2005, 03-08 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,March 8,2005
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 62nd meeting.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Staff:
Diana Wilhite,Mayor Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Dick Denenny, Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Jackson,Parks &Recreation Director
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Steve Taylor,Councilmember John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Craig Hall, of Opportunity Presbyterian Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers present.
APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by
Councilmember Flanigan to approve the amended agenda. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Wilhite acknowledged the 2004 Miss Spokane Valley Ambassadors. Nancy Steele, speaking for
the Ambassador program, thanked Council for the support and gave a brief history of the program and its
goals and mission, and introduced Ambassador Andrea Flint and Megan Steele, and explained that
Ambassador Kristyne Westermann was unable to attend. Ms. Flint also thanked Council for their support
and for the opportunity to attend tonight's meeting, and invited them to the Miss Spokane Valley
Coronation, March 19, at West Valley High School Auditorium, and added that ticket information and
further details can be obtained from the Valley Chamber of Commerce.
COMMITTEE,BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Denenny: announced that he attended last week's STA finance meeting, followed by an
Executive Meeting concerning planning and procedures,prior to attending the General Board Meeting.
Deputy Mayor Munson: reported that he attended the STA Operations Committee Meeting, and the Light
Rail Steering Committee meeting, and explained that there will be an effort to provide the public with
information concerning the light rail followed by the public's input on various light rail options, including
a willingness to pay for the system, form of light rail, etc.
Councilmember Taylor: stated that he attended a public hearing held by the Spokane County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Committee concerning annual CDBG appropriations; and mentioned
there was an increase in funding of an additional$200 to $300,000.
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
Councilmember Schimmels: stated that he met with the Senior Citizens and Parks and Recreation
Director Jackson addressing some concerns as they move through the process of moving them to
Mirabeau.
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Mayor Wilhite reported that she was invited to give a talk to the children in connection with the Dr. Seuss
program, about the importance of reading; that she attended a Board of County Commissioner's meeting
with the Board and Council where wastewater was the topic.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite explained that public comments are for members of the Public
to speak to the Council regarding matters not on the agenda; and she explained that there is a process for
taking public input concerning the comprehensive plan, including several public hearings before the
planning commission and council.
Robert Leyerle, 10122 E. 13th Ave: spoke of a junk vehicle code violation and of his complaint he issued
several months ago, said that he was told this is not a high priority now because we only have one code
enforcement officer; he said the area is immediately next door to him and that his neighbor has over 20
vehicles; he stated that he would at least like to have someone come take a look.
Shirley Rademacher, 19303 E Riverwalk Lane, Spokane Valley 99016: said that her issue is excessive use
of trucks on North Barker Road; she requests that commercial trucks be banned from that road (except for
local truck traffic) and added that residents should not be subjected to hazards of trucks hauling materials
which at times disengage from the truck; that she contacted the Washington State Patrol regarding this
issue and was informed it would be possible to have such a ban enforced if there were posted signs stating
restricted use.
Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin, Greenacres: thanked council and staff for completion of the recent re-
zone process; said that the North Greenacres neighborhood has tried to address various issues facing that
neighborhood, and they look forward to working with the planning department and the Planning
Commission to create good policy; that the neighborhood is involved in and committed to neighborhood
planning; they are working on neighborhood surveys, and are moving toward drafting a Neighborhood
Plan.
Zane Strasser 2426 N Long 99016; spoke about the comp plan and their neighborhood (Greenacres)
chapter; he spoke of what happens if standards are placed on all communities as a whole; mentioned he
realizes growth is necessary; and that he wants to have a voice as a neighborhood in order to establish a
vibrant community.
Michelle Irvin, 1027 N Long Road; said she lives in the Greenacres neighborhood and is involved in
those meetings; that there is a priority concerning livestock keeping in their neighborhood as neighbors
want to be able to keep livestock; their committee recommends that the plan recognize the rural character
and permit the keeping of livestock; she wants us to adopt a special district to allow agricultural activity
as defined in the Code; and allow ownership of livestock, even on parcels of less than one acre.
Alice Betty, 17324 E Montgomery: stated she is with the Spokane Valley Greenacres community group;
that she works with the school concerning safe walkways; that they were notified there will be a new
school at Mission and Long. She stated that the majority of the kids in the community will be walking
and there are heavy trucks in the area which represent a safety concern.
1. 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.
(Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.)
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
a. Approval of Special Council Meeting Minutes of 8:00 a.m., February 22,2005
b. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of 6:00 p.m., February 22,2005
c. Approval of Council/Commissioners Joint Meeting Notes of February 24, 2005
d. Approval of Council Study Session Minutes of March 1, 2005
e. Approval of Payroll of February 28, 2005 of$ 137,794.59
f. Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER TOTAL
DATE Number(s) VOUCHER
AMOUNT
02-18-05 6335—6356 38,475.84
02-25-05 6357-6378 1,843,697.23
GRAND TOTAL 1,882,213.07
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed
upon to waive the reading and approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05-010,Assessment Reimbursement Area—Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve ordinance 05-010. Deputy City Attorney Driskell
explained that the changes since the first reading include adding two sentences in 3.75.030 to provide City
and Hearing Examiner some guidance to determine what other properties would be subject to the
reimbursement. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation
to approve the ordinance:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05-011 Placing On Ballot, Annexation to Spokane Co.
Library District—Nina Regor
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 05-011, declaring the intent to annex the
City of Spokane Valley into the Spokane County Library District. Deputy City Manager Regor explained
that we are in the first of a five-year contract with the Library District and that annexation requires
approval of the majority of voters; and if this ordinance is approved, staff will forward the issue to the
Library District for concurrence, and then to Spokane County for placement on the May ballot, which
would be a mail-out ballot. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Jenny Williardson, 12722 East 23`d : she thanked Council for considering putting this on the ballot; and
thanked staff Nina Regor and Morgan Koudelka for their recommendation; and also thanked
Councilmember Flanigan for his long-standing support of annexation to the district. Mayor Wilhite
invited further public comment; no further comments were offered.
Vote by acclamation to approve the ordinance: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
4. Second Reading Proposed Stormwater Ordinance 05-013—John Hohman
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve Ordinance 05-013. Engineer Hohman explained that
this is a broad look into the stormwater regulations, it sets standards, and includes some design elements
to address problems such as swales in commercial properties and residences. Mayor Wilhite invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation to approve the ordinance: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
5 First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05-012, Street Vacation Amendment—Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 05-012 to a second reading. Community
Development Director Sukup explained that the City has processed four street vacation requests and as a
result of questions which arose during those actions, several amendments are being brought forward for
Council consideration, some of which include elimination of city signatures on survey documents,
elimination of survey of properties outside the area of the actual vacation, and requiring transfer of title by
means of a quit claim deed to formalize the transfer. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
6. First Reading: Ordinance 05-014 Revisions to Nuisance Code (garage sales)—Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance ordinance 05-014 to a second reading. Deputy City
Attorney Driskell explained that Council discussed some on-going problems of some neighborhoods
where there appears to be perpetual or frequent yard sales; and that those activities are disruptive and
represent the performance of commercial activity in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Driskell stated that
the change from the original draft is in the definition of"yard sale" to include garage sale, rummage sale,
blanket sale, moving sale,block sale and estate sale. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Kathy Tabbert, 18505 E 4th: suggested changing the number of permitted sales to four in a calendar year,
or one every two months; and stated that there could be special cases and wondered how those would be
handled.
Alice Betty, E 17324 Montgomery: she suggested requiring those places to obtain a business license
rather than to regulate the amount of sales; for example: allow one per month and then require a business
license.
Tony Lazanis: stated he feels Council has other things to do than this; questioned if we even have
received any complaints.
Mary Pollard: said this type of business does not represent a lot of money for people; and while garage
sales can be high entertainment, she feels this ordinance is over-regulating.
Shirley Rademacher, 19303 E Riverwalk Lane: said this appears to target a particular person in a
neighborhood who is running a business in a residential area, and that giving a business license in a
residential area is not the answer; she suggests perhaps only allowing one sale per month.
Council discussion included the purpose of yard sales, penalties and fines associated with the proposed
ordinance, responding to complaints rather than overtly seeking offenders, and the maximum number of
times a sale would be permitted annually. It was determined that Deputy City Attorney Driskell will
research to see what other cities' annual limits are; and that Council will further discuss the maximum
times for a sale, at the next council meeting. Vote by acclamation on the motion to advance the ordinance
to a second reading:In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimmels,
Flanigan, DeVleming, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05-015 Renumbering Uniform Development Code — Marina
Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, Community Development Director Sukup explained
that this ordinance is a housekeeping issue and is simply renumbering ordinances previously adopted, and
re-organizing them in the City Code in a more orderly fashion. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment;
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
no comments were offered. After Council discussion regarding giving people an opportunity for further
review, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance
ordinance 05-015 to a second reading at a later date. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05-016 Amending Signage Standards—Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance ordinance 05-016 to a second reading. Community
Development Director Sukup gave her PowerPoint presentation, and mentioned that billboards are not
being addressed at this point as this is merely part one of the sign ordinance. After her presentation,
Council determined that it would like to further discuss the following points at a study session before
coming back again for a second reading: (1) Elimination of landscape as part of signage requirement; (2)
Comp sign plan deviations approval by Community Development Director(as stated), or Council; (3) Bus
benches and obstructions of sidewalks; (4) Political signs; (5) Nonconforming signs needing repair; and
(6) Directional signs on Appleway, and any other sign issues. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Jerry Quinn, Quinn group advertising representing Johnson Ford, auto row etc: said that he is trying to
deal with inconsistencies on what to do with signage; that the Board of County Commissioners formerly
made promises when Appleway was put in, but the plans changed mid-course and we do not have what
they promised; he discussed safety issues as some signs are difficult to see around—especially if snow is
piled up; and that we need to keep in mind that businesses need proper signs to stay in business and stay
in the Spokane Valley.
Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague: explained that he worked on signs for a long time; his property is a 600'
block, and on that empty lot are two billboards—one on the far end which is 20' above his roof, and that
sometimes pieces of that come down and puncture his roof, and he feels it should not be there; he said
that 300' is too close for large billboards; and that regarding Appleway, the agreement with Spokane
County is they would put up signs directing people and they'd charge for the signs and the county would
maintain the signs; that the signs are starting to deteriorate, some businesses no longer exist, and now that
the City has taken over responsibility, those issues need to be addressed; he added that monument signs
are dangerous signs; he said that we need to make things reasonable for all; and he commends the Sign
Committee and Planning Commission for their work.
John Johnston, W 1134 Providence: said he is employed by Sign Corp and has been in the electric sign
business in Spokane for 35 years, and he was on the Ad-Hoc Sign Committee; that prior to 2002 when the
new sign code was implemented by Commissioner Roskelley, there was no spacing requirement; the
Code said one free-standing sign is permitted not to exceed 200 sq ft; 35' high for each 200' of lineal
frontage on a street; but if someone had a 600' frontage (University City had 750')you could have a free
standing sign for each 200' of frontage with no spacing requirement between them; and an example of
that is where 24-Hour Fitness was in the Valley, and they just put up the new Valley Sports — that is all
one parcel but is over 300' long, and there is another sign right past that for the other people in that
process and that occurred because there was no spacing requirement; and the Planning Commission and
Sign Committee discussed this change of spacing requirement from 500 to 300; and that the spacing
requirement was instituted because he put a sign at University City that Commissioner Roskelley did not
like and he said that no one else will put a sign within 500' of that, and that Mr. Johnston was witness to
Mr. Roskelly stating that; and that is how the 500' spacing requirement became law.
Vote by Acclamation on the motion to advance ordinance 05-016 to a second reading at a later date. In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
9. Motion Consideration: Amendment to Senske Agreement, Centennial Trail Maintenance
Services
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Taylor that City Council
authorize the City Manger or his designee to prepare and execute an addendum to the existing contract
with Senske for the maintenance of Centennial Trail. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson explained
that Senske Lawn & Tree Care now performs the park maintenance for the City Parks, and since the
beginning of the year have been maintaining Centennial Trail; and that this addendum would formalize
the process. Mr. Jackson stated that Senske has proposed an amount of$21,000 annually, plus sales tax,
to perform all the duties listed in the attachment, and that staff recommends approval of the agreement.
Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Nancy Nishimura, 15103 E. Valleyway: said she noticed there is knapweed between Sullivan and the
Valley Mall and wanted to know how that would be taken care of. Mr. Jackson responded that the
contract includes the spraying of knapweed and that he hopes to improve on that area. Mayor Wilhite
invited further public comment; no further comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
10.Presentation of Request Mary Pollard [public comment]
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Kathy Tabbert, 18505 East 4th Avenue, 99016: said this is her first council meeting and she noticed that
the issues are the chaos of yard sales, and the beauty of Centennial Trail; but she's concerned that we are
not looking at the broader picture of development; she lives on 4th near Greenacres Elementary and she is
concerned with building 20 houses on three and one-half acres, and is concerned we will turn into a
California; that there is no park on their road on anywhere in Greenacres; and no consistency in zoning.
Mary Pollard, discussed work hours permitted for construction, and said that 10 p.m. is too late and she'd
like council to address that.
11. GIS System Agreement with Spokane County —Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that we have an existing GIS agreement with Spokane County to
provide those services,which include a .5 FTE contract employee; and that we have four stand-alone GIS
(Geographic Information System)licenses. She explained that we use the property-based data to help in a
variety of ways, including Community Development issues,public works issues, and in working with the
Library District, and the Fire Districts annexation. She explained that the County has moved to an
enterprise license, which means that there are modules that they can move in and out of monthly, so they
access a more complex level of data, and they have made the decision to move to this and they would like
to see if we are interested in doing this as well; and she added that the City of Spokane and other
jurisdictions are partnering with Spokane County in this regard. Ms. Regor stated that the use of the GIS
technician is part of the general GIS agreement, and we are pursuing that as part of the model agreement
discussions and will bring that to council at a later date. Ms. Regor also mentioned it would be good to
incorporate our use of GIS licenses as part of that model interlocal agreement, and added that the
enterprise license is a very useful tool, and stated that staff will come back for further discussion later
regarding the joint, interlocal agreement.
Council discussion ensued regarding the budget impact, and it was determined that this would be an
increase of approximately $3500 from what was budgeted for 2005,brining the total cost of the enterprise
license to $6500 for the first year; and that the GIS technician is an additional cost which falls within the
$50,000 appropriation referenced. Ms. Regor concluded that staff recommends moving ahead with the
two floating licenses as it gives greater flexibility regarding the level of uses. Councilmember DeVleming
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 03-22-05
suggested in moving this issue forward, that all pertinent information also be discussed at the same time.
It was council consensus to move forward.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed
upon to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m.
12.Review of Comprehensive Plan Elements (Capital Facilities)—Marina Sukup/Scott Kuhta
Long Range Planner Kuhta gave his PowerPoint presentation of the overview of the Capital Facilities
Plan, describing the capital facilities, who provides them, GMA requirements, level of service, parks
analysis, and next steps.
12a. Office Lease Modification—Ken Thompson
Finance Director Thompson explained that staff was asked to investigate the possibility of acquiring
additional office space in this building, including storage space and additional space in the parking lot for
storing city vehicles. Mr. Thompson said that there is an opportunity to acquire 1,015 feet of space in the
space across hall previously housed by Liberty Mutual; and an opportunity for an additional 2200 square
feet of storage space in the building next door; and that we can acquire the additional space in the parking
lot for vehicles. To act on those options, Mr. Thompson reported that the building owner wants us to
extend our current lease for three more years, and that he is willing to reduce the price paying for space
now, and that we would realize a savings over the next two years of approximately $2800. Mr.
Thompson said staff tried to discuss a lease extension of less than three years, but to no avail. In addition,
Mr. Thompson said staff has been discussing with another building tenant about acquiring some of that
tenant's space they are not using, but there has been nothing refined on that issue. Council discussion
ensued regarding use of the second floor conference room and of the commitment to Wednesday morning
staff meetings; and of use of the present Parks and Recreation space. Mr. Thompson said he would like to
give the building owner a letter that we are prepared to take the previously mentioned space, and he
mentioned that office equipment and furniture will also need to be purchased. it was Council consensus
to move forward with this proposal, and that the matter will be brought back on the agenda for approval
of the agreement.
There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded and unanimously
agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Vv I^A
Alo i. Diana Wilhite,Mayor
iiristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Y
Council Meeting: 03-08-05 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council:03-22-05
SiolZ"oels%,,
Valley
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MELTING
DAM: March 8, 2005
CITIGEN COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT INCLUDE!) ON THJS AGLADA. Please include your
name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3) minutes.
NAME TOPIC Ol CONCLRN ADDRI?SS TIT EPHONE
PLEASE :PRINT
/o/ 22 g )57i,/ / tz Say-ds/-1/Z4
G •
C-4� ??'/i .-9 i c�/f,. %./�-u``c ��// j 9..- 0.34"� i rer- r/3'— Y7'
7;a/ . �J 7��lyrg ./;.a %r 4
i� - _ i a d / i / mod. . --. .s: es�-. 7e
cf3
Wiwi/ /a � � i :, ;// /, /7a.7(, E aa2 ; 11,6 ml
r
. / fewieJ -Utze4
/. / /
Spare
INFORMATION FORM,
City of Spokane Valley-Code Enforcement- 11707 East Sprague Ave Suite#106-Spokane Valley,WA 99206
(509)921-1000 Fax(509)921-1008
Complaint Information
Please complete all applicable information and return to the above address. You will be contacted if additional
information is required. Response time will vary according to the workload. Provide as many relevant details
as possible including the specific address.
Address of suspected code violation: (one address complaint form):lo I/y — y>z°�
Property owner(if known): 1h/rRY f'•Su e Lo'
Name of resident(if known): GRy
4.50,z p 4.1 — acre/0 AiVNiV 6. y J Je3 v
�T/1/..‘!71
Ery'` 1
.,
i,s
Summary of complaint: ,4r 7,rlds /v y4:5 /s : t L4. .'J /.laN r
eQ � ',Pc-A( yn�, ,C 0,44- ..0,74/07/940 )0.0K• h .,
p'R' 6Lr
,QreAd if 1Ts lives Aho.uc 7,vP f'4
How long has the suspected violation existed'1 /�v ����3 j� 1,�! yam,•ry .�r_��s.
.c) yam.
Citizen Information
Your name: ,o b zT 2. .24'yt Q •t Email address: ' :6'Yf"'/-47(0 p`t.•cv"y
Your address: /O/z z A. /3 ris/.0aP, i) • F9'2 0 C.
Home phone flu=libel-S*49/-1/2c. Work phone number:, '2y_ y -$ 6 y
/1y dam-/L y v c�,0 . ' ' 4,34LW T t%Ki.) T,/1 7)i 2A74).
Disclosure of information revealing your identity will depend on application of the public disclosure law,
chapter 42.17 RCW,other applicable statutes and whether the complaint is criminally prosecuted. When giving
• your name you may request that the Department not release your identity in connection with the investigation. (you
should be aware,however,that if enfnrcement action results in court proceedings,it may not be possible to keep your
name confidential.)
Signature: Date: /'— 4 f/
OFFICIAL USE
Date received: Received By:
Building Planning Public Works
Complaint Number
Additional:
: ,.....,•,,, \ N, 1 ., 74111.fif 3r :- , .
,‘,..........,,,,,ilit :. N
•
I ,•..- A Q ' i i '1' a ..,, ••
• •k . • -., , \
i , I.,114-• ''7 ' •' re, ..t)
-.... . , 1 ‘,.0....f.e ..pe
..
. "•
i
,
. ..,1, \4ST '144',4F
l e; . .4:5.4
..vii.a. - I, . . .,-Ave.,,,,,
. _ --• ..., ; r t,
41!.,4"0. aing..4,414 .
,‘' \' '. ..iittii-0.--;
. ri 1-
It
4 1114 ':1 '• - ' • tr .- i 14 .'..:••. 441.'''''''- .4
. • .-•- r ie.-. ,.•, ., , .qv ir•• ,fr , ,
r -
.. ., .... i i. ---, 4,§17-1;.g'.., ...:
■
,..., ,,,.... • ,„; .:4..„,,,,,.., :„.7 it.,,,,. , , 4, •-',.- -- - -. .. .
-....
.. -...: - 4, - . '''.
- -•' - . ,;.11.-G . •`■-)41ilic17''''''' ...f. '. It •:- ' - ..... -.. .
.. , • -.
L4 -.. 4:17v. • ',,,,' ., ' ,,,„: . •-•'--.:.. ' - . . .
. .; ....-.., . '.'. ,•,.•
.l :.
_ -- -.t4iv-..,..- 1 - ... .-- .. -•-,,r ..- ..... .-i-- . .,..,•,-• .. ,-,--., .,1., .‘ ,•:p.. . - •
. •
,
' --"'„,t--.F 6' al t' r-- w.5;!.- .-, -'4---• .. '-..>. .. •N ."..."21\-."'' :` '.3.‘40-. , .- -,.. . . ..4-4, . •
•
t
... A,...., ..
:":-..--,_-• ". . :- A . :. - "11: A, - .. ;.1-•:: .ii ; •-.,, .•.„ , A., $4,a. ,',,i.444 .•• ali
. •-...... .-•-, 1, .4*. I% .• ..•-. .•';,Jr ......t
__.„,_:...-....„%,..,,___, ,,,. ....„,,... .4,,,:ehiloli,.. :,;\ .. .,;. . , .,.,,r. , , _.:, ••,.: i, • 6 .- ••• I' .1 .
'''df•jirf '.....- .,_:. —",.....;a,. •-•2 _, .6, ' " : ..2i •I' '
...,• tliftS ;A-
"' . 4,.- .... . t
--- „,.., -4,- fi"..,-1..VII,tr.,,‘.if.1, ■•, _, L 1; , ., . - ...ii•4 .•,,gh - . s:.:_ler. . ,
• • •'- ..'.1-..4'it-V1•74'11‘'Ptar..•••.',•!-:'-•''..:• •-' io• . • IP' '' 4. .V , t ' r•
, .".
... 7±'
-
-A':PL,X.A.:,..'‘,.r.t."'W...••;.':'‘ '. '• ...c,,..' • . '' .- .•
.-.- '• •-; _.-E7'...;- ''''-' .1 .'r ' '.•-•LP -.-• st• .' _ • ac.-
... . , , , ,„, e—,,, , —.-
- -- - l'''',Ir -`*-- ',/#14.7," -:. "*.
•
._.._
'-', 7.12e., Ai * IV* • --- • ' II 1 __
'
ll i
, 1
I ;_...D...;_:- .... •.
• i _ ...
.....
_. I _______ .,„...
• ..• 4.,4,fr.,.,
., :
.i. . I
1,,,, . ,* .1. 'lox ...A62...r ej _..-..." • ._, i',.. - • T.*"• : ;P 4 ..
....1 tlifibli. L.,-.1 .20a1"01000. 1 . :it: ,.. 4,,,,,,,,„, .•
. .
• _ ,,.
_............. "I. ". _ . p......... , ,
..,••
. .
;- -- ---- ;
1
.
- 7-•' ' "
'-741""laarbiliakair" •■•■ ..-
_ -
-•- r,... ........_
--..._...._ _
--- .
'''..............M......................_ s - '
_ ..,
—-
....
•
*' .'*-
■
4.V:‘1'''.,',. ;- ..
. •
,..
. . - .,...• . -,I/•ti-....At. ..: a ',. •
.
-
a ....- I.,.'•,:,%p..:;:tr, •
• ,,
.
. . ., ...*•• .•..'7. .. . ',. • . . ... ..- '.*::::1 , *I ' ;!.' •.'.,"' :■,;,-7..V. .it I 1?1 :'Ar..k. (.- .' '
. , •tr.firp,, a j% tilt,S44 4 1.. ,'.! „ .•..., .
.........• 1 1 ..1 bti.n
1 1 r .,,,41,-,,...;4.,;5?., . . .t. r. •
-- „.•., .. ,,/ty , ,..
y..1 ,,, .(_--
....
...
. . . . .
•
.. . • , ..
-. /
..,
--,,.
e3// 44 /7-- „ ....?74.' 47-, .,., -i'l-•ts:,') •(.,:.16.-:
„ . ' ,.. ,, , ', „;.: -,,, .,' , ' -'7. ,..': :. • ';,:;',- .;,1;.-.St;i.,:',.. r . . ' , . '
• .: '' '. ,, • r • , . .' r, ... ,-.•' • , .,i ; ' ,• ,1 4 .:• z --, I.;• ': : :i,4 ,."''',i, t: . T ,,T, ,,''i.'''
• -• '4,Y:r.'„:0„...i. ■ .," ' ' :I.:1z.;'•.'t'''..: ••■•••,-,„1,..,it'• -4.1'...g.ldt.'".*•,_E01.t..:" •;.',,, * •I; . .• • -
1
1
__4- - .,. - , . . ', .....',, e..„.:,g, -..-------. .-f.1---,,,,:
te,
Y ; . M . ..
-
• -
•
1~ .'" f "I- 1, I� - .� • ' f .l'_ _ ~x M4F,+* r d y
mg
... 4r,, ; , .e.' •I'‘,;'' '1.1 i.'"-,. ;.
M.
}
I
lIllPIPIIIII ..';',. . 4..Allilitea 1 --
, 3--y.!...,,,Viii,l,
- ' h
* _
N.
4" '� r
......
—1 5 1 .� •
• .
� � `1P '1111I4 .4 s
,
AR
�, 1 k `
A6445. r. :9, 4, S ° h!
_ i . 1
,CiFti xi/ ',A/9)-- d-)i
ic' (7-..),ole i...-1., ,,i,i.e.,z.e5
r
L L.
w
1 a r «r
1
iv' p = � 4
i t
gd‘-x ydtrP
i9 i
1
1
3 - 7-v5
i •
.......„...., _ Ira;P
II
- vi
'is- As illiapp._ •' -• ..' .-
iiiii. 44` k -Aope _ •
. ,
i -
T u `_
- - 1
t----____ _ ‘\..
lei
srlitii
.,-- 7
rA,
D,,,,,__ K //amp
2-8-ems
SPOKANE VALLEY SUB-AREAINEIGFLBORHOOD CHAPTER
10.0 Introduction The Neighborhood Chapter seeks to carry out Spokane Valley's vision
for the future and of planning a more detailed vision for the future of each neighborhood.
City comprehensive plans in the past were documents that seldom were read by the
citizenry. A Neighborhood chapter gives recognition to the planning elements of
individual neighborhoods while assisting the general public in understanding and an
organized approach to implementing neighborhood plans. While all elements of a
neighborhood plan may not be applicable to each neighborhood, it provides a framework
for individual crafting of specific neighborhood goals. Citizens unfamiliar with the
general principles of planning and the comprehensive plan can find in this chapter the
guidance that enables their elements to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The Neighborhood Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
There are distinctions in approach, perspective and scope between a comprehensive plan
and a neighborhood plan. A neighborhood plan deals with an area that has detailed and
specific needs within the overarching policies of a comprehensive plan. Since a
neighborhood plan focuses on a much smaller geographic area, more groups including
property and business owners, civic organizations, schools and residents can be directly
involved in the planning process.
The Comprehensive Plan represents the interests of all the citizens of Spokane Valley.
The city is fortunate to have an active citizenry which cares about the community enough
to be involved in all aspects of the planning process. As our first comprehensive plan, the
city recognizes the importance of preserving the character and vitality of our
neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Planning is an exciting collaborative effort that gives a better vantage
point for planning neighborhoods by providing:
• A comprehensive look is given to each neighborhood to identify neighborhood
issues and concerns.
• Better neighborhoods result from addressing their problems and capitalizing on
neighborhood opportunities.
• Neighborhood specific policies gives an opportunity for all the elements that
bring color and life to actually become part of their landscape; that is, a
combination of character, setting, uses and environment that makes the
neighborhood unique.
• Neighborhood planning efforts can bring together those who live or work in the
neighborhood to address neighborhood concerns and help achieve neighborhood
goals.
• Neighborhood planning brings together community residents and the City,
helping to forge a City wide identity.
• Policies developed on a neighborhood level may be applicable to the entire City,
improving planning and implementation Citywide.
• Information that helps guide decision making in choosing a neighborhood for
living or investment purposes.
• A conduit for gathering information to assist municipalities to evaluate present
strategies and in tailoring programs to eliminate waste or duplication.
Spokane Valley is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life by solving neighborhood
problems and capitalizing on the desirable attributes of neighborhoods. Neighborhood
traffic management and land use policies help provide for efficient development while
minimizing land use conflicts and adverse impacts on neighboring uses. For example,
policies that encourage streets and sidewalks, where appropriate, be designed to reflect
the area's suburban community character. Use of multi-purpose trails along arterials and
in open space corridors in place of sidewalks will accommodate equestrian and other
recreational uses.
•
Purpose of this chapter is to establish goals that shall:
• Recognize the unique interests of specific neighborhoods and provide an easy to
• understand process for recognition of a neighborhood, setting boundaries and
writing neighborhood plans.
• Ensure regular and ongoing two-way communication between citizens and City
elected and appointed officials.
• Provide resource commitment for citizen involvement in neighborhood planning.
• Create a bridge between the varying interests in a community and their
neighborhood.
THE PLANNING CONTEXT summarizes how this chapter responds to the
requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies.
GMA provides for optional elements such as Neighborhood Planning(RCW
36.70A.080). The neighborhood chapter addresses a range of priorities for
neighborhoods. GMA Goal 11 Citizen Participation and Coordination is to insure an
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
• Provide safe and adequate play areas for children in all apartments that rent to
families, by establishing standards.
This is an important feature since the comprehensive plan encourages walking
communities. Many young families do not have the resources to drive their
children to private recreation programs nor the ability to purchase their home with
space for their children to play. Many newly built apartment complexes have
only a strip sidewalk in front of each entrance and the road that serves access to
these apartments become a dangerous play area for toddlers on small bikes and
toys. Many young families must work multiple jobs to remain solvent and have
little energy left to take their children to a park on a regular basis. The swales are
often the only green or open space in these densely planned multi-family
complexes.
Trailheads to the Centennial Trail should be buffered with streets and paths that
create a park like setting by preservation of existing trees and planting of trees and
landscape material alongside the roads.
Tree planting and preservation of existing trees shall be priority to enhance air
quality to assist in offsetting the increased air pollution created with increased
urbanization and recognizing the Valley's unique problem with air-inversion.
• All new local and neighborhood collector streets shall be built at the minimum
allowable width in order to preserve the areas character, protect sensitive areas and
reduce stormwater runoff. Public Works shall consider reductions from standards in
order to reduce adverse impacts to neighborhoods provided that hazards do not result
from reduction in standards.
• City-wide curb and sidewalk standards shall be considered for modification in order
to preserve neighborhood character and existing uses and to retain trees located
along streets or highways with accommodating allowed development and buffering
residential areas.
• Encourage building and site designs that reduce opportunities for crimes to occur
and demand upon police services.
• Minimize public cost of infrastructure to support new development.
• New development shall fund with impact fees capital facility improvements
necessary to serve growth.
•
Continuous and on-going citizen involvement requires a commitment to a process that
creates an ongoing dialogue that doesn't end with the adoption of the comprehensive
plan. It must recognize that each member of our city brings a vitality and perspective that
is integral to a vibrant economy and a welcoming neighborhood. Most of the chapters
address our surrounding and the environment. Yet, the joy and"happiness quotient"
cannot be manufactured by policy. It is the result of the hard work of overcoming our
differences, a willingness to disagree and yet continue to work toward a common goal of
bringing together all of our cumulative dreams that will give this document life.
Neighborhood Policies are divided into the following areas:
A. Neighborhood Goals and policies to guide the preparation and updating of
neighborhood plans.
. B. Carrying out Neighborhood Plans includes policies on implementing the
neighborhood plans.
C. Neighborhood Policies for each neighborhood include the results of the
neighborhood planning process. After the neighborhood plan is prepared it is
incorporated into this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhoods are
listed alphabetically at the end of this chapter.
Goals
• Create a neighborhood laison to bring forward and inform planning commission and
city council of identified neighborhood concerns.
• . A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission
and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any
time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
•
• Ordinances for implementation of Neighborhood plans be prepared and
presented for adoption along with the Neighborhood Plan that are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain existing aquifer recharge by design standards that create more open space
and less impervious surface.
• The City should encourage residents and businesses to create backyard sanctuaries
for wildlife habitat.
• Equestrian and Multi-use trails within neighborhoods and that connect with other
trails that include a soft surface trail for equestrians, walkers, runners and joggers.
• Neighborhood roads shall be designed to fit with existing neighborhood character,
reduce the amount of easement lost by reducing width of roads for traffic calming
yet allowing safe passage through neighborhoods.
• Proposed road improvements should be considered as a conceptual diagram allowing
for flexibility in street alignments. Property owners and developer's
recommendations shall be considered by the Public Works.
• Goal: Decrease impervious surface throughout city of Spokane Valley suing
strategies of combinations of trails and sidewalks only on one side in certain areas.
Roads that run along side the river should be concrete rather than asphalt to
reduce seepage of hydrocarbons coming off the topcoat of the asphalt. (There is a
special coating that is applied to asphalt to reduce pollution from hydrocarbon but
they are released as the asphalt cracks.
• Existing Property Owners and their grandfather rights shall be protected with
mitigation policies from financial costs associated with protecting their properties
from liability when incompatible uses are built by their adjoining property lines.
• Recognizing that much of the Spokane Valley has grandfathered animal and
agricultural pursuits there shall be transitional policies to safeguard their investment
in their lifestyle. A livestock/agricultural policy shall be made that guarantees
ongoing rights without the need to be grandfathered in low-density residential areas.
• Clustering Policies
Clustering shall be encouraged in rural and large lot residential areas. Clustering
shall be required when needed to protect environmentally sensitive areas and forested
areas; to minimize adverse impacts of site development; to retain significant areas of
permeable surface, and to reduce public facility and housing costs.
Structures shall be clustered so that they maintain significant amounts of contiguous
open space.
• A Multi-purpose trail system should be developed which links residential
areas with open spaces, parks, schools, stables and other recreational
areas.
• Zoning classifications shall be structured as to create a predictable and stable
neighborhood environment.
• Developments should be consistent with adjacent land use patterns or be able to
buffer, screen and blend dissimilar land uses.
• Initiate and encourage community involvement to foster a positive civic and
neighborhood image by establishing programs to physically enhance neighborhoods.
•
• The design and construction of parks, open spaces and street furniture should have a
sense of permanence
• The City should work with private land owners and easement holders who have
trails, or where trails can be developed to provide a connected multi-use trail or
pathway.
• Urban sprawl within the UGA shall be discouraged. Infill should happen where
infrastructure is already in place. An equitable expectation of services should apply
to all citizens.
• Citizens on the six year plans shall take priority over the demands of development.
Marina Sukup
From: Suzanne Markham [psmarkham @fastmail.fmi
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:56 PM
To: Marina Sukup
Subject: SIGN CODE Letter to Spokane Valley City Council
Honorable Members of Spokane Valley City Council
11707 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA
March 8, 2005
Honorable Members of Spokane Valley City Council,
On behalf of Citizens for a Scenic Spokane I am writing to urge you to look closely at
several points in the first reading of the proposed amendments to the sign code coming
before you today:
• Roof signs have been removed from the list of prohibited signs. Roof signs are never the
best form for business identification. Wall signs or monument/pole signs have always been
a more attractive way to promote bushiness locations.
• Wall signs sizes for commercial areas have been increased from a maximum of 250 sq. ft.
to 25% of the wall area. This leaves a huge discrepancy in signage sizes as you move from
one building to the next creating the same disproportionate look as the signage on Sprague
Ave.
• Incentives for encouraging monument signs have been removed. Incentives should be kept
in place to encourage more use of these very aesthetic sign types.
• Provisions for more restrictive signs along aesthetic corridors have been deleted. This
move is contrary to what is trying to be achieved for these corridors. Also increasing
areas that are aesthetic corridors instead of reducing the areas help in keeping these
roads attractive.
• The requirement for low intensity lighting of commercial signs has been removed. There
needs to be a standard from which to measure lighting intensity of all types of signs,
including and especially L.C.D. lighted video or moving reader board type signs.
• Freeway oriented commercial signs are increased in height from 40 to 50 feet high.
Orienting signage towards freeways is not a best use goal for a sign code. Business' s
should be encouraged to orient their signs to their access streets. This is a common
standard in communities that have really good signage understanding. A trashy sign filled
freeway perimeter only serves to give the entire area a messy look. The freeway is the
first visual to travelers and tourists. It is your "first impression". Should the City of
Spokane Valley' s first impression be a Sprague-like visual clutter of too many signs (over
time) as the freeway land is developed? Now is the time to implement rules that will
monitor and guide the best visual for the developing city.
• Lastly the current signage spacing of 500 feet was designed with Sprague in mind as the
poster child for what goes wrong when spacing isn' t thought out. 300 feet is too close. It
would be better to create setbacks of 10 feet from the road edge, and reasonable on-
premises guidelines. Best regards,
Suzanne D. Markham
President, Citizens for a Scenic Spokane
Suzanne Markham
psmarkham @fastmail. fm
1
•
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
• Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 8, 2005 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent 0 old business X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Renegotiation of existing city hall lease and additional space needs.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The city has an existing lease for office space that runs
through February 28, 2007.
BACKGROUND: The city needs additional office space at our existing site. The city also
needs storage space for records and additional parking for city vehicles. Our existing lease
calls for an annual rate/sq ft of $16 beginning March 1, 2005. The existing lease also increases
our annual rate to $17.50 on March 1, 2006.
At city council direction, staff has negotiated with our building manager for additional space. We
understand the building owner has agreed to our latest proposal which will provide an additional
1,015 square feet of office space, approximately 2,200 of additional storage space and
additional parking for city vehicles. The proposed lease rate would be less than the rate
contained within the existing lease and would result in a savings of 82,836 over the next two
years. The building owner wants a three year extension on our lease in return for the additional
space and the reduced rate per square foot.
Staff is negotiating with another tenant for additional office space.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a lease based on the
attached terms and conditions.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A savings of $2,836 over the next two years is expected
even though our usable space will increase.
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Attachments:
City hall lease information
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY HALL LEASE ONLY
MARCH 8, 2005
YR BEG 3-1-05 PROPOSED LEASE CURRENT LEASE
RATE SQ FT AMOUNT SQ FT RATE AMOUNT
$ 14.75 $ 16,955 $ 250,086 15940 $ 16.00 $ 255,040
BASEMENT STORAGE $ - $ 3,000
PARKING $ 2,500 $ 1,200
STORAGE $ 6.00 2,300 $ 13,800
$ 266,386 $ 259,240
YR BEG 3-1-06
$ 15.15 16,955 $ 256,868 15940 $ 17.50 $ 278,950
BASEMENT STORAGE - $ 3,000
PARKING $ 2,500 $ 1,200
STORAGE $ 6.00 2,300 $ 13,800
$ 273,168 $ 283,150
YR BEG 3-1-07 EXISTING LEASE ENDS
$ 15.65 $ 16,955 $ 265,346
PARKING $ 2,500
STORAGE $ 6.00 2,300 $ 17,250
$ 285,096
YR BEG 3-1-08
$ 16.15 16,955 $ 273,823
PARKING $ 2,500
STORAGE S 6.00 2,300 $ 17,250
$ 293,573
YR BEG 3-1-09
$ 16,75 16,955 $ 283,996
PARKING $ 2,500
STORAGE $ 6.00 2,300 $ 17,250
$ 303,746
LEASE ENDS 2-28-10
CITY BENEFITS:
1,015 ADDITIONAL SQ FT OF OFFICE SPACE
2,175 ADDITIONAL SQ FT OF STORAGE
ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA
CONF. RM RESERVED 8:30-11:00 EACH WED
CONF. RM RESERVED 3 OTHER DAYS EACH YR
TWO YR SAVINGS OF$2,836 FROM EXISTING LEASE
CITY:
GIVES 3 YR EXTENSION ON LEASE �,
7-1
t �
OTHER LEASE RATES IN THE AREA:
NEW BUILDINGS AT I-90/SULL asking $18 sq ft
NEAR HOSPITAL asking $21 sq ft
ARGONNE-MULLAN asking $13 to $15 sq ft
OTHER LOCAL SITES asking $6 to $12 sq ft
OTHER ISSUES IF CITY MOVES:
COST OF PREPARING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COST FOR FIBER TO BUILDING
COST TO MOVE
COMPUTER NETWORK CABLING
ADDITIONAL FURNITURE NEEDED
IS PARKING ADEQUATE AT NEW SITE?
RECORDS STORAGE AT NEW SITE?
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AT NEW SITE?
.% NOTE: CITY IS NEGOTIATING WITH ANOTHER TENANT FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
HIGHLIGHTS OF CITY HALL LEASE REVISIONS
MARCH 8, 2005
+BENEFITS TO CITY
A. 1;015 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE
13. 2,175 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE
C. AI)DJTIONAL PARKING
D. 2 YEAR SAVINGS OF $2,836
+IN RETUJRN, CITY AGREES TO 3 YEAR EXTENSION OF LEASE
+CITY IS NEGOTIATING WITH ANOTHER TENANT FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE