 21.20.040(B)(1), Mr. Holtman
stated this is existing code and has not been changed. For a subdivision of up to 30 units and there
is no requirement to do a SEPA analysis. However traffic concurrency is still required under the
Street Standards for anything over 10 units. Mr. Lamb explained the steps involved in the process
for a SEPA checklist and determination. The places listed in SVMC 21.20.040 will be cumulative
traffic counts and not require a SEPA checklist but will require traffic study.
Parking, Landscaping needed to be rewritten and reorganized these titles. Council asked to have
them requirements reduced or removed. These codes were cleaned up, increased the flexibility,
and raised the thresholds in certain areas and reduced the landscaping requirements in the industrial
areas. The new code is easier to understand. SVMC 22.50, Parking, Off-Street Parking. Mr.
Holtman addressed some concerns raised by Commissioner Anderson, for example shared use
parking: no knew what it meant. Bike racks are back in the code after the Commission made an
amendment to change it to bike spaces. He believes it should be back to spaces. The new maximum
would be a requirement for four racks. The Commissioners had No suggested changes to this
section. SVMC 22.70.070 Commissioner Johnson would like to see full screening when next to a
different use. Mr.. Basinger offered to add use and keep the zone. The Commissioners suggested
to adding use to this code.
SVMC 22.130 this Street Standard requires developer who puts in a street for public use as part of
a development, they post a surety in the form of a Letter of Credit or a cash deposit in lieu of
actually putting in all the improvements. After the improvement are put in,which must done before
final approval,the City requires a warranty surety in case those improvements fail within two years
and the developer does not go back and repair them, the City can draw from this account. This is
to make sure the public improvements are maintained. The code was confusing, it didn't work
well. Getting a letter of credit was getting more difficult or tying up a developer's funds for two
years was not working. The City wants to allow for performance bonds. The standards were
written in 2007 and adopted in 2009, these updates are to allow for updated options. The
Commission had nothing to comment on regarding this code amendment.
The Commissioners had no comments on Appendix A—Definitions.
Commissioner Anderson asked to make sure Figure 29 on page 5-88 in the Transportation chapter
regarding traffic counts was corrected. Mr. Basinger commented he had looked into this after
Commissioner Anderson brought it up and an incorrect field was used in creating the map. The
data and the model are correct but the map is correct, but the map will be corrected.
Following are the recommendations which the Planning Commission made during their
deliberations:
• Recommend moving two site specific request submitted at the public hearing for 3001 N.
Pines Road, parcel 45333.1807 along Sands Road and 102 N. Bolivar Road to an annual
amendment process
• Recommend to change the area west of Barker Road, east of Greenacres Road, south of
Bow Avenue and north of Sprague Avenue to Low Density Residential, R-3
• Recommend to change the four parcels located at the corner of Barker Road and Sprague
Avenue to Low Density Residential, R-3
• Recommend adding a policy regarding xeriscaping City capital projects in the future
• Recommended adding language to SVMC 19.40.050 Industrial Accessoiy Dwelling Units
to clarify the dwelling units must be owner/operator or employee occupied
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8
• Recommended SVMC 19.40.100 be removed from the draft for a separate code
amendment and discussion
• Recommended SVMC 19.70.20 Multifamily Residential standard be change to a density
of 22 units per acre and a height limit of 50 feet.
• Recommended SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) adding `uses' to this section of the code.
• The Commissioners were in a four in favor of leaving the Transitional Provisions as zone
to zone however three of them wanted to change it to use to use..
• The Commissioners generally agreed they liked the shape and feel of the document, it was
easy to read and understand.
• Commissioner Phillips suggested changing the code numbering system to having the
middle numbers being three digits, ie: 19.050.150
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan update and amendments to Title 17 and 19, Chapter 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130 of
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement with the changes agreed to by Planning Commission on October 6
and October 13,2016 meetings. The vote on this motion was six in frivol.,vor, one against, Commissioner.
Johnson dissenting based on his issue regarding medium density zoning this has no representation
of the quality of the Commission or the staff. The motion passes.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT; Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
detA/A11014,466141/2 I P/2,-0 I
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna orlon, Secretary
FINDINGS AN!)RECOMMENDATION
O1'THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE,
I)EVELOPIVIENT REGULATIONS AND DRAFT EIS
October 20,2016
A. Bachar ound:
1. In 2006,pursuant to chapter 36.70A RC\V(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 RC\V 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, 21A0,22.50,22.70, 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. Mnudnte to plan !wifelike 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 Environmentn1 Policy Act(SEPA) (chapter 43.2IC 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-ll 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 BIS 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.I40, 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;
c. 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 Bearing 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 BIS 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 1�'ashinngton State Deuartmennt 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
Plat 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 Comprchcnsive 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 ofNatural 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(I)(e), 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.
h. 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. Concurrency: 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 Maps: 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 TIS 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 PIS:
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 21.40 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 VI'AC,
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 buiki ng 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.
J. 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 Grccnacres 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 19A0.100(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 SV MC 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 20'r'day of October',2016.
1-leather Graham, Chairman
A'T'TEST
Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Transportation and Infrastructure Funding — Utility
Taxes
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.82.020 Licenses and permits — Excises for regulation;
RCW 35.21.865 Electricity, telephone, or natural gas business — Limitations on tax rate
changes; RCW 35.21.870 Electricity, telephone, natural gas, or steam energy business — Tax
limited to six percent— Exception
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on utility
taxes and draft Ordinance 16-018. Council heard an administrative report on this topic on
November 1, 2016.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2004, Council has had periodic discussions regarding the need and potential options for
funding current and projected future deficits in the City's transportation and infrastructure
programs, including the option of a utility tax. In 2004 a proposed Utility Tax Ordinance was
introduced in response to projected deficits in the City's Street Fund #101, but Council ultimately
decided not to have a second reading of the ordinance. The discussion was postponed for a few
years due to the City receiving more in both property taxes and sales taxes than was originally
anticipated in the first few years of incorporation. However, in 2008 the City was once again
faced with annual deficits of approximately $2.1 million in the Street Fund #101, and Council
was confronted with the choice of either increasing revenues or reducing street maintenance
activities in order to reduce costs. The decision was made to increase revenues through a 6%
Telephone Utility Tax through passage of Ordinance 08-014 in August 2008.
The Telephone Utility Tax generated $3.054 million during 2009 in its first year of
implementation, which served the purpose of eliminating the deficit in the Street Fund #101.
However, between 2009 and 2015 the City has seen an annual average decrease of 4.92% in
the amount of Telephone Utility Taxes collected. So far in 2016, the City has collected $134,993
or 8.82% less in Telephone Utility Taxes than during the same period of 2015 (see Attachment
#1), and we are projecting collections of about $2.2 million for the 2017 Budget. This represents
an overall reduction of about $850,000 in revenues since the tax's inception in 2009 while at the
same time we have continued to see an increase in the cost of service contracts and materials
throughout the same time period. Declining revenues in the Street Fund #101 combined with an
increasing use of Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) towards the Pavement Preservation
program have once again placed the City in the position of looking at options on how to fund
current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure programs.
So far during 2016, Council has discussed this topic in detail at both the March 15, 2016
Workshop and the June 14, 2016 Budget Workshop. This topic has also been discussed
throughout the 2017 Budget development process at Council meetings on August 9th,
1 of 5
September 13th, September 27th, and October 11th. The Finance Committee also discussed this
topic on May 12th, September 12th, and October 10th. Included in the discussions has been
dialogue regarding the deficits and needs in transportation and infrastructure programs at the
City as well as options for funding those deficits.
Street Fund #101:
The City's transportation and infrastructure programs are operated out of several different City
Funds. The Street Fund #101 generally accounts for the operations and maintenance of City
streets. Maintenance work in Fund #101 includes street pavement repairs, traffic signals and
signs, landscaping and vegetation control, snow and ice control, and many other street
maintenance and repair activities. The main revenue sources for Fund #101 are Motor Vehicle
Fuel Taxes which are passed through to the City from the State and the City's telephone utility
tax which is imposed by the City under SVMC Chapter 3.70 at a rate of 6%.
As noted above, the City has continued to see a decline in the annual amount of telephone
utility taxes collected. The budget for the Street Fund in the past several years has reflected
cost cutting measures in order to keep recurring expenditures from exceeding projected
recurring revenues. Attachment #2 depicts three years of actual activity for the Street Fund, the
amended 2016 Budget, the proposed 2017 Budget, and projected activity from 2018 through
2021. The assumptions used in the projection are as follows:
• We assumed that the telephone utility tax would be completely replaced by an alternate
revenue stream.
• The dollar amount of the projected alternate revenue stream is the amount necessary for
estimated recurring expenditures to break even with recurring revenues.
• We assumed an increase of 2% annually for most expenditures as a reasonable
measure of anticipated inflation.
• The Street Fund is assumed to have no contributions to the Pavement Preservation
Fund #311 from 2018 forward.
Using these assumptions, we have calculated the alternate revenue stream necessary to
generate approximately $2.9 million annually, or about $700,000 more than the telephone utility
tax is anticipated to generate in 2017.
Pavement Preservation Fund #311:
The Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is used to account for pavement preservation projects
within the City. The revenue sources for Fund #311 are composed of transfers-in from other City
Funds and grant proceeds. The City has committed to financing the pavement preservation
program in Fund #311 in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures
which totaled about $2.3 million in the 2017 Budget (consisting of about $953,000 from the
General Fund, about $67,000 from the Street Fund, and about $1.3 million from REET).
The issue that the City is now faced with in our pavement preservation program is that we are
committing an increasing amount of REET revenues toward pavement preservation which is
now undermining our ability to provide matching funds for grant proceeds on other types of
street construction, reconstruction and sidewalk projects. Attachment#3 displays projected
REET revenues and expenditures through 2021, and assumes we continue to finance
Pavement Preservation Fund #311 programs from this source. Under this assumption, we will
have negative fund balances in our REET Funds beginning in 2019.
2 of 5
During the March 15, 2016 Council Workshop, Council was presented with information
regarding the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI). This information indicated that in order to
have a target PCI of 71 with no increase in backlog, the City would need to invest about $6.8
million annually in street preservation activities. The $6.8 million included both activities that are
generally accounted for in the Street Fund, such as surface treatments, and those that are
generally accounted for in Fund #311. We determined the amount of the $6.8 million that solely
applied to Fund #311 is about $5.6 million, which was calculated as follows:
PCI Needs per March 15, 2016 Workshop $ 6,806,000
Less Street Fund #101 Activities:
Surface Treatment (585,000)
Slurry Seal (500,000)
Routine Maintenance (i.e. Crack Seal) (122,000)
(1,207,000)
Pavement Preservation Fund #311 Needs $ 5,599,000
Attachment #4 depicts three years of actual activity for the Pavement Preservation Fund, the
amended 2016 Budget, the proposed 2017 Budget, and projected activity from 2018 through
2021. The assumptions used in the projection are as follows:
• We have assumed that Council wishes to fund pavement preservation at the full amount
as discussed at the March 15, 2016 Council Workshop in order to achieve the target PCI
of 71. If Council wishes to fund this program at either a higher or lower level, it will affect
the amount of the alternate revenue stream correspondingly.
• The alternate revenue stream for the Pavement Preservation Fund equals the $5.6
million calculated above less an assumed $953,000 transfer in from the General Fund,
$400,000 transfer in from REET funds, and $1 million in estimated grant proceeds.
• For analysis purposes, we have assumed expenditures to be equal to revenues.
Using these assumptions, we have calculated that in 2018, the alternate revenue stream in the
Pavement Preservation Fund would need to generate $3.2 million annually, which combined
with the Street Fund 2018 need of $2.9 million, results in a 2018 total need of $6.1 million. The
total amount needed to be generated by an alternate revenue stream in the years 2018 through
2021 is as follows:
Projected (in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021
Projected Funding Needs:
Street Fund #101 $ 2.9 $ 3.0 $ 3.1 $ 3.2
Pavement Pres Fund #311 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Combined Funding Needs $ 6.1 $ 6.2 $ 6.3 $ 6.4
We anticipate the revenue stream referenced above will be required each year beyond 2021 if
the City wishes to maintain streets at this level of service.
Utility Tax:
The City has the authority to impose utility taxes under RCW 35A.82.020. The tax rate is limited
to 6% (without a vote of the people) for the following:
3 of 5
• Electricity
• Natural gas
• Steam
• Telephone
A higher tax rate may be imposed with majority voter approval. There are no rate limits for the
following activities:
• Sewer/Stormwater
• Solid waste
• Water
• Cable television (however, the rate must be the same or similar to other utilities in order
to not be discriminatory)
There are no statutory limitations on the use of utility tax revenues; however, Council may
choose to dedicate the revenues toward a specific activity, such as transportation and
infrastructure needs. Any changes in the tax rate cannot take effect until the end of 60 days
after the enactment of the ordinance by the City. Currently the City only imposes a utility tax of
6% on telephone providers, which was effective beginning January 1, 2009. The revenue
generated by this tax is designated in SVMC Chapter 3.70.140 for exclusive use in the City road
fund (Street Fund #101), as is discussed previously in the Street Fund #101 section above.
One of the reasons that a broader utility tax has been rejected by the City in the past is that we
did not believe that we could impose the utility tax on quasi-municipal entities providing utility
services in the City. Our area is unique in that we have a mixture of utility providers that are
either private businesses or quasi-municipal entities. If the City were to impose a utility tax on
only the private business, it would cause an inequity among citizens who were contributing
toward the tax because some citizens are served by private businesses and others are served
by quasi-municipal entities.
However, a court case in 2014 clarified that the City can impose a utility tax on another
municipality or public agency if they are deriving revenues on proprietary activities. The case
was specifically related to water utilities but applies to any activity that is considered to be
proprietary in nature. That being the case, the City is generally no longer in the position of only
imposing a utility tax on some providers and not others, which makes any future utility tax apply
more equitably to all of the City's population.
In light of the City's current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure
programs, Council has requested staff to research revenue estimates for utility taxes on
electricity, natural gas, sewer, solid waste disposal, and water. Attachment #5 shows the
revenue estimates ranging from a 1% to a 6% utility tax on each of these services. All services
combined at 6% would generate an estimated $7.8 million annually.
For comparison purposes, Attachment #6 shows the utility tax rates of neighboring jurisdictions
for various services as well as the current and proposed utility tax rates that are included in the
draft Utility Tax Ordinance for Spokane Valley.
Draft Utility Tax Ordinance:
The draft Utility Tax Ordinance would repeal SVMC Chapter 3.70 relating to the 6% telephone
utility tax in its entirety and adopt SVMC Chapter 3.71, which would impose a utility tax on
electricity, solid waste disposal, sanitary sewer, water, and natural gas services. The draft
Ordinance states that the revenues generated by the tax shall be exclusively used for funding
4 of 5
City road projects, including but not limited to road construction, operation, maintenance, and
preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade separation, and other similar projects which are directly
related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation.
The draft Ordinance currently states that a utility excise tax shall be levied and collected at a
rate of 6% of the gross income of sales within the City for the utility services of electrical
distribution, solid waste disposal service, sanitary sewer service, water service, and natural gas
distribution. Gross income may be adjusted by amounts that were adjusted on a customer billing
or account to reverse a billing or charge that was not properly owed by the customer or amounts
that are written off as uncollectible debts. Tax payments would be made directly by utility
companies to the City Finance Department. The draft Ordinance also outlines penalties and
interest assessed for late payments, records retention requirements, and includes an appeals
procedure, among other items.
OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input
from the public in regard to the proposed utility tax, no action is requested at this time. A first
reading of draft Ordinance #16-018 is scheduled for November 8, 2016.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A utility tax of 6% on electricity, natural gas, solid waste
disposal, sewer, and water services would generate an estimated $7.8 million annually. A utility
tax imposed at a lower rate, or on some but not all of the services, would generate less
annually. If no utility tax is imposed, the City will continue to see current and projected future
deficits for transportation and infrastructure program, which will necessitate a reduction in
services in order to match existing revenue sources.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director, and Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
For other referenced attachments, please see agenda item #4 — First Reading Proposed
Ordinance 16-018 Transportation & Infrastructure Utility Tax
5 of 5
City of Spokane Valley
Transportation & Infrastructure
Funding - Utility Taxes
Background
Council discussion related to funding current and projected future deficits in
transportation & infrastructure goes back to 2004.
Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance in 2004
Did not advance to a 2nd reading.
Telephone Utility Tax Ordinance 08-014
Discussions during 2016:
March 15, 2016 — Council Workshop;
June 14, 2016 — Budget Workshop;
2017 Budget Development — August 9th, September 13th, September 27th, October 11th,
October 25th; and
Finance Committee Meetings — May 12th, September 12th, October 10tH
( 2 )
Street Fund # 101
The Street Fund generally accounts for the operations and maintenance of City
Streets.
Includes street pavement repairs, traffic signals and signs, landscaping and vegetation
control, snow and ice control, etc.
Major Revenue Sources:
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
Telephone Utility Tax
Has decreased at an average annual rate of 4.92% since implementation.
Currently collected $135k less in 2016 than the same period in 2015.
( 3 )
Street Fund # 101
Telephone Utility Tax
$4.00
$3.00
U,
a
o_
$2.00
a
$1.00 -
$-
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 4 1
Actual 2009 to 2015, Budget 2016 and 2017 [ J
Street Fund # 101 - P
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Telephone Utility Tax 2,562,722 2,461,060 2,257,184 2,340,000 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 (2)
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 2,869,965 2,963,969 3,059,853 3,157,654 (3)
Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,868,055 1,878,476 1,935,629 2,004,900 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300
Multimodal Transportation Revenue 0 0 0 0 98,868 98,868. 98,868 . 98,868 98,868
Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Investment Interest 2,920 2,037 3,212 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 1,790 4,204^.. 4,319 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Revenue 12,9115,209' 9,649 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Recurring Revenues 4,448,398 4,350,986 4,209,993 4,407,900 4,403,168 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Expenditures
Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 582,013 681,165 738,381 734,604 746,872 761,809 777,046 792,587 808,438 (4)
Supplies 108,110 460,844 116,660, 111,500 105,000 107,100 109,242 111,427 113,655
Services&Charges 2,152,294 2,197,089 2,052,457 2,132,754 2,167,151 2,541,994 2,592,834 i 2,644,691 2,697,584
Snow Operations 485,717 0'. 465,232 430,000 468,000 477,360 486,907'. 496,645 506,578
Intergovernmental Payments 797,275 876,680 707,967 771,000 796,000 811,920 828,158 844,722 861,616 V
Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700
Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0 (5)
Interfund Transfers-out-#501(non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 10,777' 12,077`. 31,000 - 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250
Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 75,000 0 40,000 77,929 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Signal Detection Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Traffic Signal Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total Recurring Expenditures 4,607,886 4,623,255 4,339,092 4,357,900 4,731,244 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Recurring Revenues over(under)
Recurring Expenditures (159,488) (272,269) (129,099) 50,000 (328,076) 0 0 0 0
INONRECURRING ACTIVITY I (5,716) (85,721) (133,068) (25,000) (120,000) 0 0 0 0
Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues
Over(Under)Total Expenditures (165,204) (357,990) (262,167) 25,000 (448,076) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,468,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Ending fund balance 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,468,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Assumptions
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of July 6,2016 They are subject to change as we complete the audit process. 1
(2) For purposes of this analysis,we assumed that the telephone utility tax will be replaced with a different utility tax revenue stream.As such,telephone J
utility taxes are projected at$0 for the years of 2018 through 2021. [ 5
(3) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the amount necessary to bring recurring revenues to an amount that covers recurring expenditures for
the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For purposes of this projection,expenditures from 2018 to 2021 are calculated at an increase of 2%annually.The expenditures for 2018 were increased
by$395,000 in order to eliminate service reductions that had taken place in previous years due to budget constraints.
(5);The Street Fund is assumed to have no contributions to the Pavement Preservation Fund from 2018 to 2021.
Pavement Preservation Fund # 311
The Pavement Preservation Fund accounts for pavement preservation projects
within the City.
The City has committed to funding pavement preservation through transfers in an
amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures.
Equals about $2.3 million in the 2017 Budget.
Transfers in come from the General Fund #001, Street Fund #101, REET 1 Fund #301, and
REET 2 Fund #302.
Transfers in from the Civic Facilities Replacement Fund #123 end after 2016.
The City is committing an increasing amount of REET revenues toward pavement
preservation, which is beginning to impact the City's ability to match grant funding
for other street projects.
Negative REET fund balance projected in 2019. [ 6 1
Pavement Preservation Fund # 311
Actual 2014 - #311 Funding Budget 2017 - #311 Funding
Transfers in Transfers in
0%
29% 001 001
41% 101 41% 101
301 & 302 56% 301 & 302
17% 123 123
13%
3%
( 7 )
Pavement Preservation Fund # 311
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021
Revenues
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 (2)
Transfers in-#001 General Fund 0 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 (3)
Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0
Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 616,284 559,808 0: 0 0: 0 0
Transfers in-#301 REET 1 150,000 184,472- 251,049 365,286 660,479' 200,000 200,000' 200,000 200,000
Transfers in-#302 REET 2 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Grants 35,945 2,042,665 835,224 2,063,000 340,800 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Miscellaneous 2,800 1,903 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total revenues 1,237,029 4,200,619 3,083,614 4,364,522 2,682,300 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Total expenditures 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 (4)
Revenues over(under)expenditures (150,124) 1,123,404 683,206 (185,478) (367,700) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 948,733 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Ending fund balance 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Pavement Preservation Project Totals and Revenues Sources
Pavement Preservation Fund#311 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
General Fund#001 855,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,242,994 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Computation of Pavement Preservation Commitment
General Fund recurring expenditures prior to addition
of pavement preservation 33,629,496 37,418,882 38,357,999 38,925,602
Amount equivalent to 6% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%
Pavement preservation expenditures 2,017,770 2,245,133 2,301,500 2,335,500
Components of Pavement Preservation Financing
#001 General Fund 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200
#101 Street Fund 282,000 IN. 206,618 67,342 67,342
#123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 559,808 0
#301 Capital Projects Fund 184,472-. 251,049 365,286 660,479
#302 Special Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479
2,156,051 2,245,000 2,301,522 2,341,500 Q
Assumptions [ 8
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of June 6,2016.They are subject to change as ve complete the audit process.
(2) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the estimated pavement preservation funding needs less other revenue sources for Fund#311.
(3) For purposes of this analysis,the only assumed revenue streams are the General Fund contribution,REET in the amount of$400,000/year and average
grant proceeds of$1,000,000/year for the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For analysis purposes,ve have assumed expenditures equal to revenues.
Combined # 101 and # 311
Projected (in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021
Projected Funding Needs:
Street Fund #101 $ 2.9 $ 3.0 $ 3.1 $ 3.2
Pavement Pres Fund #311 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Combined Funding Needs $ 6.1 $ 6.2 $ 6.3 $ 6.4
( 9 )
Utility Taxes
Utility tax limited by state law to 6% (without voter approval) for:
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Telephone
Utility tax NOT limited by state law for:
Sewer/Stormwater
Solid waste
Water
Cable television (cannot be discriminatory)
103
Utility Taxes
There are no statutory limitations on the use of utility tax revenues.
Any changes in the tax rate cannot take effect until the end of 60 days after the
enactment of an ordinance by the City.
Taxation of Other Municipalities
Clarified through a court case in 2014 that a city may impose utility taxes on other
jurisdictions if they are acting in a proprietary capacity.
[ 11 3
Utility Taxes
Revenue Estimates
1% Utility 2% Utility 3% Utility 4% Utility 5% Utility 6% Utility
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax
Electric Services $762,811 $1,525,621 $2,288,432 $3,051,243 $3,814,053 $4,576,864
Natural Gas Services 261,662 523,325 784,987 1,046,649 1,308,312 1,569,974
Sewer Services 140,827 281,654 422,482 563,309 704,136 844,963
Solid Waste Disposal Services 60,566 121,132 181,698 242,264 302,830 363,396
Water 68,813 137,627 206,440 275,253 344,066 412,880
$1,294,679 $2,589,359 $3,884,039 $5,178,718 $6,473,397 $7,768,077
Utility Taxes
Comparison to Neighboring Jurisdictions
Natural Solid
Municipality Electricity Gas Telephone Cable TV Waste Water Sewer
Spokane 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Liberty Lake 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cheney (1) (1) 6.0% 5.0% 6.0% 11.0% 11.0%
Deer Park 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
Airway Heights 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0% 10.0% 19.8% 15.0%
Pullman 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 11.0% 8.0% 8.0%
Millwood 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Spokane Valley-Current 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Spokane Valley- Proposed 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%(2) 6.0% 6.0%
(1) Rates are 6%for Regular,4%for Residential Street and 4.75%for Parks.
(2) Solid Waste utility tax just proposed for disposal services (not collection services).
Note: Utility tax rates for otherjuridictions were taken from the AWC 2015 Municipal Taxes l I 13 J
and Fees Survey,which was obtained at
https://www.awcnet.org/DataResou rces/resourcesbytopi c/Taxand Use rFeeSurvey.aspx
or from the municipal code of the jurisdiction.
Draft utility tax ordinance
Draft Ordinance repeals chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Utility Tax, in
its entirety.
This eliminates the current 6% utility tax on telephone services.
( 14 )
Draft utility tax ordinance
3.71.010 - definition section.
3.71 .020 — establishes a utility tax on provision of the following services:
electrical distribution
solid waste disposal
sanitary sewer
water
natural gas distribution
3.71.030 — establishes the rate at which the tax would apply at 6% for each of the
taxed services.
[ 15 3
Draft utility tax ordinance
3.71.040 — requires submittal of a monthly report for each entity providing such
services to document taxable activity.
3.71.050 — providers will be allowed to deduct certain amounts from gross income
that will not be taxed.
3.71.060 — addresses record retention requirements to be able to document gross
income for purposes of calculating the tax so that the City may perform appropriate
audits.
3.71.070 — establishes penalties for utility companies failing to pay the taxes on time,
that the City may collect past due amounts in any manner authorized by law, and
that intentional non-payment of taxes due is a criminal violation. [ 16
Draft utility tax ordinance
3.71.080 — in the event a utility company quits doing business, or consolidates with
another entity, the taxes due and owing before such an act are still due and owing to
City.
3.71.090 — utility taxes due under this chapter are in addition to any other fee due
under SVMC or other applicable law.
3.71.100 — any future rate changes may only occur after at least 60 days notice under
state law.
3.71.110 — any utility provider believing it has been assessed an incorrect amount of
taxes may appeal to the City Hearing Examiner. [ 17 )
Draft utility tax ordinance
3.71.120 — if a utility company believes it paid too much in tax based on its gross
income, it can request a refund of the overpayment.
3.71.130 — requires that all revenue generated from these utility taxes shall be
"exclusively used for funding City road projects, including but not limited to road
construction, operation, maintenance, and preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade
separation, and other similar projects which are directly related to vehicular and
pedestrian transportation."
( 18 )
Questions?
( 19 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading, Ordinance 16-019 Adopting Comprehensive Plan and
Development Regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On November 8, 2016, City Council held a public
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation
amendments.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1), City of Spokane Valley is required to
conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every eight years.
The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017.
On September 29, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and associated development
regulation amendments. The September 29, 2016 public hearing was continued to October 6,
2016. At the public hearing, 86 people provided written and verbal comments. A summary of
the public comments is included with this report. After closing the public hearing, the Planning
Commission began deliberations. On October 13 2016, Planning Commission continued its
deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated development
regulation amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend
City Council approve the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and amendments to the zoning
map, and amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 17 and 19, chapters 21.20,
21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130, and Appendix A, and Draft EIS, with the changes agreed to by
Planning Commission at its October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2006 meetings.
On October 25, 2016, staff provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS,
and development regulation amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The
discussion included the changes recommended by the Planning Commission at its October 6
and October 13, 2016 meetings as part of its voted recommendation. City Council directed staff
to develop a summary sheet identifying the recommended changes to the Draft Comprehensive
Plan, Draft Development Regulations and Draft EIS based on Planning Commission's
recommendation and agency comments received to date.
On October 5, 2016, Spokane Transit authority provided comments on the Draft Comprehensive
Plan, Draft Development Regulations and Draft EIS.
On October 14, 2016, Spokane Regional Transportation Council provided comments on the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, Draft Development Regulations and Draft EIS.
On October 26, 2016, the Washington State Department of Transportation provided comments
on the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Draft Development Regulations and Draft EIS.
OPTIONS: Advance Ordinance No. 16-019 to second reading with or without modifications, or
take other action deemed appropriate
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 16-019 repealing
the existing Comprehensive Plan and certain development regulations and adopting the 2016
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated development regulations to a second reading
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
— Matrix identifying Planning Commission and agency recommendations
— Ordinance No. 16-019 Comprehensive Plan Update, associated Development
Regulations, and Zoning Map
Draft
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 16-019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, REPEALING THE EXISTING CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLES 17 AND 19, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP,
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 21.20, 21.40, 22.50,
AND 22.70 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND APPENDIX A OF
THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND UPDATED TITLES 17 AND
19, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTERS 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, AND 22.70 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE, AND APPENDIX A OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE AS REQUIRED FOR ITS 2016 UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT; AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 22.130.040 AS PART OF THE SAME; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER
MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley (City)
adopted land use plans as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and
associated maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-010, the City adopted Title 24 of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City adopted Titles 17 through 22 of
the SVMC, which, combined with Title 24 of the SVMC, are the City's development regulations
to govern and regulate land use, zoning, and building development within the City; and
WHEREAS, 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 chapter 36.70A RCW (the GMA). The GMA refers to the review as an
update and the City is required to complete its update by June 30, 2017 and every eight years
thereafter; and
WHEREAS, since November 17, 2014, the City has undertaken the process to review and
revise, as necessary, the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations as required
by the GMA. The City has developed its updated 2016 Comprehensive Plan (the
Comprehensive Plan Update) and updated Titles 17 and 19, including the Zoning Map, of the
SVMC, and chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, 22.130, and Appendix A of the SVMC (together
the Development Regulation Amendments); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the GMA, on November 4, 2015, the
Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) recommended the Spokane County Board of
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 1 of 12
Draft
County Commissioners (BoCC) utilize a population forecast consistent with the Washington
State Office of Financial Management medium forecast for 2037 and to allocate the population
to cities, towns, and unincorporated urban growth areas consistent with the recommendation of
the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). The PTAC had previously recommended
a population allocation of 14,650 for the City. On August 3, 2016, the BoCC considered and
adopted the population forecast and allocation recommended by the SCEO pursuant to Spokane
County Resolution No. 16-0553. The City was allocated an estimated 2017-2037 population of
14,650; and
WHEREAS, as part of the City's update, the City conducted a land quantity analysis and
analyzed the population allocation made by the BoCC. The City has determined it has capacity
for a 2017-2037 population of 21,852 under the Comprehensive Plan Update and that it has
sufficient land capacity and availability to meet the BoCC population allocation; and
WHEREAS, as part of the City's update, it conducted a Transportation System Existing
Conditions Report, Existing Conditions-Housing and Economic Trends Report, Retail
Improvement Strategy, and Tourism Strategy to assist with development of the Comprehensive
Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments
meet the requirements of the GMA as described in detail below in the Findings, including but not
limited to consideration of natural resources, inclusion of mandatory elements, consistency
internally and with Countywide Planning Policies, concurrency, and consideration of required
planning actions to accommodate projected population growth through 2037; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2016, the Washington State Department of Commerce
(Commerce) was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to
adopt the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.140 require the City to "establish and
broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures
providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of
comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans"; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, the City adopted a public participation program for its
Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulation update; and
WHEREAS, since November 17, 2014, the City conducted 45 public meetings, which
included meetings for community visioning, acceptance and review of citizen action requests
(CARs), discussion of the City's land quantity analysis, discussion of the Transportation System
Existing Conditions Report, Existing Conditions-Housing and Economic Trends Report, Retail
Improvement Strategy, and Tourism Strategy, discussion of water resource inventory and
planning issues, consideration of alternative housing types, a joint City Council-Planning
Commission workshop, public open house, properly noticed public hearing by Planning
Commission on September 29, 2016 and October 6, 2016, and a properly noticed public hearing
by the City Council on November 8, 2016; and
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 2 of 12
Draft
WHEREAS, the City has received I ] public comments from citizens and agencies
regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation
Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all comments received; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW et seq. and chapter 197-11 WAC in adopting the City's
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2015, the City issued a Determination of Significance for the
Comprehensive Plan and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SEPA and the Determination of Significance, the City issued the
non-project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) on September 16, 2016. The
non-project Draft EIS is integrated with the Comprehensive Plan consistent with WAC 197-11-
210. 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; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-455, the City has considered all comments to the
Draft EIS and incorporated responses within the Final EIS, to be issued concurrently with the
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments is necessary to protect the health, safety, welfare of the general public
and the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the Comprehensive
Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments as required pursuant to the GMA.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission
conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments. The City Council has read and
considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following
findings applicable to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation
Amendments:
A. 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
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 3 of 12
Draft
requirements of the GMA. The Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development
Regulation Amendments meet the City's requirement to conduct the required update.
B. Compliance with SEPA (chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC):
1. The City conducted 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 integrated its
environmental review under SEPA with the update to ensure that environmental analyses
under SEPA occurred 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 and SEPA, the City issued the non-project
Draft EIS September 16, 2016.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to SEPA, the City accepted public comment on the Draft EIS concurrently with
the public comment period on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments until November 15, 2016.
6. The City has prepared and included responses to the comments received on the Draft EIS
in the Final EIS. A Final EIS is being issued concurrently with the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments.
7. The Final EIS includes concise analysis of alternatives and addresses the environmental
impacts associated with the planning decisions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
Update and Development Regulation Amendments. The Final EIS considers mitigation
of those significant impacts identified as a result of the Comprehensive Plan Update and
associated Development Regulation Amendments. The City has considered the impacts
and mitigation identified in the EIS in development and adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments. The Comprehensive
Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments incorporate the
mitigation identified within the issued Final EIS and are consistent with and meet all
SEPA requirements.
C. 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 Regulation Amendments 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 Planning Commission conducted and or participated in the following meetings:
a. Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015;
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 4 of 12
Draft
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, were 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, October 13, 2016, and adopted findings supporting its
recommendation on October 20, 2016.
5. The City Council conducted and or participated in the following meetings:
a. Kickoff on November 17, 2014;
b. The City Council considered the public participation program on December 16, 2014
and adopted the public participation program on January 6, 2015;
c. Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015;
d. Meetings to review and consider the CARs on June 2, 2015 and June 9, 2015 ;
e. Discussion of various components of the Comprehensive Plan Update and
Development Regulation Amendments on June 30, 2015, July 21, 2015, October 6,
2015, November 17, 2015, December 1, 2015, March 1, 2016, March 29, 2016, April
12, 2016, June 7, 2016, June 17, 2016, June 28, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 26, 2016,
August 9, 2016, and August 30, 2016;
f. Joint City Council and Planning Commission interactive workshop on May 3, 2016;
g. Open house for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation
Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 8, 2016;
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 5 of 12
Draft
h. Administrative report on Planning Commission's recommendation for the
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments
on October 25, 2016;
i. Public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation
Amendments, and Draft EIS on November 8, 2016, after proper public notice;
j. First reading of Ordinance No. 16-019 on the Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on November 8, 2016; and
k. Second reading of Ordinance No. 16-019 on Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Final EIS on [November 22, 2016].
6. City Council received [ ] written and [ ] oral public comments at the properly noticed
public hearing on November 8, 2016. All comments received by the City have been
included in the record and have been duly considered by the City Council.
D. Review by Washington State Department of Commerce: Pursuant to GMA requirements,
the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS were
submitted to Commerce on September 16, 2016.
E. Comprehensive Plan Update and Final EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and
SVMC 17.80.140, the City Council makes the following findings with regard to the
Comprehensive Plan Update and Final 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 Update 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:
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 6 of 12
Draft
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 Final 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. Concurrency: 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
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 7 of 12
Draft
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 SCEO voted to
recommend a new population forecast consistent with the Washington State Office of
Financial Management medium forecast for 2037 and to allocate the population to the
cities, towns, and unincorporated urban growth areas consistent with the
recommendation of the PTAC. The PTAC had recommended allocating a population
of 14,650 to the City. The City initially based its review of growth on the population
allocation recommended by the SCEO. Subsequently, on August 3, 2016 the BoCC
adopted the population forecast and allocation recommended by the SCEO pursuant
to Spokane County Resolution No. 16-0553. The City has determined that it has
sufficient land capacity and availability to meet projected growth under the County's
2009 allocation, the SCEO's 2015 recommended allocation, and the population
allocation for the City adopted by the BoCC.
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 Maps: 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 City Council finds the Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 8 of 12
Draft
Update bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of
the environment.
F. Development Regulation Amendments and Final EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130 and SVMC 17.80.150, the City Council makes the following findings with
regard to the Development Regulation Amendments and Final 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 21.40 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 City Council finds the Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with
and implement the Comprehensive Plan Update.
b. The City Council finds the Development Regulation Amendments bear a substantial
relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment.
G. Modifications 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 recommended several modifications to the Comprehensive Plan Update and
Development Regulation Amendments. Further, since release of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments, staff has identified
clarifications and other minor modifications to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 9 of 12
Draft
Development Regulation Amendments. Finally, City Council has also considered the
identified areas of focus that came from the community visioning sessions, City Council
goals, and public comments, as well as other considerations. Based upon consideration of all
proposed modifications and comments, the City Council has considered and determined to
take the following actions in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation
Amendments as 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 and 55173.1005 as Single Family Residential (SFR) and
zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3); maintain originally
proposed designation of parcels 55173.1019 and 55173.1020 as Multifamily Residential
(MFR) and zoning as Multifamily Residential (MFR). Out of 86 total public comments
received to October 6, 2016, 68 were with regard to these four parcels. [Describe any
applicable public comments on November 8 public hearing]. Of the 68 comments
received on October 6, 2016, 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. City Council desires to maintain existing Multifamily designations for
possible future development once traffic infrastructure is sufficient to meet impacts.
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 (G)(2) above, and 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. Maintain SVMC 19.40.050 as originally proposed with no requirement that industrial
accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the
company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located. These are likely to be
limited in number due and impact due to the limited number of industrial dwelling units
allowed per industrial project.
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. City Council acknowledges this is a new type of
residential use for the City to consider. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider this
issue and type of use separately from the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments to give more detailed attention to the potential impacts, benefits,
and appropriate regulations for such use.]
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 10 of 12
Draft
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) adding language to provide that full screening is
required when a multifamily project abuts a single family residential use in multifamily
zones. 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.
8. Designate parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone the same parcel as Mixed
Use (MU). The annual comprehensive plan amendment process was not available due to
the legislative update resulting in a two year delay for the proposal to be considered as
recommended by the Planning Commission. City Council felt the project was consistent
with development in the surrounding area and the topography was a natural buffer.
9. Approve of minor modifications and grammatical corrections as proposed by City staff.
These provide continuity with the other portions of the SVMC and clarify certain
provisions within the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulations.
10. [Add other City Council proposed modifications].
All of these recommended changes are within the range of alternatives in the Final EIS and
will either not create additional impacts or will reduce impacts identified therein.
Section 3. Comprehensive Plan Repeal. The City Council hereby repeals the existing
Comprehensive Plan, as initially adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-010 and as most recently
amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-006.
Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Update Adoption. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the
City Council hereby adopts the Comprehensive Plan Update as set forth in Attachment "A".
Section 5. Repeal of Certain Development Regulations. The City Council hereby
repeals Titles 17 and 19 SVMC, including the Zoning Map, and chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50,
22.70, and Appendix A of the SVMC.
Section 6. Adoption of certain Development Regulation Amendments. Pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.130, the City Council hereby adopts the updated Titles 17 and 19 SVMC,
including the Zoning Map, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and Appendix A of the SVMC as
set forth in Attachment "B".
Section 7. Amendment. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City Council hereby
amends SVMC 22.130.040 and chapter 9 of the Street Standards as set forth in Attachment"B".
Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 11 of 12
Draft
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of
Spokane Valley as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of November, 2016
L.R. Higgins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 16-019:2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update Page 12 of 12
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
Planning Commission Changes to the Comprehensive Update and Development Regulations
Planning Commission Recommendation City Council Decision
Add a policy in Chapter 2 - Parks and Open Add a policy in Chapter 2 - Parks and Open Space Goals
Space Goals and Policies of the and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update to support
Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping,water conservation, and sustainable park
xeriscaping,water conservation, and management methods as recommended by Planning
sustainable park management methods. Commission.
Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, Designate parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 as Single
55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as
Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).
parcels as Single Family Residential Urban
(R-3).
Designate the parcels located in the area Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow
south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of Sprague Avenue,
north of Sprague Avenue, and east of and east of Greenacres Road as recommended by
Greenacres Road as Single Family Planning Commission.
Residential (SFR) and zone the same
parcels as Single Family Residential Urban
(R-3).
Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to Retain the proposed language in SVMC 19.40.050.
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.
Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential Bring back for further discussion.
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.
Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1,
Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density
provide for a maximum density of 22 units of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50
per acre and a maximum building height of feet in the Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone as
50 feet in the Multifamily Residential (MFR) recommended by Planning Commission.
zone.
Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1)to Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D) adding language to
provide that full screening is required when provide that full screening is required when a multifamily
a multifamily or nonresidential project project abuts a single family residential use in multifamily
abuts a single family residential zoning zones.
district or single family residential use.
Page 1 of 6
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
The Planning Commission received a Designate parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone
request to change the Land Use the same parcel as Mixed Use (MU).
designation on parcel 45091.9100 (known
as the International Church Foursquare
Gospel)from Low Density Residential to
Mixed Use. The Planning Commission
recommended this request should go
through a regular annual amendment
process.
The Planning Commission received a Consider a code a text amendment for future PC analysis
request to allow greenhouse/nursery,
commercial on parcel 45333.1807. The
Planning Commission recommended this
should go through the regular annual
amendment process
Page 2 of 6
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
Response to Comments-Comp Plan-WSDOT
Page Number WSDOT Comment Response
5-76 Need to add language here. This travel Include text that is consistent with
pattern highlights the need for network WSDOT's comment
development as the freeway system alone
cannot accommodate this demand in the
future. Travel demand strategies will also
be an important aspect in dealing with
traffic increases.
5-88 Need to revise map. Map is not clear as Update map to address WSDOT's
some of the busiest corridors like Sullivan comment
and Sprague show little or no traffic in
certain locations. This is a result of no
2015 traffic count being available in that
area. Suggest that the map also use
previous years traffic counts to reflect
more data. Also a different color needs to
be used to reflect where no data is
available.
5-89 Need to add "For Highways of Statewide Clarify the HSS LOS standard on page 5-
Significance (HSS)that WSDOT sets the LOS 90.
standard. Please contact WSDOT for
current LOS standards".
7-123 Need to add statement: 1-90 is a HSS Add footnote below the table that
facility under the jurisdiction of WSDOT. identifies 1-90 as an HSS facility with
Maintain WSDOT adopted LOS standards WSDOT responsible for setting the LOS
on 1-90 and the Ramp Terminals standard.
Response to Comments- EIS Document-WSDOT
Page Number WSDOT Comment Response
18 The identified improvements need to be Update Table 6 to identify planned and
called out in the table. For instance the likely improvements.
roundabout that will be constructed at the
Barker Interchange, improvements to Pines
and Mission, etc.
19 What is the corridor length being Update the Comp Plan tables/maps to be
proposed? What is shown in the table#6 consistent with the corridor lengths in the
does not seem consistent with the maps in EIS (the lengths in Table 6 are correct).
Chapter#5 of the Comp. Plan. Suggest the
interchange area with 1-90 be its own
corridor. For instance on Pines this could
be from Mission on the south side to
Indiana on the north side.
19 Believe this should refer to Table 7 Correct table reference.
22 The projected LOS seems higher than what Update the table title to be clearer.
is found in the field for Sullivan, Pines and
potentially Barker.
Page 3 of 6
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
Response to Comments-SRTC
Page SRTC Comment Response
Number
3 The Introduction Element indicates a Update page to include a brief description
robust public,jurisdiction, and agency of the agency outreach process.
involvement process (p. 1-17). For
improved consistency with the GMA, the
Transportation Element should describe
the City's process for outreach to other
jurisdictions and agencies as it relates to
transportation LOS and land use impacts.
3 The EIS Transportation Analysis section Update policy T-P15 and page 25 of the EIS
(p. 25) states that it supports CTR to reference the Commute Trip Reduction
programs and the Transportation Element Implementation Plan Update: 2015-2019.
policy T-P15 states that the City will
"Encourage all Commute Trip Reduction Revise policy to reiterate improved
employers in the City to achieve travel coordination and outreach.
reduction goals."To improve consistency
with the GMA, both documents should
reference the City's Commute Trip
Reduction Implementation Plan Update:
2015-2019 and demonstrate its
commitment to its CTR program in terms
of improved coordination, assisting with
identifying infrastructure and cultural
barriers to meeting state-mandated CTR
goals, assisting with marketing and public
outreach, and promoting community
leader support.
4 Horizon 2040 identifies the segments of Update the Land Use and Transportation
Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard Elements to refer to the Sprague/Appleway
that travel through Spokane Valley as part Urban Transportation Corridor.
of an Urban Transportation Corridor
(UTC) (p. 4-37 of Horizon 2040) and
encourages local jurisdictions to address
future planning related to the corridors.
The City's Land Use and the
Transportation elements do not address
this corridor. During the 2017 update to
Horizon 2040, SRTC will consider the
value of keeping this UTC segment in the
plan.
Page 4 of 6
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
4-5 The Transportation Element states that Amend the transportation mitigation list to
"The rationale for evaluating corridor LOS include the City's ongoing non-capacity
is to align with the SRTC CMP" (p. 5-89), strategies to address mobility along
that its policy is to "Use transportation congested corridors.
demand management techniques and
technologies to move people, vehicles
and goods safely and efficiently
throughout the City's transportation
system." (policy T-P17, p. 2-28), and that
"Overall, it is the City's policy to consider
strategies such as transportation demand
management, access restrictions, design
modifications, transit enhancements, and
intelligent transportation systems prior to
adding new lane capacity to the system,
particularly for single-occupancy
vehicles." (p. 5-94). Of the 20 proposed
mitigation projects to address roadway
LOS impacts, 13 are lane addition or road
widening projects and 7 are intersection
treatments.To improve consistency with
Horizon 2040 and pursuant to the CMP,
the Transportation Element mitigation
project list should also list additional non-
capacity adding strategies considered in
addition to lane addition or road
widening strategies.
5 The Transportation Element, policy T-P1 Clarify text of the Comprehensive Plan to
states that the City intends to "Continue support grade separation from the BNSF
to pursue funding for the Bridging the mainline to enhance safety, mobility, and
Valley(BTV) program to reduce goods movement.
rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency
access, eliminate vehicle waiting times,
reduce noise, and improve traffic flow."
From the regional perspective, Bridging
the Valley is a long-term, unfunded
project. Further, as stated in Horizon
2040 (p. 2-10), "The priority of BTV
projects continues to be evaluated by
regional decision makers, especially in
light of limited transportation funding
resources and the need to secure
commitment from the railroads."
Page 5 of 6
Matrix identifying Planning Commission and Agency Recommendations
Response to Comments-Avista
137-140 Housekeeping modifications
Comp Plan
Staff Recommended Changes
Reference Recommended Change
Title 19 Housekeeping modifications
Title 22 Chapter 22.50
Modify parking regulations for NC
— Exempt to 3,000 sq. ft.just ADA
Reduce parking requirements up to 25%for development located near transit services.
Comp Plan Housekeeping modifications
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 8, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #16-018 Utility Tax
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.82.020 Licenses and permits — Excises for regulation;
RCW 35.21.865 Electricity, telephone, or natural gas business — Limitations on tax rate
changes; RCW 35.21.870 Electricity, telephone, natural gas, or steam energy business — Tax
limited to six percent— Exception
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on utility
taxes or the draft Ordinance #16-018. Council heard an administrative report on this topic on
November 1, 2016, and a public hearing was held earlier this evening.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2004, Council has had periodic discussions regarding the need and potential options for
funding current and projected future deficits in the City's transportation and infrastructure
programs, including the option of a utility tax. In 2004 a proposed Utility Tax Ordinance was
introduced in response to projected deficits in the City's Street Fund #101, but Council ultimately
decided not to have a second reading of the ordinance. The discussion was postponed for a few
years due to the City receiving more in both property taxes and sales taxes than was originally
anticipated in the first few years of incorporation. However, in 2008 the City was once again
faced with annual deficits of approximately $2.1 million in the Street Fund #101, and Council
was confronted with the choice of either increasing revenues or reducing street maintenance
activities in order to reduce costs. The decision was made to increase revenues through a 6%
Telephone Utility Tax through passage of Ordinance 08-014 in August 2008.
The Telephone Utility Tax generated $3.054 million during 2009 in its first year of
implementation, which served the purpose of eliminating the deficit in the Street Fund #101.
However, between 2009 and 2015 the City has seen an annual average decrease of 4.92% in
the amount of Telephone Utility Taxes collected. So far in 2016, the City has collected $134,993
or 8.82% less in Telephone Utility Taxes than during the same period of 2015 (see Attachment
#1), and we are projecting collections of about $2.2 million for the 2017 Budget. This represents
an overall reduction of about $850,000 in revenues since the tax's inception in 2009 while at the
same time we have continued to see an increase in the cost of service contracts and materials
throughout the same time period. Declining revenues in the Street Fund #101 combined with an
increasing use of Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) towards the Pavement Preservation
program have once again placed the City in the position of looking at options on how to fund
current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure programs.
So far during 2016, Council has discussed this topic in detail at both the March 15, 2016
Workshop and the June 14, 2016 Budget Workshop. This topic has also been discussed
throughout the 2017 Budget development process at Council meetings on August 9th,
September 13th, September 27th, and October 11th. The Finance Committee also discussed this
1 of 5
topic on May 12th, September 12th, and October 10th. Included in the discussions has been
dialogue regarding the deficits and needs in transportation and infrastructure programs at the
City as well as options for funding those deficits.
Street Fund #101:
The City's transportation and infrastructure programs are operated out of several different City
Funds. The Street Fund #101 generally accounts for the operations and maintenance of City
streets. Maintenance work in Fund #101 includes street pavement repairs, traffic signals and
signs, landscaping and vegetation control, snow and ice control, and many other street
maintenance and repair activities. The main revenue sources for Fund #101 are Motor Vehicle
Fuel Taxes which are passed through to the City from the State and the City's telephone utility
tax which is imposed by the City under SVMC Chapter 3.70 at a rate of 6%.
As noted above, the City has continued to see a decline in the annual amount of telephone
utility taxes collected. The budget for the Street Fund in the past several years has reflected
cost cutting measures in order to keep recurring expenditures from exceeding projected
recurring revenues. Attachment #2 depicts three years of actual activity for the Street Fund, the
amended 2016 Budget, the proposed 2017 Budget, and projected activity from 2018 through
2021. The assumptions used in the projection are as follows:
• We assumed that the telephone utility tax would be completely replaced by an alternate
revenue stream.
• The dollar amount of the projected alternate revenue stream is the amount necessary for
estimated recurring expenditures to break even with recurring revenues.
• We assumed an increase of 2% annually for most expenditures as a reasonable
measure of anticipated inflation.
• The Street Fund is assumed to have no contributions to the Pavement Preservation
Fund #311 from 2018 forward.
Using these assumptions, we have calculated the alternate revenue stream necessary to
generate approximately $2.9 million annually, or about $700,000 more than the telephone utility
tax is anticipated to generate in 2017.
Pavement Preservation Fund #311:
The Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is used to account for pavement preservation projects
within the City. The revenue sources for Fund #311 are composed of transfers-in from other City
Funds and grant proceeds. The City has committed to financing the pavement preservation
program in Fund #311 in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures
which totaled about $2.3 million in the 2017 Budget (consisting of about $953,000 from the
General Fund, about $67,000 from the Street Fund, and about $1.3 million from REET).
The issue that the City is now faced with in our pavement preservation program is that we are
committing an increasing amount of REET revenues toward pavement preservation which is
now undermining our ability to provide matching funds for grant proceeds on other types of
street construction, reconstruction and sidewalk projects. Attachment#3 displays projected
REET revenues and expenditures through 2021, and assumes we continue to finance
Pavement Preservation Fund #311 programs from this source. Under this assumption, we will
have negative fund balances in our REET Funds beginning in 2019.
During the March 15, 2016 Council Workshop, Council was presented with information
regarding the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI). This information indicated that in order to
2 of 5
have a target PCI of 71 with no increase in backlog, the City would need to invest about $6.8
million annually in street preservation activities. The $6.8 million included both activities that are
generally accounted for in the Street Fund, such as surface treatments, and those that are
generally accounted for in Fund #311. We determined the amount of the $6.8 million that solely
applied to Fund #311 is about $5.6 million, which was calculated as follows:
PCI Needs per March 15, 2016 Workshop $ 6,806,000
Less Street Fund #101 Activities:
Surface Treatment (585,000)
Slurry Seal (500,000)
Routine Maintenance (i.e. Crack Seal) (122,000)
(1,207,000)
Pavement Preservation Fund #311 Needs $ 5,599,000
Attachment #4 depicts three years of actual activity for the Pavement Preservation Fund, the
amended 2016 Budget, the proposed 2017 Budget, and projected activity from 2018 through
2021. The assumptions used in the projection are as follows:
• We have assumed that Council wishes to fund pavement preservation at the full amount
as discussed at the March 15, 2016 Council Workshop in order to achieve the target PCI
of 71. If Council wishes to fund this program at either a higher or lower level, it will affect
the amount of the alternate revenue stream correspondingly.
• The alternate revenue stream for the Pavement Preservation Fund equals the $5.6
million calculated above less an assumed $953,000 transfer in from the General Fund,
$400,000 transfer in from REET funds, and $1 million in estimated grant proceeds.
• For analysis purposes, we have assumed expenditures to be equal to revenues.
Using these assumptions, we have calculated that in 2018, the alternate revenue stream in the
Pavement Preservation Fund would need to generate $3.2 million annually, which combined
with the Street Fund 2018 need of $2.9 million, results in a 2018 total need of $6.1 million. The
total amount needed to be generated by an alternate revenue stream in the years 2018 through
2021 is as follows:
Projected (in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021
Projected Funding Needs:
Street Fund #101 $ 2.9 $ 3.0 $ 3.1 $ 3.2
Pavement Pres Fund #311 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Combined Funding Needs $ 6.1 $ 6.2 $ 6.3 $ 6.4
We anticipate the revenue stream referenced above will be required each year beyond 2021 if
the City wishes to maintain streets at this level of service.
Utility Tax:
The City has the authority to impose utility taxes under RCW 35A.82.020. The tax rate is limited
to 6% (without a vote of the people) for the following:
• Electricity
• Natural gas
3 of 5
• Steam
• Telephone
A higher tax rate may be imposed with majority voter approval. There are no rate limits for the
following activities:
• Sewer/Stormwater
• Solid waste
• Water
• Cable television (however, the rate must be the same or similar to other utilities in order
to not be discriminatory)
There are no statutory limitations on the use of utility tax revenues; however, Council may
choose to dedicate the revenues toward a specific activity, such as transportation and
infrastructure needs. Any changes in the tax rate cannot take effect until the end of 60 days
after the enactment of the ordinance by the City. Currently the City only imposes a utility tax of
6% on telephone providers, which was effective beginning January 1, 2009. The revenue
generated by this tax is designated in SVMC Chapter 3.70.140 for exclusive use in the City road
fund (Street Fund #101), as is discussed previously in the Street Fund #101 section above.
One of the reasons that a broader utility tax has been rejected by the City in the past is that we
did not believe that we could impose the utility tax on quasi-municipal entities providing utility
services in the City. Our area is unique in that we have a mixture of utility providers that are
either private businesses or quasi-municipal entities. If the City were to impose a utility tax on
only the private business, it would cause an inequity among citizens who were contributing
toward the tax because some citizens are served by private businesses and others are served
by quasi-municipal entities.
However, a court case in 2014 clarified that the City can impose a utility tax on another
municipality or public agency if they are deriving revenues on proprietary activities. The case
was specifically related to water utilities but applies to any activity that is considered to be
proprietary in nature. That being the case, the City is generally no longer in the position of only
imposing a utility tax on some providers and not others, which makes any future utility tax apply
more equitably to all of the City's population.
In light of the City's current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure
programs, Council has requested staff to research revenue estimates for utility taxes on
electricity, natural gas, sewer, solid waste disposal, and water. Attachment #5 shows the
revenue estimates ranging from a 1% to a 6% utility tax on each of these services. All services
combined at 6% would generate an estimated $7.8 million annually.
For comparison purposes, Attachment #6 shows the utility tax rates of neighboring jurisdictions
for various services as well as the current and proposed utility tax rates that are included in the
draft Utility Tax Ordinance for Spokane Valley.
Draft Utility Tax Ordinance:
The draft Utility Tax Ordinance would repeal SVMC Chapter 3.70 relating to the 6% telephone
utility tax in its entirety and adopt SVMC Chapter 3.71, which would impose a utility tax on
electricity, solid waste disposal, sanitary sewer, water, and natural gas services. The draft
Ordinance states that the revenues generated by the tax shall be exclusively used for funding
City road projects, including but not limited to road construction, operation, maintenance, and
4 of 5
preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade separation, and other similar projects which are directly
related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation.
The draft Ordinance currently states that a utility excise tax shall be levied and collected at a
rate of 6% of the gross income of sales within the City for the utility services of electrical
distribution, solid waste disposal service, sanitary sewer service, water service, and natural gas
distribution. Gross income may be adjusted by amounts that were adjusted on a customer billing
or account to reverse a billing or charge that was not properly owed by the customer or amounts
that are written off as uncollectible debts. Tax payments would be made directly by utility
companies to the City Finance Department. The draft Ordinance also outlines penalties and
interest assessed for late payments, records retention requirements, and includes an appeals
procedure, among other items.
OPTIONS: Advance Ordinance #16-018 to a second reading with or without modifications or
decline to advance the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #16-018 repealing
Chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley Municipal Code providing for a utility tax on telephone providers
within Spokane Valley and adopting a new Chapter 3.71 Spokane Valley Municipal Code
establishing a utility tax on certain utility providers to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A utility tax of 6% on electricity, natural gas, solid waste
disposal, sewer, and water services would generate an estimated $7.8 million annually. A utility
tax imposed at a lower rate, or on some but not all of the services, would generate less
annually. If no utility tax is imposed, the City will continue to see current and projected future
deficits for transportation and infrastructure program, which will necessitate a reduction in
services in order to match existing revenue sources.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director, and Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
• Illustrative Attachments:
o Attachment #1 —Telephone Utility Tax Collections for the Year 2009 through 2016
o Attachment #2 — Street Fund #101 Projection through 2021
o Attachment #3 —Analysis of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Revenues
o Attachment #4— Pavement Preservation Fund #311 Projection through 2021
o Attachment #5 —Annual Utility Tax Revenue Estimates for the City
o Attachment #6 — Comparison of Utility Tax Rates with Other Jurisdictions
• Draft Utility Tax Ordinance #16-018
5 of 5
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 16-018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING CHAPTER 3.70 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE PROVIDING FOR A UTILITY TAX ON TELEPHONE PROVIDERS WITHIN
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.71
SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A UTILITY TAX ON
CERTAIN UTILITY PROVIDERS, INCLUDING PROCEDURES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT THEREOF, AND OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.82.020 and RCW 35.21.870, the State of Washington has
authorized code cities to raise revenue for the privilege of conducting certain utility businesses in the City,
and use the revenues for any lawful City purpose; and
WHEREAS, an excise utility tax may be imposed upon gross receipts of a business provided the
tax is uniform in its application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.21.870, the City may not impose an excise utility tax on the
privilege of conducting an electrical energy,natural gas,steam energy,or telephone business at a rate which
exceeds six percent unless the rate is first approved by a majority of voters of the City; and
WHEREAS,the City desires to impose a different balance of utility taxes than is currently imposed
in an effort to raise sufficient revenue to adequately address the City's street projects, including but not
limited to road construction,operation,maintenance,and preservation,sidewalks,railroad grade separation,
and other similar projects which are directly related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a six percent utility tax on telephone services. Spokane
Valley Municipal Code 3.70.140 states that "all net revenues generated through taxation of telephone
business pursuant to this chapter [chapter 3.70 SVMC] shall be designated for use exclusively in the City
road fund." After full implementation in 2009, that utility tax provided approximately $3.05 million
annually. That amount has dropped by almost one-third since 2009 as households reduce the total number
of service lines. As such,the telephone utility tax does not provide sufficient revenue for the City's street
construction,operation, and maintenance needs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully analyzed and implemented ways to cut unnecessary
expenditures across the entire City budget. Despite these efforts,the City is unable to fully fund its street
construction, operation, and maintenance needs to the level desired by City Council through the general
fund with current revenues; and
WHEREAS,the City Council desires to impose utility taxes on the business and utility services of
electrical distribution, solid waste disposal service, sanitary sewer service, water service, and natural gas
distribution to generate additional revenue that shall be used exclusively for street construction,operation,
and maintenance purposes only; and
WHEREAS,the City Council desires to repeal in its entirety the existing chapter 3.70 SVMC since
replacement funding is being established for street construction,operation, and maintenance purposes.
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 1 of 6
DRAFT
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, ordains as follows:
Section 1. Intent. - The City of Spokane Valley declares that the intent of this Ordinance is to
repeal chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley Municipal Code relating to the existing utility tax on provision of
telephone services,and to adopt a new chapter 3.71 SVMC to impose a utility tax on provision of electricity,
solid waste disposal, sanitary sewer, water, and natural gas for the express purpose of providing revenue
for the City's street construction,operation, and maintenance needs.
Section 2.Repeal chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Chapter 3.70 Spokane Valley
Municipal Code,Utility Tax,is repealed in its entirety.
Section 3. Adoption of chapter 3.71 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Chapter 3.71 Spokane
Valley Municipal Code,Utility Tax, is adopted as follows:
3.71.010 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise,the words,phrases and terms
used in this chapter 3.71 SVMC shall have the following meanings:
"Electrical distribution" means any Person operating a plant or system for the generation,
production,or distribution of electrical energy for hire or sale and/or for the wheeling of electricity
for others.
"Gross income" means the value proceeding or accruing from the sale of tangible property or
service, and receipts (including all sums earned or charged,whether received or not)by reason of
investment of capital in the business engaged in (including rentals, royalties, interest and other
emoluments however designated) excluding receipts or proceeds from the sale or use of real
property or any interest therein and the proceeds from the sale of notes,bonds,mortgages,or other
evidences of indebtedness,or stocks and the like and without any deduction on account of the cost
of the property sold, cost of materials used, labor costs, interest or discount paid,or any expenses
whatsoever, and without any deduction on account of losses. Any deductions from gross income
upon which the fee or tax is computed are set forth in SVMC 3.71.050.
"Natural gas distribution" means any Person operating a plant or system for sale, delivery,
distribution,or furnishing of natural gas for domestic,business,or industrial consumption.
"Person"means a human being,partnership, corporation, limited liability company, municipality,
quasi-municipality, cooperative, and other type of association without limitation, whether acting
by themselves or through servants, agents or employees.
"Recyclable materials"means those solid wastes that are separated for recycling or reuse, such as
papers, metals, and glass, that are designated as recyclable materials pursuant to the City's Solid
Waste Management Plan and any applicable contracts between the City and solid waste service
providers.
"Sanitary sewer service" means a Person providing sanitary sewage disposal and facilities
including,without limitation,on-site or off-site sanitary sewer facilities consisting of an approved
septic tank or septic tank systems,or any other means of sewage treatment and disposal.
"Solid waste" or "wastes" means all putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semi-solid wastes
including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge,
demolition and construction waste, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and recyclable materials.
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 2 of 6
DRAFT
"Solid waste disposal service" means any Person who receives solid waste or recyclable materials
for transfer, storage, transport, or disposal, including but not limited to all public or private solid
waste transfer stations,disposal sites, and similar operations.
"Taxpayer"means any Person liable for the license fee or tax imposed by this chapter 3.71 SVMC.
"Tax Year or Taxable Year" means the calendar year commencing January 1 and ending on
December 31.
"Utility service"or"utility services"means any of the businesses,services, and activities engaged
in by taxpayers subject to the utility excise tax pursuant to SVMC 3.71.020.
"Water service"means any Person operating a plant or system for the distribution of water for hire
or sale through a system of pipes and related facilities.
3.71.020 Utility Tax Levied. There is levied on and shall be collected from every Person, a utility
excise tax for the act or privilege of conducting and engaging in the business and utility services of
electrical distribution, solid waste disposal service, sanitary sewer service, water service, and
natural gas distribution, equal to the gross income of sales from customers within the City,
multiplied by the applicable tax rate pursuant to SVMC 3.71.030.
3.71.030 Utility Services Subject to Tax - Rates. The utility excise tax authorized pursuant to
SVMC 3.71.020 shall apply to the following utility services, and shall be subject to the rates
specified herein:
Electrical distribution - 6%
Solid waste disposal- 6%
Sanitary sewer- 6%
Water distribution- 6%
Natural gas- 6%
3.71.040 Remittance.
(A)Remittance.The utility excise tax imposed and levied pursuant to chapter 3.71 SVMC shall be
collected, reported, and remitted to the City on or before the last day of the subsequent month.
Each Taxpayer subject to payment of the utility excise tax shall designate in writing to the Finance
Director whether it will remit monthly or quarterly, with said designation being provided by
January 1,2017.
(B) Returns. The remittance shall be in legal United States tender and shall be accompanied by a
return on a form to be prescribed and provided by the City. The Taxpayer shall swear or affirm in
writing on the return that the information therein given is full and true,and that the Taxpayer knows
it to be so. Failure to file a return as required herein after engaging in the provision of utility
services shall subject the Person to remedies and penalties pursuant to SVMC 3.71.070.
3.71.050 Deductions. In computing the tax imposed by chapter 3.71 SVMC, a deduction from the
measure of the utility excise tax may be taken under the following circumstances:
(A) Adjustments made to a billing or customer account by Taxpayer to reverse a billing or charge
that was not properly a debt of the customer; or
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 3 of 6
DRAFT
(B) Uncollectible debts written off the Taxpayer's books during the tax year. If such debts are
subsequently collected by Taxpayer, the income shall be reported for the period in which it is
collected.
3.71.060 Record Retention Requirements.It shall be the duty of every Taxpayer liable for payment
of the utility excise tax pursuant to chapter 3.71 SVMC to keep and preserve for a period of at least
five years such books and records as will accurately reflect the amount of Gross Income from the
utility services, and from which can be determined the amount of any utility excise tax for which
the Taxpayer may be liable under the provisions of chapter 3.71 SVMC. The term "books and
records" as used in this section includes but is not limited to copies of the Taxpayer's Federal
income tax returns, Federal excise tax returns, state of Washington excise tax returns, and copies
of income tax and excise tax audits made by the United States or the state of Washington and
furnished to such Taxpayer. The Taxpayer's books and records shall be available for examination
at all reasonable times by a representative of the City.
3.71.070 Tax Delinquency--Unlawful Acts.
(A) Penalties and Interest. For each payment due, if such payment is not made by the due date
thereof,there shall be added penalty and interest as follows:
(1)If paid 1-15 days late,there shall be a penalty of 5% added to the amount of tax due.
(2)If paid 16-30 days late,there shall be a penalty of 10% added to the amount of tax due.
(3)If paid 31-60 days late,there shall be a penalty of 15% added to the amount of tax due.
(4)If paid in excess of 60 days late,there shall be a penalty of 20% added to the amount of tax
due.
(5) In addition to the above penalty, the City shall charge the Taxpayer interest on all utility
excise taxes past due at the rate of one percent per 30 days or pro-rated portion thereof from
the date such amounts become past due.
(B) Collection. The utility excise tax imposed and levied pursuant to chapter 3.71 SVMC, and all
penalties and interest thereon, shall constitute a debt to the City, and may be collected by court
proceedings in the same manner as any other debt,which remedy shall be in addition to all other
available remedies. Any judgment entered in favor of the City may include an award to the City
of all court and collection costs including attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by law. Amounts
delinquent more than 60 days may be assigned to a third party for collection, in which case the
amount of any collection charges shall be in addition to all other amounts owed. Amounts due
shall not be considered paid until the City has received payment for the full amount due or has
discharged the amount due and not paid.
(C) Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any Taxpayer liable for the utility excise tax imposed and
levied pursuant chapter 3.71 SVMC to fail to pay the utility excise tax when due or for any
Taxpayer to make any false or fraudulent return or any false statement in connection with the return.
(D)Criminal Penalties.Any Person who intentionally violates any provision of chapter 3.71 SVMC
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof punished pursuant to state law or
SVMC 8.05.050 as adopted or hereafter amended.
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 4 of 6
DRAFT
3.71.080 Quitting, Selling,or Transferring Utility Service Business.Whenever any Taxpayer quits
a utility service business, or sells out, exchanges, or otherwise disposes of such utility service
business, any utility excise tax payable under chapter 3.71 SVMC shall become immediately due
and payable, and such Taxpayer shall,within 10 days thereafter,make a return and pay the utility
excise tax due. If such tax, interest or penalty has not been paid by the Taxpayer within 10 days
from the date of such sale,exchange,or disposal,the successor shall become liable for the payment
of the full amount of tax, interest, and penalties, and shall withhold from the purchase price an
amount sufficient to pay any utility excise tax, interest, and penalties due from the Taxpayer
pursuant to chapter 3.71 SVMC. Nothing in chapter 3.71 SVMC is intended, nor shall it be
construed,to prohibit the successor from engaging in business in the City pending resolution of the
successor's tax liability from the predecessor in interest.
3.71.090 Tax Not Exclusive. The utility excise tax levied herein shall be additional to any license
fee or tax imposed or levied under any other law,including under any provision of the SVMC.
3.71.100 Rate Changes. No change in the rate of utility excise tax upon a Person engaged in
furnishing utility services shall apply to such activities occurring before the effective date of the
change. Furthermore,except for a change in the tax rate authorized by RCW 35.21.870,no change
in the rate of the utility excise tax on a Person engaging in the business of providing utility services
may take effect sooner than 60 days following the enactment of the ordinance establishing the
change.
3.71.110 Appeal Procedure.Any Taxpayer aggrieved by the amount of the tax found to be required
under the provisions of chapter 3.71 SVMC may,upon full payment of the amount assessed,appeal
from such finding by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 14 days from the
date such Taxpayer was notified in writing of such amount. The City Clerk shall promptly transmit
the notice of appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall,as soon as practicable,
fix a time and place for the hearing of such appeal,which time shall be not more than 60 days after
the filing of the notice of appeal. Any appeal to the Hearing Examiner shall be pursuant to the
adopted Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct, SVMC Appendix B, as
applicable. Additionally,the following shall apply to any such appeals:
(A) Participation in appeals shall be limited to appellants, the City, and any relevant witnesses
thereof.
(B)The appellant in any such appeal shall have the burden of proof.
(C)A decision by the Hearing Examiner shall be a final administrative action, subject to appeal to
Spokane County Superior Court.
3.71.120 Overpayment of Tax.In the event that any Taxpayer makes an overpayment of the utility
excise tax owed and, within one year of the date of such overpayment makes application for a
refund or credit, the Taxpayer's claims shall be allowed and a refund made by the City upon
determination by the City Manager that no other sums are owed by the Taxpayer to the City. In
the event other amounts are owed by the Taxpayer,the City may apply the overpayment to those
outstanding amounts prior to refund.
3.71.130 Designation of Use of Funds Generated by Utility Tax.All net revenues generated through
taxation of utility businesses pursuant to chapter 3.71 SVMC shall be used exclusively for funding
City road projects, including but not limited to road construction, operation, maintenance, and
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 5 of 6
DRAFT
preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade separation, and other similar projects which are directly
related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation.
Section 4.Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,such invalidity or unconstitutionality
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after date of
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City, and pursuant to
RCW 35.21.865,the taxes imposed herein shall take effect on January 16,2017.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this day of November, 2016.
L.R. Higgins,Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 16-018 Utility Tax Page 6 of 6
Attachment#1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 10/10/2016
Telephone Utility Tax Collections- August
For the years 2009 through 2016ill
2016 to 2015
Difference
2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 $ 0/0
January 128,354 234,622 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 182,167 4,219 2.37%
February 282,773 266,041 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 173,971 (38,874) (18.26%)
March 230,721 264,175 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 174,738 177,209 2,471 1.41%
April 275,775 254,984 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 214,431 171,770 (42,661) (19.89%)
May 242,115 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 174,512 (13,344) (7.10%)
June 239,334 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 170,450 (16,962) (9.05%)
July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 174,405 (16,579) (8.68%)
August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 171,909 (13,263) (7.16%)
Collected to date 1,929,111 2,023,612 2,025,681 1,835,488 1,720,477 1,662,569 1,531,386 1,396,393 (134,993) (8.82%)
September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 0
October 252,388 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 0
November 254,819 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 0
December 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 0
Total Collections 3,054,473 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 1,396,393
Budget Estimate 2,500,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000
Actual over(under)budg 554,473 186,136 (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (943,607)
Total actual collections
as a%of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% n/a
%change in annual
total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) n/a
%of budget collected
through August 77.16% 72.27% 67.52% 61.18% 59.33% 60.46% 59.70% 59.67%
%of actual total collected
through August 63.16% 67.77% 67.95% 67.10% 67.14% 67.55% 67.85% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August
2,500,000
August August
July
2,000,000
June
May
1,500,000
x April
March
1,000,000
■February
=January
500,000
0 M . .
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Attachment#2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/7/2016
Fund#101 -Street Fund 9/8/2016
Projection through 2021 11/1/2016
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Telephone Utility Tax 2,562,722 2,461,060 2,257,184 2,340,000 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 (2)
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 2,869,965 2,963,969 3,059,853 3,157,654 (3)
Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,868,055 1,878,476 1,935,629 2,004,900 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300 2,040,300
Multimodal Transportation Revenue 0 0 0 0 98,868 98,868 98,868 98,868 98,868
Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Investment Interest 2,920 2,037 3,212 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 1,790 4,204 4,319 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Revenue 12,911 5,209 9,649 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Recurring Revenues 4,448,398 4,350,986 4,209,993 4,407,900 4,403,168 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Expenditures
Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 582,013 681,165 738,381 734,604 746,872 761,809 777,046 792,587 808,438 (4)
Supplies 108,110 460,844 116,660 111,500 105,000 107,100 109,242 111,427 113,655
Services&Charges 2,152,294 2,197,089 2,052,457 2,132,754 2,167,151 2,541,994 2,592,834 2,644,691 2,697,584
Snow Operations 485,717 0 465,232 430,000 468,000 477,360 486,907 496,645 506,578
Intergovernmental Payments 797,275 876,680 707,967 771,000 796,000 811,920 828,158 844,722 861,616 V
Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700
Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0 (5)
Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 10,777 12,077 31,000 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250 23,250
Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 75,000 0 40,000 77,929 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Signal Detection Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Traffic Signal Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total Recurring Expenditures 4,607,886 4,623,255 4,339,092 4,357,900 4,731,244 5,073,133 5,167,137 5,263,021 5,360,822
Recurring Revenues over(under)
Recurring Expenditures (159,488) (272,269) (129,099) 50,000 (328,076) 0 0 0 0
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY (5,716) (85,721) (133,068) (25,000) (120,000) 0 0 0 0
Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues
Over(Under)Total Expenditures (165,204) (357,990) (262,167) 25,000 (448,076) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,468,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Ending fund balance 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,443,077 1,468,077 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001 1,020,001
Assumptions
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of July 6, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the audit process.
(2) For purposes of this analysis,we assumed that the telephone utility tax will be replaced with a different utility tax revenue stream.As such,telephone
utility taxes are projected at$0 for the years of 2018 through 2021.
(3) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the amount necessary to bring recurring revenues to an amount that covers recurring expenditures for
the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For purposes of this projection,expenditures from 2018 to 2021 are calculated at an increase of 2%annually. The expenditures for 2018 were increased
by$395,000 in order to eliminate service reductions that had taken place in previous years due to budget constraints.
(5) The Street Fund is assumed to have no contributions to the Pavement Preservation Fund from 2018 to 2021.
H:\Utility Taxes\101 and 311 Forecast for Utility Tax Projection.xlsx
Attachment#3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/26/2016 9/19/2016
Analysis of Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) Revenues 3/7/2016 10/19/2016
and Scheduled Disbursements 6/14/2016
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Estimated REET available on January 1 3,322,385 3,281,694 1,509,525 517,567 (450,544) (435,347)
Estimated REET revenues 2,002,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000
Estimated approved capital expenditures (Engineers estimate) (1,125,319) (419,563) 0 0 0 0
Potential capital expenditures(Top 2 Outstanding Grant Applications) 0 (1,190,669) 0 0 0 0
Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation (20,000) (280,079) (1,109,000) (799,921) 0 0
Transfer to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation (730,572) (1,320,958) (1,320,958) (1,320,958) (1,320,958) (1,320,958)
WSDOT Potential Grant Repayment 0 0 0 (284,282) (105,095) 0
June 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (18,400) (16,450) (14,500) (12,475) (10,375) (8,275)
December 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (148,400) (146,450) (149,500) (152,475) (150,375) (153,275)
Estimated REET available on December 31 3,281,694 1,509,525 517,567 (450,544) (435,347) (315,855)
CURRENT PENDING GRANT APPLICATIONS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
1 0141 -Sullivan Euclid PCC(CN)* 0 950,000 0 0 0 0
2 Safe Routes to School 0 220,617 0 0 0 0
3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program 0 20,052 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1,190,669 0 0 0 0
Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation 0 0 1,109,000 1,100,000 0 0
Shaded areas reflect known figures. All other figures are estimates.
* As discussed at Feb 16 Council Meeting
ACTUALS
Fund 301 Fund Balance @ 1/1/2016 1,594,088
Fund 302 Fund Balance @ 1/1/2016 1,728,297
3,322,385
H:\Utility Taxes\REET PROJ 20160216 with CLT edits.xlsx
Attachment#4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/7/2016
Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation 9/8/2016
Projection through 2021 11/1/2016
(1) Amended Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021
Revenues
Alternative Utility Tax 0 0 0 0 0 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 3,245,800 (2)
Transfers in-#001 General Fund 0 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 953,200 (3)
Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0
Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 616,284 559,808 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers in-#301 REET 1 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Transfers in-#302 RE ET 2 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Grants 35,945 2,042,665 835,224 2,063,000 340,800 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Miscellaneous 2,800 1,903 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total revenues 1,237,029 4,200,619 3,083,614 4,364,522 2,682,300 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Total expenditures 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 (4)
Revenues over(under)expenditures (150,124) 1,123,404 683,206 (185,478) (367,700) 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 948,733 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Ending fund balance 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 2,419,741 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041 2,052,041
Pavement Preservation Proiect Totals and Revenues Sources
Pavement Preservation Fund#311 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
General Fund#001 855,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,242,994 3,077,215 2,400,408 4,550,000 3,050,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000 5,599,000
Computation of Pavement Preservation Commitment
General Fund recurring expenditures prior to addition
of pavement preservation 33,629,496 37,418,882 38,357,999 38,925,602
Amount equivalent to 6% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%
Pavement preservation expenditures 2,017,770 2,245,133 2,301,500 2,335,500
Components of Pavement Preservation Financing
#001 General Fund 888,823 920,000 943,800 953,200
#101 Street Fund 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342
#123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 559,808 0
#301 Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479
#302 Special Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 660,479
2,156,051 2,245,000 2,301,522 2,341,500
Assumptions
(1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of June 6, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the audit process.
(2) The projection for the alternative utility tax equals the estimated pavement preservation funding needs less other revenue sources for Fund#311.
(3) For purposes of this analysis, the only assumed revenue streams are the General Fund contribution, REET in the amount of$400,000/year and average
grant proceeds of$1,000,000/year for the years 2018 through 2021.
(4) For analysis purposes, we have assumed expenditures equal to revenues.
H:\Utility Taxes\101 and 311 Forecast for Utility Tax Projection.xlsx
Attachment#5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/8/2016
Annual Utility Tax Revenue 10/10/2016
Estimates for the City 11/1/2016
DRAFT ANALYSIS- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
1% Utility Tax 2% Utility Tax 3% Utility Tax 4% Utility Tax 5% Utility Tax 6% Utility Tax
Electric Services $762,811 $1,525,621 $2,288,432 $3,051,243 $3,814,053 $4,576,864
Natural Gas Services 261,662 523,325 784,987 1,046,649 1,308,312 1,569,974
Sewer Services 140,827 281,654 422,482 563,309 704,136 844,963
Solid Waste Disposal Services 60,566 121,132 181,698 242,264 302,830 363,396
Water 68,813 137,627 206,440 275,253 344,066 412,880
$1,294,679 $2,589,359 $3,884,039 $5,178,718 $6,473,397 $7,768,077
H:\Utility Taxes\Utility Tax Revenue Estimates.xlsx
Attachment#6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/1/2016
Comparison of Utility Tax Rates
with Other Jurisdictions
Note: Utility tax rates for other juridictions were taken from the AWC 2015 Municipal Taxes
and Fees Survey,which was obtained at
https://www.awcnet.org/Data Resources/resourcesbytopic/TaxandUserFeeSurvey.aspx
or from the municipal code of the jurisdiction.
Municipality Electricity Natural Gas Telephone Cable TV Solid Waste Water Sewer
Spokane 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Liberty Lake 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cheney (1) (1) 6.0% 5.0% 6.0% 11.0% 11.0%
Deer Park 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
Airway Heights 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 3.0% 10.0% 19.8% 15.0%
Pullman 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 11.0% 8.0% 8.0%
Millwood 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Spokane Valley-Current 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Spokane Valley- Proposed 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%(2) 6.0% 6.0%
(1) Rates are 6%for Regular,4%for Residential Street and 4.75%for Parks.
(2) Solid Waste utility tax just proposed for disposal services(not collection services).
H:\Utility Taxes\Utility Tax Comparisons Other Jurisdictions.xlsx