Loading...
2007, 07-24 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 120 meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2007 City Staff: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Rec Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Dave Mercier, City Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Trish Burns -Hart, Human Resources Analyst Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrel Lundby of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: no report. Councilmember Denenny: reported that he attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Board meeting last week where they discussed the survey of the employees, and that the changes in attitude as reflected by the survey were phenomenal; that they also heard a report on the "smart card" and new pass system, and they discussed putting in a wireless system so people can access the internet while on the bus. At Councilmember Gothmann's request, Councilmember Denenny also reported on the recent Board of Health meeting, where they gave the task to the executive committee to finalize a contract with the headhunter company; that they sent out an RFQ and have decided on a firm from Dallas, with offices in Seattle; and that any recommendations on who this person should talk to or if any stakeholders are interested, should contact Mr. Denenny or Gothmann so they can forward that information to the Health Board. Deputy Mayor Taylor: no report. Councilmember Gothmann: explained that he attended a Weed & Seed meeting and that the Spokane Valley Partners will request a grant from the City during the City's regular cycle of "outside agency" grant considerations; and that they want to keep open a certain part of Pratt School and found out that the rooms they want to lease have an independent heating system; that he attended the Senior Picnic at CenterPlace; and also the Edgeclift Craft Fair last Saturday. Council Meeting: 07 -24 -07 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 07 -09 -07 12142 -12225 $451,041.18 Councilmember Munson: stated that he attended the GMA Steering Committee meeting last week, and they adopted a procedure, developed in part by Greg McCormick and Scott Kuhta, that will help in the update process for those who serve on the technical committee; that a collaborative planning study has been completed by CTED, which is a major step in joint planning to identify items that stand in the way of cooperation among municipalities. Councilmember DeVleming• said that since he was appointed to the SCOPE Board , they have been working on bylaws; and that he also attended yesterday's joint meeting with Council and the Board of County Commissioners. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended yesterday's joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners; she also attended the Senior picnic, a groundbreaking for Tracy Jewelers, and the NW Community Indicators meeting; and mentioned that Banner Bank will be acquiring Farmers & Merchants Bank. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. No public comments were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2008 Revenues /Property Taxes — Ken Thompson At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing for the 2008 revenues /property taxes, and invited Finance Director Thompson to the podium. Director Thompson went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the beginning of this 2008 budget process, and showing the significant revenues including property taxes; he explained that the property tax rate is expected to remain near the state authorized $1.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value; and he showed a comparison of property tax revenues for the years 2005 through 2008. Mr. Thompson also explained that there are seven new positions included in this budget, and that we have deleted the transferring of $900,000 from the general fund to the street fund. Mr. Thompson mentioned that other public hearings will be held in the upcoming months on the 2008 proposed budget. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that since property tax figures went up about 8.7 %, perhaps we could consider reducing the $1.60 to perhaps $1.55. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: b. Payroll for Period Ending July 15, 2007: $187,047.63 c. Minutes from March 1, 2007 Special Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting d. Minutes from July 10, 2007 Regular Council Meeting e. Resolution 07 -015 Setting Planning Commission Public Hearing for Street Vacation Request STV 03 -07 f. Keller Development Agreement It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 07 -012, Shannon Avenue Street Vacation (STV -0207) — Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to approve ordinance 07 -012 for the vacation of Shannon Avenue, STV 02 -07. Ms. Kendall went through Council Meeting: 07 -24 -07 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 her PowerPoint presentation, and explained that since the passage of Spokane Valley City Resolution 07- 009 dealing with the policy for imposing street vacation charges, that the City Attorney's office recommends adding the following language as #5 under section 1: "The applicant, as a condition of this vacation, will dedicate right -of -way and border easements for the continuation of Mansfield Avenue as well as construct Mansfield Avenue according to Collector Arterial Standards, as well as provide public sanitary sewer easements and an access easement from currently improved Mansfield Avenue. In light of these contributions, the public interests are best served by not imposing any additional charge pursuant to Resolution No. 07- 009." With the above change in mind, Ms. Kendall said that staff recommends Council consider amending the approval of the ordinance as amended adding new findings of fact #5. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to amend the motion to include the amended language as noted. Vote by acclamation to amend the motion: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation on the amended motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 07 -012 Reclassifying Public Works Maintenance Superintendent Position — Trish Burns -Hart It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, to approve Resolution 07 -012 reclassifying the Public Works Maintenance Superintendent Position. Ms. Burns -Hart explained the rationale for this change as noted in her Request for Council Action, and said that this would move the position from a grade 15 to grade 16, and that the Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval for this proposal. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment, no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Resolution 07 -013 Reclassifying Parks and Recreation Director Position — Trish Burns -Hart It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded to approve resolution 07 -013 reclassifying the Parks and Recreation Director. Ms. Hart explained that this position would be upgraded from its current grade 19 to grade 20, and she explained the rationale for this as noted in the Request for Council Action form, and added that two of the three finance committee members expressed support for this change. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Munson stated that as a member of the Finance Committee, he feels this upgrade has been earned and is reasonable in keeping with the increased level of responsibility of the position. Councilmember Gothmann stated his preference to wait for the marketing report from the Chamber of Commerce before making a decision, and suggested Council delay this change until that report has been reviewed. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that he opposed the change and feels Mr. Jackson has done an outstanding job and has been given additional tasks, but that in reviewing the duties of similar positions, he feels the Parks and Recreation Director does not require the more technical expertise and education of a Public Works and /or Community Development Director, and therefore he would not like to see the position upgraded. Mr. Taylor also stated that he feels it is out of place for any organization to come to us with a plan on how to better administer our facilities, and that he would not want to postpone a decision waiting for such a plan; to which Councilmember DeVleming voiced his agreement. Councilmember DeVleming also stated that based on the current work load and job description and working environment, he would support the recommended reclassification. Vote by Acclamation, followed by roll call vote: in favor of the reclassification: Councilmember Munson, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed to the reclassification: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councilmembers Schimmels and Gothmann. The motion failed. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to have this motion come back later, perhaps by the end of the year. Thereafter point of order discussion ensued regarding reconsideration of a vote and the period in which one could bring up any reconsideration. City Clerk Bainbridge said she will examine Roberts Rules of Order and report back on the particulars concerning a motion to reconsider. Council Meeting: 07 -24 -07 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 6. Proposed Resolution 07 -014 Re New classificationyifig Senior Administrative Analyst Position — Trish Burns -Hart It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconde, to approve resolution 07 -014 classifying the Senior Administrative Analyst position. Ms. Burns explained that the analysis of the current job description determined that only some of the duties were included but not all; and that the incumbent was performing duties substantially above the level of a normal administrative analyst; and as such, the current position should be properly classified as a Senior Administrative Analyst. Ms. Burns also explained that the FTE authorization for the administrative analyst would move into the Senior Administrative Analyst position, therefore not changing the current authorized FTE. Ms. Burns added that the Finance Committee members expressed unanimous support for this proposal. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Greenacres Neighborhood Park Acquisition — Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded that we authorize staff to execute the necessary documents, including the lease agreement for a portion of the property, to complete the purchase for parks purposes of Assessor's parcel number 55182.1518 under the terms identified in the request for Council Action. For the record, those terms are as follows: 1. The sales price for the 4.26 acres would be $310,000, plus closing costs; 2. Ms. Ruddach would keep the manufactured home and pole barn currently located on the property, both of which shall be removed no later than June 1, 2009; 3. Ms. Ruddach would lease the south 135 feet of the property from the City for $100.00 per year, and her father, Mr. Ed Lehman, would continue to live on that portion of the property until no later than June 1, 2009. 4. Ms. Ruddach is required to maintain property liability insurance policy in the amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate minimum coverage while during the lease of the portion of the property subject to the lease; and 5. The City would complete a boundary line adjustment that would reduce the lot size from its current size of 4.50 acres to 4.26, with that portion being reduced being added to parcel number 55182.1520 (Ms. Ruddach's residence), bringing that property from .21 acres to .45 acres. This was necessary because the lot Ms. Ruddach is living on was originally segregated from this lot, and was too small to accommodate the structures on it. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that the property at issue consists of 4.26 acres in Greenacres, immediately adjacent to the property recently purchased from Ray Brown, and is near the intersection of Long Road and Boone Avenue; and said that staff and Ms. Ruddach agreed to those terms listed above subject to Council approval. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Ann Taylor of Jacksonville Florida asked if this would create any liability on this person living on this property; and Mr. Driskell replied that there is always potential liability, but that as an additional condition of the lease, and at the request of the City's insurance carrier WCIA, Ms. Ruddach will keep a two- million dollar umbrella policy. Parks & Recreation Director Jackson added that this lease is comparable with what was done at Brown's park. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 8. Mayoral Appointment: Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) — Mayor Wilhite It was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded to approve Councilmember Munson's appointment (who previously volunteered) to the Local Redevelopment Authority. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; Council Meeting: 07 -24 -07 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 8a. Motion Consideration: Potential Strategic Infrastructure Ballot Issue — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite explained that per discussion with the Board of County Commissioners, they would like the Spokane Valley Council to consider support of the County's potential ballot issue regarding the 1 /10 of 1% of funding for infrastructure; and in that regard, Mayor Wilhite felt a motion would be appropriate to address that request. Councilmember Munson replied that Council could consider to support this ballot issue, or not support the issue, or remain neutral on the subject. Councilmember Denenny said he would like to have the pros and cons explained of having this issue on the November election, and realizes the time is short for voicing support. Councilmember Gothmann said that if this measure were to be placed on the ballot, the City would participate in the proceeds. Councilmember Denenny added that we are two million dollars short on our street fund, and that he would like to pursue the idea of having a $20.00 surcharge on vehicle registrations. Mayor Wilhite also mentioned that there could be many potential funding ballot issues that would impact Spokane Valley citizens other than the 1 /10 of 1 %, such as the library's bond issue in the spring; and that we would need to find some revenues to keep our streets in good condition as we have a great prevention program and do not want our streets to deteriorate. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to place this on the ballot or not; and that he is not sure he likes this mechanism of gaining revenues, as the City would only see perhaps $750,000, as the County would take 60% of the revenues and the remainder 40% would be divided among the other cities; adding that he feels we already have a significantly high sales tax. There was further discussion concerning future legislation that Association of Washington Cities (AWC) might consider; but it was mentioned that if AWC increases funding for our streets, they would cut the budget elsewhere. Councilmember Munson said the important thing for citizens to remember is there will not be enough revenues to meet our needs; that $750,000 will not be enough to assist us, and that he would rather remain neutral on this issue. Councilmember DeVleming also voiced his preference to remain neutral as he said he doesn't want to give the message to the public that this will solve the problems. Councilmember Schimmels added that we should let the public decide the issue, and that our share of an added tax would not be sufficient to meet our needs. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded to remain neutral with regard to this particular issue ,i.e., the County Commissioner's request for support of the 1 /10` of 1% ballot issue. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E Empire, said he thinks this is not a good idea and people would vote it down. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments; none were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 9. CTED Collaborative Grant Final Report — Scott Kuhta; and Bill Grimes of Studio Cascade Senior Planner Kuhta explained that Bill Grimes of Studio Cascade was not able to attend tonight, and he introduced Susan Winchell, Director for the Boundary Review Board, who is the driving force for this grant. Ms. Winchell said that copies of the grant were distributed to Councilmembers, and rather than go through the entire report, she would make brief comments. Ms. Winchell explained that the grant was given to examine any impediments to the UGA (urban growth area); that although there are some problem areas, overall the grant looks pretty cut and dried, and that Mike McCormick came over from Olympia and met with many jurisdictions, including the Board of County Commissioners, to discuss how to prioritize what to do to move forward with interlocals which would explain who does what, how to proceed and prioritize in order to move forward, how much time it will take, and that she is coming back Council Meeting: 07 -24 -07 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 to meet with the County Commissioners tomorrow. Ms. Winchell said that CTED opened this grant opportunity again and she is pleased with what was accomplished in the first round of grants. She also explained that it is up to the County Commissioners to set the priorities to determine which UGAs are the ones to tackle first; to determine how much staff time will be needed for each interlocal; and that she anticipates one or more interlocals a year, but that it will take time to sort it all out through negotiation; and mentioned that the Steering Committee sounds committed to negotiating. Councilmember Munson said that when this is discussed, the JPA (Joint planning areas) must be identified as that has not been done yet through the County; and as was discussed with the County Commissioners at the joint meeting yesterday, Councilmember Munson said triggers must be identified for what would cause a detailed traffic study as opposed to just doing that automatically; and that we need to identify those things that will help us maintain concurrency before it becomes an argument; and that he is not sure the template Council saw yesterday will accomplish what is needed. There was other discussion on changing procedures at staff level and that some of that holds up development; of having the jurisdiction where the development will take place, to have the final decision on things like concurrency; that this report is a mechanism to identify the differences between development regulations and is it apparent more discussion is needed; that the County's suggestions are vague and we need to make sure the process is clear and that the City's impacts will be addressed. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that joint planning agreements are key to what this report is all about and getting the assigned UGAs are the number one priority. 10. Commute Trip Reduction Agreement — Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Council previously approved the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) interlocal agreement in previous years, and these agreements allow the County CTR to retain the City's state CTR funds in exchange for the County administering the CTR programs for all affected employers in Spokane Valley. It was Council consensus to place this item on the next Council consent agenda. 11. City Hall Facilities Planning — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten gave a brief update on the city hall facilities planning per his July 24, 2007 Request for Council Action, and said that the estimate project cost is $18 million. Mr. Kersten said that proposals have been solicited and he expects staff will have a recommended consultant for council to consider at the next council meeting. In response to a question concerning time, Mr. Kersten said he feels if we decide to move forward, we could design and bid the project by 2009 and have construction in 2010. 1NFORIVIATION ONLY: The Fire Department, Library and City Department reports were "information only" items and not reported upon or discussed. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: Christine :ainbridg•'City Clerk Council Meeting: 07 - 24 - 07 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 Uet-CkAA-0.. Li ikda Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page 6 of 6 March 14, 2007 Mr. Dave Mercier, City Manager 11.707 east Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mr. Mercier, last Valley School District 12325 E Grace Spokane WA 99216 -4511 Phone (509) 924 -1830 FAX (509) 927 -3222 Assistant Superintendent for Operations Dr. Debra K. Howard This letter is to express the District's interest in forming the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the disposition of the Walker Center, a surplus property of the US Army Reserve. it is our understanding that the city of Spokane Valley, as the entity with planning and zoning authority, was given the opportunity to form an LRA. However, the City declined to accept this responsibility. Amanda Fagan of the Office of Economic Adjustment and Col. Scott McK.ean, the MAC Transition Coordinator for Washington, have indicated that the East Valley School District can be recognized as the decision making body for the LRA. In order to do so, the City would need to provide written assurance of this designation to the Office of Economic Adjustment. The District envisions creating a community board to review the proposals and make recommendation similar to the process being used for the Mann Center. Should the City grant this designation to the East Valley School District, we would like to invite a representative to participate on the advisory board. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at 241-5015. Respectfully, jab Debra K. Howard Assistant Superintendent. for Operations East Valley Schools are an Equal opportunity Employer and comply with all requirements under the ADA Spokane County and the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake and Airway Heights May 2007 CTED Collaborative Grant Studio Cascade Commun iy Ptann nu & Des n for Draft Report Distribu Mr. Steve Davenport, AICP Spokane County 1026. W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 Ms_ Susan Winchell, AICP Spokane County. BRB. 1026. W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 Mr. Ken Pelton, AICP City of Spokane 808 W. Spokane Palls. B1 Spokane, WA 99201 Mr. Scott Kuhta, AICP City of Spokane Valley 11701 E. Sprague Ave, Ste 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Mr, Doug Smith City of Liberty. Lake 22710.E Country. Vista B1 Liberty. Lake, WA . 99109 Ms. Marianne Morris City of Airway. Heights 1208 S Lundstrom St Airway Heights, WA . 99001 May 29, 2007 To: Collaborative Planning Technical Committee Subject: Draft Collaborative Planning Report - May 2007 Dear Technical Committee: Attached is the draft report that we intend to distribute to the invitees to. the May 30 luncheon. You will notice that this version includes the latest round of comments from the technical committee,, as well as a draft executive summary. It includes, however, neither the comparative implementation task matrix that we discussed for each of the strategies nor the punchlist of items to be addressed by. implementing interlocal agreements. We will include that at some point after the luncheon, incorporating the comments and thoughts certain to come up at that session. This version also. does not include the technical appendix. We will present those at the luncheon. This latest version still includes sections already reviewed by you, relating our study of the jurisdictions' development regulations and comprehensive plans. It describes our understanding of the eironment within which planning takes place in metropolitan Spokane Coun communication, development regulations compatibility, �, painting a complex picture of intergovernmental p ty, and permit processing. Please keep in mind that this is a working draft It includes none of the graphics that will appear in the final version, and there are still tables in need of completion. We will present those graphics to the technical committee for your review prior to packaging the final report. I look forward to discussing this material with you soon and continuing this work with the participating jurisdictions in the coming weeks. Please call me at (509) 835 -3770 if you have questions. Sincerely, Studio Cascade, Inc. IA ....en t Grime Principal Spokane. Metro. Area.Cotlaborative. Planning DRAFT. - May. 2007 Executive. Summary Spokane County's population is growing, and forecasts. call for. that growth to. continue.. Pressure to develop. land within thecounty's. urban growth areas (UGAs). will continue to increase in response, subdividing vacant land to create new residential lots. and intensifying those,areas already, developed.. This report was prepared to. address collaborative planning in the county's metropolitan UGA, including the City of Spokane, the City: of Spokane Valley, the City. of•Liberty.Lake, the City. of Airway Heights, and Spokane. County. It discusses. how development applications. are reviewed through the jurisdictions'. land use review processes and the land use conflicts that arise as projects. are: approved and constructed in unincorporated portions of the UGA. The report investigates the. development regulations and street standards employed by. these jurisdictions, focusing on those jurisdictional "edges" where unincorporated land 'exists between the city limits and the outer boundary of.theUGA. It discusses the various. issues the jurisdictions face when considering land use applications.' in these; areas and then suggests. a range of strategies. to. ensure the land use review, processes effectively. advance, public health, safety and - welfare, and provide for, a fair and consistent development environment. Many of the development standards. adopted-by the four. cities and applied to areas. near. their. -city Iirtmits are generally. consistent with Spokane. County's..urban zoning standards... Densities, lot sizes,_perniittedland uses. and other. requirements mostly match,. with what is permitted on one side of a city limit line mirrored on the other.. Theta are exceptions, of :course,..but.the general rule is that what is within the UGA is expected tube urban. Zoning districts, either :within cities or. within the unincorporated county, reflect that consistent vision. Street standards are also. similar.. Roads constructed per current standards will look and. function pretty. much the . same whether _they. are city.slimits or within the. County's unincorporated UGA_ Conflicts. tend to emerge by virtu.e. of nuance development regulations. do. not address... They appear. in areas. ~where subdivision patterns. from one neighborhood to. the -next do. not match, even though zoning standards, may be quite similar. They, appear where sewer service is unavailable,.requiring lots to. be large enough to accommodate private septic systems regardless of zoning lot size, standards.,, They. appear. where development • occurs in different eras, where market demand changes. over. time,. resulting in architectural or. technological shifts,. And they. appear. in the processes, the jurisdictions use to consider. land use actions. Strategies. introduced at the end of,'this. report propose a variety of techniques to. improve collaboration. 2 Conte.nts. INTRODUCTION 4 ASSESSMENT, 5 Coinprehensive'Planningsin. Spokane County 5 Zoning 6. Findings —.Residential Zoning. Districts• 9. Findings = Non - residential Zoning: Districts 10. Design. Guidelines 11, Streets • .. • 12 Development Review. and SEPA- 1 . ISSUES ' 15. - Land Use Compatibility 15 Flux 15 Communication 15 SEPA Guidelines,.and Notice for. Comment 16 Arterial Streets • .. 16. Right of Way, Allocation. and Widths • 16 Design. and Location`of Collector Streets 17 Neighborhood Character • - 17. .COORDINATION. STRATEGIES 18. • Enhanced. Communication, and. Process. Clarity. Under. Existing. County. Regulations 18 SEPA,•Notification`lmprovement " ' . , 19, Consideration.'of City. Development Regulations. in. County.Review ' 20. Adoption. of Unique ,. Area - Specific. Regulations ' - 21. Adoption: of. New UGA -Wide Development Regulations 22 Adoption. of City. Development' Regulations with. County. Review 23. Adoption. of. City Development Regulations. with..City. Review 24 Spokane. Motro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT. - May. 2007 3 Introduction Spokane. Metro, Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT.- May. 207 The Growth Management Act (GIv1A), requires the establishment of urban growth areas (UCA). and policies for joint county and city planning with IJGA's to ensure coordination between communities: and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts:" The. Act also. requires. that " the'comprehensive plan of each county. or, city... shall be coordinated. with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans...of other counties, cities with which the county. or. city has, in party, common borders or. related regional issues :" Spokane County's, adopted. Couiitywide'Planning Policies (CWPP).address. the need for joint planning within UGA'S and define joint planning areas, (JPA): as " areas 'designat d as urban growth areas assigned to. a city, or town for. future;urban devel.opulent but located in the.unincorporated county, where a. coordinated planting process between the cities, towns. and the County: will be conducted. "_ To: oversee joint:plannhig.witlliiu•UGA's,. the CWPPs established a Steering Committee of Elected Officials. charged with defining standards for. urban growth area delineation, minimum levels of service,. distribution of future growth, and negotiating designations. for UGA's in the form of a recommendation to..the Board of County Conu nissiotiers: Spokane County-and each city: hava•their. own set of development regulations. and design standards... Even though the CWPPs include guidance on regional levels of service and intergovernmental coordination, specific development and design standards still differ from jurisdicti on to. jurisdiction.. As land within the metro. area UGA's.conti,nu.es to urbanize, consistency in regulations and standards becomes. a more critical issue. The CTED collaborative grant funding this report will. allow.'the'County'and affected cities. to. lay the groundwork for coordinated planning Within. the UGA's by. evaluating the differences in currently. adopted development regulations, providing objective data upon to. base coherent fu tu.re. land use decisions, and developing alternatives for. implementation_ This report focuses on the development regulations each agencyhas adopted and the rules. and procedures they. use to. administer them..It does not explore VGA sizing, land use designation or the intricacies of joint planning. The intenthere is.to. compile-an assessment of the development regulations the five jurisdictions have on the books, identify. where they may agree or. not, assess the way. each agency manages project review,. and suggest alternatives for. the jurisdictions to. consider; as they. seek to improve project review in the VGA. 4 Assessment The•first step. in this process is•understanding what rules and standards the participant agencies have adopted regarding land development, Five jurisdictions are: the subject of this. study: Spokane County. - City. of Airway-Heights • Cit o£Liberty. Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley These five jurisdictions. regulate land development in the metropolitan area of central Spokane County, stretching from Fairchild' AitForcel3aso in the west to. the Idaho. border east. Each.is responsible for long-range planning under. the provisions of the Growth'Management Act, for. regulating development through local zoning and subdivision regulations, and fot reviewing utility and public works designs for. compliance with local design standards.. • . This chapter examines the range of policy, rules_andF standards now in place for each of. the agencies, based on information available at the time of thi.s drafting. Each agency has supplied relevant information for. inclusion in this assessment, participated m determining the scope of this assessment, and participated. in interviews. to. ensure cornprehensive understanding. of their materials. • Spokane. Metro. Area. Collaborative. Planning DRAFT. -May. 2007. Comprehensive Planning in. Spokane County.. ' - Spokane County is mandated to. plan fully, under. the provisions. of .the Growth Manageinent•Act.. Pursuant to. those. requirements, the cou.nty'.s localjurisdictionsestablished a set of Countywide Planning Policies- (CWPP). and empanelled a Steering. Committee of Local:Elected. Government Officials (Steering. Conunittee). to. ensure that local comprehensive plans. were coordinated and consistent The CWPP defined several thresholds that local governments.must:meet and several processes that local • _ governments. must observe to. ensure that their: plans recognize -the planning efforts. of neighboring jurisdictions_. The CWPP also. confirmed Spokane County as the,lead caorclinator of land use planning,: a role generally assumed. by counties: planning under. GMA_ . A review of the paiticipating jurisdictions' comprehensive plans indicates more. similarities. than differences in goals-and policies. Each agency seeks to. maximize efficiency in land use, encourage. development of commercial centers. and available industrial land, preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods and. provide public 5 Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative, Planning DRAFT -May. 2007 services.at a pace consistent with forecast' growth. Each city. generally tends to. favor. a more intense level Of development - near.its center, with less intense development on its periphery. That pattern is generally consistent with the County's land use designations within the'UGA,. The types. of land uses. generally. found along the periphery of the four cities and within the UGA are: o, Low. density, residential - Perhaps the most common land use designation on the jurisdictional periphery,.or. "edge;' is the larger. lot single - family. residential area.,. It represents a relatively, homogenous. residential suburb, somewhat distant from a more. intense commercial or. town center, district. It requires minimal. levels of infrastructure to. support and is generally. reliant on the automobile and a hierarchy, of roads, to. serve it. o. Medium density. residen tial -.In some areas, particularly.in.the.southern, eastern and southeastern portions of Spokane,.mediuul- density. resideritial•adjoins the edge.. It marks those places where. urban - style dev.eloprnent of.single- family. or lower intensity multi- family, housing types was•permitted, along with the concurrent construction of roads and utilities.. It is often difficult to determine which areas. are located withal which jurisdiction, for city limits.lites.may jog in and outfrom block to block.. o. High density'residential - In north Spokane, high- density residential development adjoins. the city limit lines, abutting undeveloped, industrial or rural land within the, County's. jurisdiction. This is not at all a common edge.condition,. but it does exist in this particular area, presenting. a .sharp. transition between land on one,.side of the city. limit line and land on the other.. o Highway. commercial. - Major. commercial corridors run through the various jurisdictions, and strip. commercial. development has occurred almost regardless of jurisdictional influence.. The edge condition of these commercial areas occurs. along all interjurisdictional arterials and impacts. each of the five participating agencies. o. Heavy and light industrial - Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, Spokane and Airway Heights all have. industrial areas within their ..city, limits that adjoin Spokane County. or. their. incorporated neighbors_. For, the mostpart,'these industrial areas,follow. railroad or highway. corridors, running through and between the participating jurisdictions in the Spokane metropolitan area_ While the general direction of god and•policies between the. various. agencies may. be consistent, incompatible implementation through land use designation,: zoning,.and various. design standards in these edge areas :Cray. lead to. difficulties. Comprehensive planning sets the.stage for. what land uses.may occur where, but it is ordy. one piece of a very. complex,pu7zIe.• . Zoning The four cities and 'county. agree in concept on what of land uses should develop along their boundaries, but there. exist very few examples. of complete compatibility in zoning regulations. While the fundamental structures, of the respective•zoning and: subdivision ordinances may. be quite similar (a reflection of the GVfA compliance requirements,. recognition of CWPPs, and constitutional and statutory limitations), each jurisdiction 6 Spokane, Metro. Collaborative, Planning DRAFT.- May 2007 • has adopted sets of standards. regarding permitted land uses,. minimum lot sizes, development intensities and other criteria relevant to. land development. Many:of the rules adopted by each agency. are somewhat • similar; bu t. there are nuances shape cf. by. each jurisdictions. experiences in regulating land development and each one's aspirations for. what the future may bring. Zoning reconciles.the long -range direction provided, in the comprehensive plan and the, very, current demands made by the development community, residents of local business.. Each community is different, resulting in . different standards. and different levels of expectation for land use regulation_ Some zoning ordinances, may. be more restrictive.than others. While that maybe perfectly. acceptable in established areas nearer the community's center (in the case of incorporated jurisdictions), it may create a very. real disparity. along the edge where a city. and the County adjoin.. • A comparative matrix of.the various residential zoning.districts.for. each of the five jurisdictions is contained in the Appendix., 'Eight zoning standards illustrate•how: the jurisdictions. differ. and: where they. aresimil Those standards. are: _ • O. Minimum density..... . •• o. Maximum density • o. Minimum hit area o. Minimum frontage o.. Unitcoverage.area. o. Minimum front /flanking setback o. Ivlinirnum,back /side setback o. Maximum building. height Table x.presents the various zoning districts that adjoin along jurisdictional boundaries... This. helps narrow the discussion surrounding compatibility. and conflict by. identifying the specific zoning. districts that lie along the. edges._ The table's second column helps provide geographical reference for. the various edges, applying terms such as.Fiye Mile, Hillyard and West Plains, to . identify. where potential conflicts may be. 7 AI en . rant County /Spokane- Location Abu ttWu. Districts Crestline Ave. LD.R /� LDR /RHD. County /Spokane Upriver • LDR/RSF. MDR /RSF. HDR RSF. County S .olcane Ri Riverside. - :LDR /RDF. Coun / Spokane Seven Mile • LDR County /Spokane: - _ Coun Spokane. Coun / Spokane. - - /RSF. Shawnee • Alcott • LDR /RSF. MDR /RSF. LDR RSF. •Moran Clenrose.' LDR /RSF. County /Spokane Indian; Canyon Rural -5 /RSF. I,DR RSF. • Coun S.okane. Tho .e RD. West Plains. LDR /RSF Count S pokane. - . ' North Metro. Area 'LDR /RSF. County /Valley.. ' , Park RD. :' - . LDR / UR -3.5, LDR %UR -7. County Valle „ _ Mornin side RD. • LDR /UR -7" Libertl. Lake/Count . 'Liberty. - Le ac .Rid eDr.Area R -1 LDR Lai <e /Valli __ . • ; River, Area .. R -1/ UR -7. R -2 'UR -7.• Airway Heights /County. • 1 Carmm 0reifi 1 A...« :- r,1_ -_,_ a Craig RD. RM /RT. R -1 /RT, R2/ICI: Table 1- Zoning Districts. on the Edge • Residential Abutting Districts Agency Pair. County /Spokane • County/Spokane. County/Spokane. County /Airway. Heights County /Liberty: Lake Liberty Lake /Valley.. Spokane/Valley. Airway. Heights %Co unty. Spokane/County.: Location North Point •North•Division;' • • Country,l-Iomes /Five Mile • McFarlane; RD. Hodges /Sprague Boone Ave. Yardley. . Hayford RD. Hillyard Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative Planning DRAFT:- May 2007 Abutting Districts HT /GC III/ RC /GC RC /CB. L1/ I-1 I.I/ I -2 LT/ M -2 C-2/1 HI/1-2 - MU/ C -2 LT /LI Zoning is not static.. It changes. Spokane County and the City. of Spokane have overhauled their development regulations to bring zoning into. compliance. with their. comprehensive. plans.. Their. regulations. today. bear little 8 S pokcln e. Metro- Are a C al 1 ab oraliv a Nonni ng • DRAFT. - May. 2047 resemblar ca to. the. regulatiorts'the . used five years. ago:. The cities. of Liberty. Lake and Spokane Vall y: initially, - adopted: the. Sp oJ<ane County- zoning ordinance upon.their irtcorp ora don,. End - Liberty. Lake his since rewritten ita zoning. to meet the city s needs_ - Spokane Valle •ixas adopted_ incremental changes, td. the Spokane. County code and is now in the. process. of. a. full. development regulations overhaul. Airway - Heights also. reviews and periodically up ate& its, zoning ordinance to reflect changes - in its comprehensive plan and in the requirements, of sta Development reguIa:tiorrs also, dictate how -, jurisdictions:process. development proposals. and issue permits..- Each jurisdiction uses its.. own development review pz'ocess, though each ;must also conform to State requirements regardixi .:SEPA review, process. time limits,..axed public notiEic Lion_ Findings, .ResidentiaCZoning .Districts. Bach Jurisdiction employs similar, ,stratification .o€ residential lan&.use,.: Each has. a variety of residential densities, ranging. from Low-density de hitched single - family residential to h igher- density attached zrtu1ti- famil residential. The pity of Spokane has the greatest number of residential. districts, creating different zoning categories.for..a broad palette o # al. types„ Table 2 is organized to, indicate which housing categories. are permitted in which zoning district Single family, detached residential housing is. permitted. in virtually any residential 2.0n €or; all juri . Table 2 List of Residential Zoning Districts By Type. Permitted Eausing Type County.. Spokane - Spokane- Valle Single Family, Detached LDR,- RA, F,- R -3.5, R -7, LDR-P, RTF, RivE1 R-12, R-22 MDR, HDR RHD. Single . Family, Attached f Duplex LDS; DTt RA,1tp R.5, R -7, I-Il71. AT-F,1 MF, R -1.2, R-22 RHD, Multi Family, Attached . Other. (mixed use manufactured housing). IDR, MAR ll fop • R* R -7 R -12, R -22 'Liberty, Lake. R -3., R -2, R-a R-1*, R-2*, R -3*. M-i * M-2 *r M-3'. 'Airway ay Heih R- 2, -a R -2.,11-3 yy, - R-3*, • R-.3 -3* -3, tvI -2* All zones except ivIZ * Permitted under sp ecial .circumsta n ces. . In general; the land,' use and density ferences,bctsveen the adjoining agencies.. are notpronounced_ The greatest disparity appears to-.existbetween the City of Spokane and Spokane County_ Differences. between Spokane Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative Planning DRAFT.- May, 2007. County, and the•zoning designations along the periphery, of Spokane Valley. and Liberty. Lake are minimal, perhaps.because b othcities. used the County's zoning ordinance as .the root of their own.: The principal findings that influence the design and pemutting of residential development are:. Single-Family Density. — Four, u.nits.per. acre..is a conunon.density. for. single - family residential zoning,, and. it is the minimum density generally. regarded as urban.. Spokane County's LDR, the City. o£ Spokane's RSF, Spokane Valley's UR 3.5, Liberty Lake's. R -1, and Airway: Heights'. R -1, districts all target residential development at that level of density.. It appears that all the jurisdictions agree on residential density. in the UGA and in those single - familyareas withincity-limits. along the edge. • Multi- Family Density —.The UGA includes : a mix. of - residential densities.. While most is reserved for. single - family,. development,, some areas,. predominantly alongarterials,. areplanned for..multi- family. housing.. In areas like North Division, the County and the City of Spokane both apply. multi - family. zoning designations.. As is the case with single - family zones, the multi- family. density. designations between the jurisdictions are consistent. Where multi- family areas in different jurisdictions adjoin, the permitted densities are similar. Lot Size — Density. ranges may be similar. between the jurisdictions, but minimum lot size requirements. may differ. For instance, lot sizes in Spokane's. RSF zone can be as small as. 4,350. square: feet under certain conditions.. In contrast, lot sizes, in the. County's LDR zone, immediately adjacent to. the. City's. RSF district in Moran Prairie, imposes a minimum lot size of 7,200. square, feet.. Densities, may be similar, but individual residential subdivisions can contain dramatically. different lot sizes and create different neighborhood character. Findings.—. Non=residential Zoning. Districts. Commercial and industrial zoning designations. also. exist in the UGA and along the peripheries of the cities.. These. districts generally are located along major arterials and railroad corridors. without regard to, jurisdictional boundary, reflecting the preferred locations for commercial and industrial landuses. Table 3. lists: the various. commercial and. industrial zoning- districts employed by, the: five. jurisdictions, categorizing them bylevels. of intensity.. Each of the jurisdictions. uses different strata of commercial and industrial zoning,•separating more intense uses from ones generating less impact.. In addition, some jurisdictions invite residential uses•into, commercial and in subject to. special conditions.. Spokane's Planned Industrial designation, for, example ,. permitshousing among industrial use providing it meets certain design criteria.. This table provides. a comprehensive list of all zoning districts, even though only some. of them may actually exist in the edge`conditions. (see Table x). . 10 Pennitteo Type of Use C County S Spokane ' 'Spokane . . Liberty y Table 3.: List of Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. B Type. of Use Design.' Guidelines Spokane..Metro. Area Collaborative Planning DRAFT,- May. 2007. The City of Spokane is .the only jurisdiction of the five. that has adopted design guidelines.. While design control through minimum lot dimensions, minimum landscaping requirements, building height and setback standards is almost universal, only one jurisdiction, attempts: to. control the appearance of development and impacts, to the public realm. All jurisdictions have street section design.requirements, but those tend to focus on the allocation of. right of way, identifying minimum land widths. and various. construction details. Spokane's design control occurs. through zoning (actual-. design standards included. in zoning districts), . subarea plans. (design standards included in area plans for a community.: containing multiple zoning districts), and.process (requiring design review for. certain .types of uses, fox development in certain sensitive. areas, or. fox deviations from dimensional requirements. in zoning). Though Spokane employs. design guidelines, they are not universally, applicable_. They bear, on development only within the CBD,. along, the Spokane. River, in the ;'C and "Corridors'. areas,. and were project applicants, propose "plans hen." • applications. to deviate from certain requirements... The scope of these design guidelines addresses the, treatment of building facades (especially where they interface with the street), the placement of structures on the site, and the arrangement and quantity of on -site landscaping for different types of land use.. Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT.- M ay. 2007. There are. few: - areas where Spokane's, design guidelines mayimpact compatibility of development in adjacent jurisdictions.: North.Nevada St is. one. It is an area where the City. of Spokane intends to. apply. design guidelines immediately adjacent to areas. withno design guidelines now. in place. under County jurisdiction_ The City's comprehensive plan. anticipates much of the area.along North Nevada to. annex eventually into. the City,. and the City has identified the land as a "Corridor. " Development under. City jurisdiction would be subject to design regulations.. If the area develops. under County jurisdiction, however, no. design regulations would apply. • The cities: of Liberty. Lake and Spokane Valley are eonsiderartg adopting design guidelines. Liberty. Lake may. apply design guidelines to its central business district and to. a proposed mixed -use development along the Spokane River. The. City. of Spokane. Valley is considering design guidelines for, application to its Sprague /Appleway corridor. subarea. Neither one would'likely impact development design or.'review in adjoining jurisdictions. Streets Street design requirements. and the size of streetlights. of .way. are. different from one jurisdiction to. the, next_ All • Five jurisdictions. employ. a similar street hierarchy, classifying streets as arterial, collector or, local streets. Spokane•County, Spokane. Valley,. and Liberty Lake use the same set of standards.. The cities. of Spokane and Airway Heights have unique standards.... ; The Appendix contains . a summary of street right of way. requirements. and standard street section designs. The urban growth.area contains every type of street.. Local streets. trace through neighborhoods. in incorporated and unincorporatedareas alike. Collectors access the local streets, and•arterials. distribute traffic, concentrating on the mobility of people and goods. through the UGA. . • - Rights pi Way Local streets.runge in ROW width from.50'"to.80', accommodating two travel lanes and parallel on street parking.. On1.y Airway Heights ..andSpokaitepublishstandards for.,local streets..._The design of local streets in Spokane County, Spokane Valley. and Liberty Lake is. dictated by. what is approved on subdivision maps or. what street design is in place'immediately adjacent to. the streets being constructed. Collector rights..of way vary from 60', to. 80', accommodating up. to. four travel lanes in some, urban settings and parallel•on- street parking under. certain conditions. Arterials are the Widest streets, with rights. of way. ranging from 80'. to. 110'... These. streets. can accommodate up to seven lanes.of travel, with on -street parking availablein a variety of configurations depending on the setting and desired street function: 12 Development Review ancISEPA. Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning D iFT.- May.2DD7 Sidewalk Placement -.Spokane indicates that planter. strips. be located adjacent.to. the backs of curbs and_ that s idewalks. are. adjacent to the right of .way., The other, four jurisdictions call for curb - adjacent sidewalks,. Regional Mobility. -: The Spokane, Regional Transportation Commis lion (SRTC). assists with. arterial, street planning within the UGA,• ensuring regional mobility is maintained and. concentrating, mostly, on the movement oiE through- traffic. i The processes ii d. practice,,cf project review, reyeal..tite shortcomings of development regulations. arid • interjurisdictional conurturlicatioq.•• If permittung,takes.••toa long, if environmental review, fails to identify relevant mitigation measures, or. if incompatible. land tises wind up. adjoining each other,.fingers. point to the failure. of the development review process„ . , SEPA and public.ziotice Iawa- require n,a tification of responsible agencies and nearby property Owners for Many, quasi- Judiciai ant legislative proposals_ Agencies. routinely review. and make comments. on development prrop oral , But there -is. no. 4vritten.process now, -geed upon b }.,these jurisdictions. to set expectations. for par tid pation a ocL guide project review„ There, Is concern that some projects or. land use. prop osaIs may "fall through the cracks," particularly in tire. case of projects or. proposals.-witivn the unincorpora to d. UGA. near. the municipalities. . . While s ignificant,effor t. may be irkvested in col] ab orative planning for long- range consistency in land use.. actual development projects.processed, approved. and constructed can point out and exacerbate differences in how jurisdictions perceive. the. tvay. things. ought to. be... Reconciling the long -term vision and short -term requirements. for. development review is a persistent challenge for planners. within a single agency. Coordinating with another jurisdiction in that effort adds to. the difficulty. There are three basic types. of 'Ian d use actions. that the County and inc orporate cl jurisdictions take: Ministerial actions. are' ones, like building permits, where approval is granted .when it is- clearly. do cu.mented that the proposal meets. all applicable'rules. Tlie'se are usually acted onby jurisdiction staff„ withno. or. very. limited ability to exercise indeperrdent or •discretion in the project's, approval... Agencies, generally. try. to. streamline: the processing of ministerial pernuts, occasionally referring to them as "over - the = counter!.. permits;, 'Results. of permit issuance can be immediate, with pernutees:abie to, build as. soon as they.leave the office. As a rule, iitinis terial• actions:involve no. not cation ofneighboring jurisdictions. Building peianits., grading p ermi ts p'emnits and a'•varie by of similar. land 'use actions occur. " over - the - count' withn o. notice given. I t•is the same for, Spokane County 'as it is for. the other jurisdictions. 13 Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT. - May.2007 Quasi - judicial actions, like variances, use permits, or, site- specific zone changes, require limited exercise of judgment and. discretion by`the approving body.. Public officials, boards of adjustment and hearing examiners are usually empowered to act on these types of permits,. with those.acted_ by. public officials-requiring the least application of discretion_ Those permits. going to. boards of adjustment or. hearing examiners often require public hearings,. full SEPA documentation and a written record o£ findings and conclusions in support of the decision. These actions are subject to maximum processing times. as mandated by. State. law, encouraging local jurisdictions to. act expedient[y'in their consideration.. These. actions usually. require an appeal period, where applicants must wait for. several days before, taking action allowed. by the permit. The delay allows for. those aggrieved by the jurisdicdoiti s action to, appeal the decision to. the n ext highest leveL • Quasi - judicial actions, however, are more complex and are of,particular. concern to. collaborative planning.. Land divisions and otherdevelopznent projects may. conform to..the requirements -of one. jurisdiction, but may not at all conform to the requirements.of the jurisdiction lying iminediately next to. the proposed development project.. Lot sizes, street.cross- sections, permitted land uses, and maximum bailding heights vary. from one community. to. the next, and•the existing project review process quasi - judicial projects allow.litt[e opportunity. for, interjuristictional communication at the. project review. level.. 0 Legislative actions, like comprehensive planamendments. and annexations, require approval by a jurisdiction's city council or board of county commissioners. These also. require extensive -public notice, and they demand the highest level.of exercise:of judgment_ The actions. taken at this level are comprehensive and may have long-range impact:...They are also subject to. appeal, with some of those appeals. going. to, the Growth Management Hearings Board, _ • 14 Issues, Spokane. Metro Area Collaborative Planning DRAFT.-. May.2007. The comparative matrices included. in the appendix assemble and present, side -by -side, the development regulations employed by. each jurisdiction in metropolitan Spokane County. A. review of those, matrices reveals some of the. issues that have caused difficulty in the review and issuance of development permits.. The street standards apply to..those•streets under. the jurisdiction of the County and four. cities. Highways owned by WSDOT are not included here. Land Use Compatibility Not surprisingly, the. range of land uses permitted in unincorporated'Spokane County is larger than that permitted within incorporated municipalities.. Single - family, zoning in Spokane County. permits more ancillary uses. than the companion single family zoning in any o£ the'cities... in addition, Spokane County's industrial zoning permits multi - family. housing,. an issue that has drawn considerable attention with respect to. industrial zoning.near. airports and adjacent to. municipal boundaries. Despite those differences, however, the conflicts in land use and zoning within the.UGA are relatively. minor. . Flux. . Zoning ordinances change.: Spokane Valley. is now. amending its zoning ordinance,. replacing'the Spokane County-based one the City adopted upon its. incorporation... Airway. Heights may follow suit,, adopting zoning revisions. to. implement its comprehensive plan. As zoning 'ordinances. change, neighboring jurisdictions will need to. reevaluate:Iand use and.process compatibility. along their boundaries. Communication The process.for reviewing .development applications in-the UGA or. within jurisdictions.neaL other jurisdictions is undefined. This. is a big issue, particularly in the case of environmental review where development in one jurisdiction impacts neighborhoods, streets or utility systems of another. The. issue has, two components: o Misdirected or risrouted notice - Agency personnel and agency titles. change... Project information intended for agency comment can-be. sent to. the wrong individual or the wrong department, with neither. the sender. nor-the intended recipient aware.of the problem. o. Non - response. - `l'hereis. no. guarantee that agency: comments will impact a project proposal.. Jurisdictions voicing significant concerns. must rely. on their. persuasiveness. (and sometimes. the threat of . legal action). to. compel project applicants and the: responsible jurisdiction to. incorporate. changes to. the proposal or. the conditions. attached' to, permit approval.,, . 15 Spokane. Metro, Area CoIloborotive. Planning DRAFT. - may, 2007, SEPA u defines and Notice. for Comment' The local guidelinea.for. implementing SEPA are almost iden dcal between jurisdictions. The tuning of when responsible agencies are notified for project comment or of environmental deter mutations,. the process, for- ' incorporating agency cozament into the project record, and the method for treatingSEPA review, of icon project actions are contingent on the type, location and complexity of the project being considered.. 'Eaehjurisdiction assigns.SE1 A project management responsibility to the project.ptanners working on the proposals,. and_ each planner uses discretion in the application of, the SEPA.. process,. Spokane County. uses.•a Inas ter distribution list whelp. planners determine which agencies. should receive environmental information on individual projects - ..Planners xnust evaluate the list, however,. for. each application, - amending it as. necessary to. suit its, unique xreeds,. Environmental the c lfsis for projects. within a mile of a state highway are. to. be circulated too, the Washington Sate Department of Transportation_ Checklits. for, projects :near. historic or, cultural resources trust be sent. to the State's. Department of Archaeology and Historic J' reservation.. This flexibility is iecessaiy, for the appropriate application of processes, but it allows for agencies tape overlooked when they should be consulted,. S €1'A provide a,for. lo cal governrn ent flexibility, in ttta way. in which the rules ara iru piennente d, but the inconsistency in whi ge is notified of what here can Iead Ea zhis Land in g and inso.[icient participation. Arterial. Streets The various agencies. include a range of arterial street types. While the. City. of Li`ber ty Lake and the City. of Spokane Valley employ Spokane County's. street stand those street sbindard.s. include enough of a variety. in arterial street design tap e rmit incompatible street designs on either. side of the boundary. The City. of Spokane's stIndaTds. also. id. entify.numerous. arterial street types, though different than Spokane County's, allowing the City to select from a diverse palette. - Airway Heights uses. two. different arterial street designs. IAT.ile street sec dons. differ, between jurisdictions, the agencies.have'been able tanegotiate. d esign - solutions. and compromises based on street function and broader land usa objectives,. -Right of.'viray Allocation . and Widths The adopted, street section indicata differences. in lane widths and the locations of sidewalks and planting strips.. Ivfos urbart'standards:ind cite c urb - adjacent sidewalks, The City, of Spokane's, however in: Ideate. that the. sidewalk is to.baSeparated, pushed away. from the travel ways and adjacent to. the right.of way. boundary_ In cases,. similar roadway classifications care lead ta, differing right of way; requirements.. While this. may seemnot•tsa be a problem in the case of Spokane County, the City of Liberty. Lake„ and the City of Spokane. Halley. because all three share the same standards the variety of street desi gn choice and the. criteria, used to select them may. result in. each agency assignxng'a different street configuration and right of way. for. the. same type of use.. 16' Spokane.Metro, Area Collaborative Planning, DRAFT,- May.2007. Design. and. Location, of Collector Streets Airway. Heights and the City of'Spokane-employ. standards for urban collectors that are different from those employed by. the other. jurisdictions. This is. not a big issue, except in' areas where more collector -level connectivity iil the edge condition is needed.. This impacts. areas Like Moran Prairie, the West Plains near. Hayford Road and all other, areas where jurisdictional boundaries zig and gag through 'UGA neighborhoods. Neighborhood Cha • NTeighborhoods,in the. UGA intermix a variety of local street types, residential densities andland uses. Some of the more rural land uses. may have been established Long before the advent of. a UGA, but the inconsistencies in street standards and g re enients•have resulted in eclectic. neighborhoods. that appear. to. be in. some sort � . of transition_ Many residents of these areas may. not seek a more uniform neighborhood character.. For those who do; however, the eurrent slate development regulations. and -street standards will need revision. • 17. Coordination..Strategies Spokane. Metro Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT - May.2007 These five jurisdictions. wish to. improve the ways in which they. work together. The UGA will continue to. experience development pressure, and these jurisdictions must coordinate to. ensure public services are provided at the levels. people expect.and that neighborhoods function as their. residents'. desire... 'This chapter discusses strategies' in w.hich the jurisdictions. communicate with,each;other. and how they can revise development review practices.ta. welcoiine sad ditional participation froin their. adjouungjurisdictions.. Of the six coordination' strategies. discussed here,.two focus only on process modifications.. These, concern making changes in the way: development applications. are considered,. asking the jurisdictions. to enhance information sharing and. accountability.. The remaining four strategies include some structural change.as. well, asking jurisdictions.to; reconsicler•their current development regulations and. flow they are administered. Enhanced Communication.' and. Process. Clarity. Under. Exi ting CountyRegulafions. This- strategy, focuses. more on the process than on policy and regulations. It suggests that each jurisdiction maintain the rules now in place, concentrating on effective interjurisdictional comrnunication and transparent processing of development applications_ While it communication between jurisdictions, it does not necessarily ensure that development or. SEPA review is. any more effective that it is today.. Elements of this step involve: o. Interjurisdictional pre-application/pre development meetings - Mos t juris dictions already employ s ome type of predevelopment meeting,to. review project proposals. before applicants have their. projects. designed and.ready for submittal.. Few. predeveloprnent applications, however, involve representatives from adjoining jurisdictions. This would change that... o Permit.status reporting'- Spokane County reports project milestones. in its Permit and Land. Use System (I'i.US), increasing transparency'of their review process.. and making project information public.. This system, if. kept up. to. date, could be an attractivcvenue.for all projects within the.UGA and within city limits. near-the UGA or adjoining jurisdictions_. G Public•ihotice - While much of the .project review process happens prior to issuance of public notice for hearings, it is..still important that responsible agencies and adjoining jurisdictions receive notice of projects and. are. provided.a meaningful opportunity to, comment 18 The below•summarizes. the benefits and drawbacks of this strategy. Advantages Drawbacks • Inexpensive Has little SEPA accountability. Politically. achievable Retains existing zoning inconsistencies 'Uses familiar development sbndards.and rules Spokane. Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning. DRAFT.- May..2007 Applies. to. all jurisdictians equally. . To. implement tltis:strategy, the following actions. will need to.•be accomplished:. o. PLUS. - All jurisdictions will need access.to. the County's. Permit and band Use System tracking data.. This may.. require training for non - County. staff, new equipment at city. planning offices, and dedicated effort on the. County's part to..ensure the system is regularly, coniprehensively and.accurately. updated.. o. Notification proce dures.. Jurisdictions will need to review their. notification procedures and revise them to. ensure that *relevant communication regardingproject review gets circulated to: all appropriate. agencies a nd require assembly. of a universal mailing and distcibutiin list and new ways of using and electronic•media. • o.. Pre - application conferences. - The County may, wish to. consider. inviting representatives. from adjoining jurisdictions to. project meetings prior. to. application submittal.. This will establish communication protocols for project review and permitopen discussion of pertinent development regulations. issues. o. Staff. coordination group. - Each jurisdiction would need to. commit staff resources to. ensure that • • communication between theagencies. remains as effective as. possible. o. City acknowledgement of - application -To. ensure adjoining cities are aware of development applications in the'UGA, the County may require cities. to acknowledge the County's receipt of • development applications; prior. to. processing them. SEPA Notification. Improvement ' . . This strategy. seeks, to make SEPA revieww, andnotification practices more effective for the -five jurisdictions, enabling local staff to understand what to. expect as projects. in adjoining jurisdictions. work their way through SEPA review and ensuring thatall responsible agencies' notified of relevant projects. o. , Uniforrn master list - Understanding that individual projects, will. have unique distribution requirements, it still may be good practice to. establish an interjurisdictional master, distribution list and to keep .itcurrent,,reflecting,changes in staff and in organizational structure.. Project planners on agency staff can still add or. delete specific recipients. depending oil project needs, but all will have the sane. basic information at their, disposal. o. Comment.acknowledgement - There is .provision neither in SEPA nor in the local guidelines now -. adopted•by. the jurisdictions requiring. the acknowledgement of an agency's comment related to. SEPA ' unless that comment concerns. an environmental impact statement A comment acknowledgement would 19 Spokane: Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT - May, 2007 notify an agency responder that the lead agency received the conunent Under_ the current system, those making comments have no. idea whether their comments. were received.. The tablebelow , summarizes.thebenefits and drawbacks. of this strategy_ • Advantages Drawbacks. Direct a ccountability.;on project action- '• Greater burden'on SEPA lead. agency. Comnienters assured comments received. • Need. to. revise SEPA guidelines. and /or practice Uses familiar. development standards and rules. Applies to.,all jurisdictions equally' To, implement this strategy, the following actions. will need to. be accomplished: o. Notification audit -. All jurisdictions will need to review. their SEPA notification processes to. ensure that all staff responsible for. managing•project reviews use the'same practice and. the same notification lists, interpreting SEPA guidelines the same. and, integrating'SEPA.into. the development review process in•a consistent manner: . - . o. Feedback cycle. - Jurisdictions. will need to. modify their. SEP-A practice to. respond tb. commenters, regardless of the•ultimate disposition of thei.t comments- o. Electronic distribution - The Jurisdictions to.save on mailing costs in the face of an increased notification, and correspondence requirement, may. consider new-ways of using electronic media to facilibite•wrider,•distribution of SEPA materials_ to. Staff coordination group. -. Each jurisdiction would- need to. commit staff resources. to ensure that communication between the, agencies. remains as effective as possible, and that the names and contact details for 'appropriate SEPA agency representatives•are current. Consideration -of City:Development Regulations: in. County Review. This would ask the'County to consider, the zoning and street design standards from adjoining municipalities: when reviewing development projects within•the. UGA..,This is intended to ensure that development near; existing cities. is compatible with the development within city limits.. The County. may. rely. on • City on the proposed development in lieu of actually .learning the development regulations from each municipality, but some County staff familiarity with city- codes would help. streamline. the process.' o. City notification and'invitation - This action would have the County notify. adjoining-municipalities when development applications are .made near jurisdictional boundaries -.. The notification would invite. City conunent on the proposal, including a revietv'of the application, as. if it were to. be developed'subject to. city. development regulations. • • o. City. cornment 'The City would respond to. the County's invitation,. applying its development regulations to. the project, info.nning the County of possible conflicts and. suggesting design modifications or. mitigation strategies. 20 o. County response -,.County staff. would transmit City, comments to..project applicants for. their consider ation.acl nowledging receipt of City's comments to. the. commenting City. o. County staff, report -.The County's staff report would include City continents, with the understanding that the•project would'need to. comply. with the County's. development regulations, and, be approved, conditionally approved or. denied based on County. iules.. . • The table below summarizes the benefits. and drawbacks of this strategy. Advantages: County. uses: fainiliar rules. for. decisions Provides for city. design guidance Reinforces. communication between jurisdictions Facilitates transfer of government in 'annexations •• May apply. to all jurisdictions. equally. Drawbacks Adoption, of. Unique, Area-Specific Regulations . ' - 5pokane.Metro, Area Collaborative, planning DRAFT. -.May. 2007 Reduces. certainty. in how rules. applied City.,unable. :to: enforce compliance Requires. assigninent of. UGA to individual cities •Requires. County: staff to. be familiar with multiple codes . • Unclear. how City rules. impact County project action Requires. extensive city. and County staff time • To, implement.this, strategy, the following actions will need to, be accomplished: o. Agreement - Jurisdictions employing this strategy. will need to. adopt an interlocal agreement to. establish the terms and conditions:for. when cities are notified of various applications and which areas within the LJGA are to, have project review informed by which city's, rules... The agreement may. also. address sharing of application permit review fees reflecting involvement of both city. and•County. staff time. o. Staff involvement - This strategy.would effectively. cause project review. work, asking both city. and County planners to. review'project applications for consistency with'their respective.'ii.evelopment regulations.. City. staff will also. need to. be available to assist County, staff as needed- during the project review process, and County. staff will need to work through reconciling. theoutcomes of city. project review with the standards contained in County regulations.. Thejurisdictions-will need to expect and support that level of staff dedication. o. Review process modifications. - The development review processes Would need to be modified to. account for: the.additional time that may be necessary. to accomrnodate.this extra level of County project review. ... , o. . Staff coordination group. -. Each jurisdiction would need to. commit staff resources. to ensure that communication between the•agencies remains as. effective as. possible_ This, strategy builds. upon the. concept of joint planning areas and subarea plans, crating development regulations that are unique to identified subareas :or. neighborhoods and'that are derived from focused study. and local community . participation.••lmpleinentation of this•step. would rely. on subarea or. neighborhood initiative to create special standards that would'apply only to. them, similar to, the subarea planning process. the County instituted 21 Spokane, Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT.- May. 2007 in 2002. - This action would be applied in areas. where believe the County's development regulations and collaborative plaiuningefforts would:be inst icientto :enhance neighborhood character. or provide for, satisfactory levels. of public service's.. . Based on existing_neighborhood patterns. Responsive to. community. needs. and expectations Implemented by single jurisdiction Increases communication between. jurisdictions The table belo summarizes. the benefits. and drawbacks,of this.. strategy. Advantages • .Drawbacks _ Expensive - Reinforces neighborhood. divisions. Establishes subarea institutions that may require support . To. implement •this,'strategy, the following actions. will need fo. be accomplished:. o. Subarea/Neighborhood plan - Unique or specific areas will need. to be, identified and plans will need to be prepared to elicit community comment and transform community desires into land use policy and 'development regulations_ • o. Zoning revisions. -. Jurisdictions, will need to. review and, perhaps,,revise their•development regulations to implement the direction derived'from,the subarea ozneighborhood plan. - o Subarea organism - The once a subarea is recognized, it •i.11 become increasingly necessary to empanel and support 'a subarea or neighborhood' organism to. help. implement the plan and monitor its progress. o. Agreement - Jurisdictions employing this strategy Will - need to. adopt an interlocal agreement that effectively transfers authority to. the appropriate cities to. review development permits,. issue approvals, and enforce.the regulations. under. which;thepermits are issued. The agreement would also. need to specify the types: of regulations that will apply to, the UGA, clarifying which rules remain County, and which will reference. city codes.' In addition,' the agreement may. need' to. include provisions. for. a majority of permit application fees to.be transferred to the cities. performing project review.. Adoption' "of. New..•UGA -Wide; Development Regulations, This strategy would propose the creation. and adoption of a. new, set. of UGA development: regul for adoption by. the:County, basi them on the development context now in place. It would, differ from current zoning by p roviding for,development regulations that are 'rooted in things like existing residential lot sizes, type of street improvements. already constructed,. continuation of land uses that are now permitted and orientation of • development with respect;to. streets, parks, schools and other, public places. The new regulations would seek to • create. a zoning. environment that is. more-tailored to. community, desires, possibly. usin design guidelines or "form- based" - approaches to. help. the regulations. fit and manage the transition to. urban intensity appropriately.. • The table below summarizes the benefits. and drawbacks of 'OS strategy.. 22 Advantages • Drawbacks.. - Spokane. Metro, Area Collaborative, Planning DRAFT.- May. 2007 Based on existing development patterns Responsive. to. community needs and expectations' Implemented by. single jurisdiction .Applies. i o: all' jurisdictions equally To. implement this. strategy, the following actions,-wi.11.need to. be accomplished:. • O. Area =wide. inventory - The UGA will ; need: to. be existing development conditions. measured; mapped, arid characterized for development of a new developmennt regulations approach. o. Zoning revisions. - Jurisdictions.will.need to. review and,. perhaps, revise their. development regulations to. implement the direction'd.erived•from•the inventory . process.. o. Agreement - Jurisdictions employing this strategy will need to. adopt an interlocal agreement that effectively transfers authority. to. the appropriate cities to. review development permits, issue approvals, and enforce the regulations. under. which the permits. are issued.. The agreement'would also. need to 'specify. the types. of regulations that -will apply.to. the UGA, clarifying which rules remain County and Which will city.codes., In addition, the agreement may need tn. include provisions for a majority of permit application fees to.bertransferred to, the cities. performing project review. Expensive Creates possible discomfort with new zoning approach Does not necessarily enhance communication Adoption, of City. Development Regulations with, County Review In this strategy, the.Countywould adopt the zoning and street design standards from adjoining municipalities to apply to development projects within the UGA.. This. would ensure that development near. existing. cities is entirely consistent development within city limits , - developing under exactly the same rules.. The County. would need to. rely. on City comment on the proposed development and also on learning the development regulations from each municipality. ; •o. • City-- notification and - invitation -This action would have the County notify adjoining municipalities when development applications. are made neat jurisdictional boundaries. The notification would invite City the proposal, including.a review of the application as. if it were to. be developed subject to city. d.evelopment regulations. . o. City, comment. The. City would respond to the County's : invitation, applying its, development regulations to.,the''project, informing the. County of possible conflicts and suggesting design modifications or. mitigation strategies. o. County response -. County: staff would transmit City,_comments to. project applicants for their • Consideration; acknowledging receipt of the City's, comments t�. the cornmenting City. o. County, staff. report • The County's staff report would include City: comments, the understanding that the project must to comply with the City's. development regulations.and be. approved,. conditionally • approved or deniedbased on the City's rules:• Even though it would be a County action,.th e terms. and conditions would reference' City: codes. and' requirements. 23 The table below summarizes. the benefits. and drawbacks of this strategy. • Advantages. . Provides. for city design guidance' • . - Reinforces. communication •between•jurisdictions • Facilitates :transfer. of government in annexations May apply. to all jurisdictions :equal,ly Resolves. inconsistencies, in UCA Drawbacks Spokane•Metro. Area Collaborative. Planning DRAFT - May. 2007. City. unable to enforce compliance Requires assignment of. UGA. tciindividual cities Requires County staff:to. be fainiliar. with codes County residents may not welcome, "city ". zoning Could cause confusion in non - zoning permits Requires. extensive, city. and County staff time To. implement this strategy, the following actions will need•to.be accomplished :• • o. Agreement- . :)urisdictiona employing this' strategy' will'needito. adopt an interlocal agreement to establish the'terms and•conditions, for.when cities are notified of various. applications and which areas within the UGA are to. be subject to. which The'•greement would also need to specify the types. of •regulations that will apply. to: the.UGA , clarifying which rules. remain County: and which will reference. city co des..In•addition, the agreement may need to, include provisions. for the sharing of development o. application fees since planners on both sides. of the city limit lines. will be involved in project review. Consistency audit - If the County. adopts city. development regulations and does. not adopt all related city. codes that would. conceivably apply. to development, the jurisdictions, will need to. review applicable rules. forconsistency: and make 'revisions as, necessary.• • o ' Staff involvement - To ensure the County staff interprets :city. rules, County staff will need to invest time to.iearn'city development regulations;•and city staff will need to. be. available. to. assist County staff as needed during the project review process..Thejurisdictions will need to expect and support that level of staff dedication. - - Review process. modifications. -.The development review processes would. need o. to. be modified to account for, the additional time that may. be necessary. to accommodate this extra level of County project .review, includingan educational period to. inform UCA project applicants. of the requirement to. conform to, city development regulations.. Application fees may also. need to, be increased to reflect the greater, demand on staff time. - • Adoption. of. City.•Development'Regulations with, City Review _ This strategy would ask the City to take over project review responsibility: for all development projects within the UCA, applying municipal zoning and street design standards, as. if they. were located within city.limits.. This is intended. to. ensure that development near, existing cities is compatible with adjacent development_ The County wouldneed to, rely on City notification of comment periods and hearings on the proposed. d.eveloprnent to offer input on .the proposed projects, taking. a "hands -off'. position.in.development review., 24 o. City notification and invitation - This,action•would have the'County, notify adjoining municipalities when development applications are made. neat jurisdictional :boundaries..The notification would invite City cornment on'the proposal.; indu ding a review.,of the application as if it were to be.developed subject to. city. development regulations. . , o, City, staff report -.The City would.respond to. the County's invitation, applying •its development regulations: to: the project and preparing a staff report to. take to. the appropriate City official for. action. o? County notification - CitystaEf would transmit copies of the staff report to. the County. for review and comment, notifying the County of•hearing dates. and recommended actions. o. City action. -The City would act on the projectas if it were within municipal boundaries, notifying the applicant and.•the County of decision outcomes. The table below summarizes. the benefits and drawbacks of this strategy.._ • •. Advantages • Provides for city project review Reinforces communication between jurisdictions Facilitates transfer.•of goverrunent irn annexations - May apply. to all jurisdictions. equally • Resolves•inconsistenciesin•UGA assigned 'to. city. Reduces. demand-on County.:stiff time Spokane, Melro. Area Collaborative Planning DRAFT. -.May. 2007. 'Drawbacks Requires, assignment of UGA to. individual cities County residents May not welcome "city". zoning and review Could cause confusion in :non- zoning permits 'Requires extensive city,. staff time To. implement this.strategy, the followingactic ns. will need to. be accomplished: o. Agreement Jurisdictions' 'employing this strategy. to. adopt an interlocal agreement that effectively transfers authority, to. the:appropriate cities reviewdevelopnient permits,. issue approvals, •and enforce the regulations. under which the permits. are issu.ed_. The agreement would also. need to specify.the types. of regulations.that will apply. to VGA, clarifying which rules remain County. and which•will city. codes.. • In addition,'the.agreernent may. need to.'include. provisions. for a majority' o£ permit application'fees to, be.transferred to..thecities. :performing project review. • o. Consistency. audit -. If the County adopts city development regulations and does not adopt all related city codes that wouldconceivably.apply.ta development, the jurisdictions will need to review applicable rules. for.consistency and snake revisions as. necessary:. • • o. Staff. involvement - ;County staff will need to. participate in the'cities'• review of development projects to. ensure city.°approvals:are generally consistent with other. County. rules and regulations. that may. also . apply. and to ensure:the project is compatible with adjoining development under County. jurisdiction. o. Review: process modifications..- `The•development review processes would need to. provide for the immediate transfer. of projects within the UGA to, the appropriate. city_ for. review and processing... • information the County provides to, potential project applicants. will need to. include.the project review. processes for. the appropriate cities. 25.