Loading...
2004, 12-14 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 57 meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Absent: Mike DeVleming, Councilmember (excused) INVOCATION: Deputy Mayor Munson gave the invocation. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Cal Walker, Police Chief Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Bing (Greg) Bingaman, IT Specialist Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All members of Council were present except Councilmember DeVleming Mayor Wilhite stated that Councilmember DeVleming asked to be excused due to illness. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to excuse Councilmember DeVleming from tonight's meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve the agenda as presented. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Denenny: mentioned he attended the recent Economic Summit hosted by the County Commissioners last Wednesday, and that the meeting was well attended and materials well presented. Councilmember Flanigan: explained that he attended the Hotel /Motel dinner last week; attended several open houses and ribbon cuttings; and at the hotel /motel committee meeting last night, discussion was held concerning the contract and letter to be sent to the grant recipients and that those documents will contain verbiage to address the need that each entity demonstrate how the funds will benefit Spokane Valley. Deputy Mayor Munson: reported that he attended the Light Rail Steering Committee meeting where it was agreed that the new contract to continue the light rail planning process will be forwarded to the STA Board of Directors. Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 11 -24 -2004 5884 -5919 2,609,240.42 12 -03 -04 5932 -5953 29,345.50 GRAND TOTAL 2,638,585.92 Councilmember Taylor: stated that he attended the NLC in Indianapolis, and that it is always good to see how other municipalities handle similar challenges and successes; he also attended the Spokane Convention and Visitor's Bureau Board meeting, that the budget was approved, and the Board voiced its concern about the decline in non -TPA revenues from the various jurisdictions, and stated that if this continues, they will be hearing significant complaints from hoteliers regarding the levy of the TPA tax; and that the concern could lead to non - renewal of the additional bed tax when it comes back in a few years. Councilmember Schimmels: explained that he attended the Solid Waste Liaison Board Meeting a few weeks ago, and they have also adopted their 2005 budget; he also attended the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee meeting, that they had a call for projects and the City of Spokane Valley submitted several projects, and of the six projects submitted vying for a share of the $5.4 million, our share would be $570,000 over a three -year time period. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she also attended the hotel /motel dinner, and was in attendance at the recent Spokane County Economic Development Summit. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments were offered. 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. a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of November 30, 2004 b. Approval of Study Session Minutes of December 7, 2004 c. Approval of Resolution 04 -026 Amending Resolution 04 -018, Student Advisory Council d. Approval of Student Advisory Council Bylaws e. Approval of Resolution 04 -027, Creating an Engineer Classification and Job Description f. Approval of Payroll of November 30, 2004 of $145,234.78 g. Approval of the Following Vouchers: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to waive the reading, and approve the consent agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinances to Amend Comprehensive Plan— Scott Kuhta Prior to the presentation, Mayor Wilhite asked if any Councilmember has a conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest regarding any of the proposed comprehensive plan ordinance amendments. Councilmember Denenny stated he has a portion of an aircraft hanger within the area of Felts Field, but is uncertain if that presents any conflict of interest. Mayor Wilhite also noted that as a business owner, she has on occasion done business with a number of people who may come before this Council, and asked if that interest/interaction represents a conflict of interest. After Mr. Driskell's explanation of the Washington State Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (RCW 42.23, adopted 1961), it was determined that Mayor Wilhite and Councilmember Denenny did not have conflicts of interest. Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 Via his PowerPoint presentation, Long Range Planner Kuhta explained the procedure of passing comprehensive plan amendments, discussed the proposed amendments, and the other proposals not contained in tonight's ordinances. a. Ordinance 04 -049, File No. CPA 01 -04, south side of Dishman -Mica Road After City Clerk Bainbridge read ordinance title 04 -049, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to advance Ordinance 04 -049 to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Driskell reminded Council that there was a public hearing on this matter before the Planning Commission, and while Council has the prerogative of taking public comment, if additional public testimony is desired, Council must refer this matter back to the Planning Commission as any decision Council would reach on this matter must be based on the already developed record established by the Planning Commission; and Council should refrain from taking new or different public testimony /comments from that which was taken and heard during the Planning Commission public hearing. Brief discussion was held concerning Council taking public comment on these issues after a public hearing has already been held at the Planning Commission level. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. b - e. Ordinance 04 -050, File No. CPA 02 -04, north side of Broadway Avenue; Ordinance 04 -051, File No. CPA 03 -04, south side of Springfield Avenue; Ordinance 04 -052, File No. CPA 05 -04, north side of Valleyway Avenue; Ordinance 04 -053, File No. CPA 08 -04, north of Rutter Road. It was Council consensus to read and consider the four ordinances as one unit. Prior to reading the ordinance titles, it was determined that Council will not take public comment when all these ordinances come before Council for second readings, as there would be no effective time for staff to scrutinize the record and advise Council as to testimony content and consistency with what was heard and taken at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. City Clerk Bainbridge then read each ordinance title. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to advance ordinances 04- 050, 051, 052, and 053 to a second reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, Spokane Valley, came to the lectern to speak. Before speaking, it was asked by Deputy City Attorney Driskell if Mr. Lazanis testified at any of the earlier public hearings or participated in this matter, and if he has particular comments, to identify which ordinance he wishes to address. Mr. Driskell added that this question will also be posed to anyone offering public comments tonight on these issues. City Manager Mercier asked Mr. Lazanis if he offered testimony at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lazanis said he did not testify at the public hearing. Mr. Mercier then explained that Council may take the public comment from Mr. Lazanis, keeping in mind that Mr. Lazanis' comments cannot be given any weight in the Council's decision making on these issues. Mr. Lazanis then stated that we adopted the County's Comp Plan, and that the people are likely not familiar with the changes being made and that the public needs more information. Mayor Wilhite explained the process of the public hearing and of the notification process so those impacted would be aware of the hearing. Mayor Wilhite asked if anyone who attended the public hearing would like to make public comment now on these proposed ordinances. As there was no further council discussion, vote by acclamation was taken: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 - 054, REZ 17 - 04; Area Wide Rezone — Scott Kuhta Long Range Planner Kuhta gave his overview of the area -wide rezone proposed for the Greenacres neighborhood, of the process to date, of the history of the area, and that the Planning Commission recommends approval. Councilmember Denenny stated his need to have information concerning what can be required of a developer in any given area. Attorney Driskell explained that there is well developed case law which proceeded to the Supreme Court, where a developer was required to pay for some street improvements which were not directly connected to the development, and the Supreme Court stated there Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 must be a nexus between what is required by the City for improvement, and it must be proportional to the impact from the development on the public infrastructure. Mr. Driskell explained this must be done via a traffic study or some type of engineering analysis which shows that a certain development will result in the harm you ask them to cure; but that it does not have to be exact but must be roughly proportional. Councilmember Taylor asked about impact fees, and if there were impact fees implemented, would the individual developers not have to go through with individual studies done because the study for the area would already be conducted. Mr. Mercier responded that in Washington state, there are two different approaches: one is development site specific analysis; or communities have adopted a transportation impact fee ordinance which would quantify the amount of money that would have to be contributed based upon the type of development activity occurring, e.g. commercial fast food versus single family residential. Mr. Kuhta added that if an impact fee ordinance were adopted, there is an amount of study that must be conducted to determine the per house or per dwelling impact, or what kind of improvements would be made for the area. Mr. Mercier also stated that any impact fee that a Council may wish to adopt would be preceded by a study analyzing the particular topic area. Deputy Mayor Munson asked if this ordinance were adopted, would there be any way the City could impede the development of these properties under UR -7. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that of the properties already vested through submittal of complete applications, the City could not legally impede the development; and that if there were a preliminary plat application moving forward and the applicant fails to act on that and it expires by passage of time, then it would revert to the underlying zoning, and the applicant would not get the benefit of the increased density. In further discussion concerning concurrency on this development, Mr. Kuhta explained that it would have to be determined how much traffic would be generated from that development, where the traffic would go, and what intersections the traffic would affect, and if the intersections would not meet the current level of service standards, then the development would be denied or there must be a way to improve the intersection so that it meets the level of service standard; and right now our currency regulations only look at impacts to intersections; and in this case it would not be the improvements of the entire roadway. Mr. Kuhta stated that with the exception of this area, the entire surrounding area is UR 3.5, that this lowers density, will provide fewer cars and will have less impacts, and it will be more consistent with the nature of the development which has occurred; that the difference between UR -7 and UR -3.5 is a difference between a 10,000 square foot minimum lot in UR -3.5, and 6,000 square foot in UR -7. Attorney Driskell stated that staff received a letter today from a representative of Centennial Properties highlighting what they feel are legal deficiencies in the process in moving this issue from the Planning Commission to City Council, and that he will review that more in depth over the next few days and can report more in detail at the next reading. Mr. Driskell added that this proposal is an area -wide rezone and is not site specific, and therefore comes under different regulations than the previous ordinances. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to advance ordinance 04 -054 to a second reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin, Greenacres: he thanked Councilmember Taylor for bringing up concurrency which has been brought up by area homeowners since July; he stated that the attorney's remark concerning the nexus in State Development Manual also states that "development cannot imply a burden on personal buyers, low income people and the elderly," which he stated, by developers coming in and building and walking away with profits, and then citizens discover that roads cannot handle the capacity, he said would impose on low income people in that area; that in determining traffic conditions, the City of Spokane allows developers to set up studies, which they pay for, on level of service on roads; and that he feels there are things that still need to be looked at; there are promises being made or concerns being whitewashed and he feels it needs further review. Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 Richard Armen, 17601 East Mission, Greenacres: said he does not live in the area but lives across the street from this area; said he helped get some of the petitions signed and no one turned him down; that the people out there do not want UR -7 but there are some developers that want it to make more money; and some property owners who want it so they too can make more money; that the developers come out and approach someone who has ten acres, and tell them that he can give them $240,000 for that ten acres, but if it is zoned, UR -7 he can give them $340,000; and so that owner will want the extra money too; he stated that the petition does not say to zone it to UR 3.5 except for those who don't want it; it says "the area" and it gives the borders: the River, Mission, Barker; he also questioned how many of those individuals are vested, that the petitions were submitted early and some of those applications came in afterwards, or someone held up the petitions so they could get applications in, and that needs to be examined; he stated that he knows that one developer got his application submitted in time, and that the others are questionable; that 72% of the people in the area signed the petition; and that the people in Greenacres are adamant that they do not want to be UR -7. Jane Courchaine, 17201 East Cataldo: said that she bought the property on the corner of Greenacres and Indiana; that she knew it was UR -7; she came to the City and asked what the zoning was; she asked about the sewer plan; and she closed the property December 30, 2003; and was told that she was in the six -year plan, so she hired the engineer to start her project; and partially through she was informed there was an error and she was not in the six -year plan as that was not adopted until October; so she decided to wait until October; then she saw a sign about the zoning being taken away; that she did everything she had to do; and if this is changed she thinks it may constitute a taking, although she stated she doesn't know exactly what a taking is; she believes she is vested and wants to continue being vested; she also objects to this being discussed in November when it was her understanding it was not going to be discussed until December and she was out of town in November; that she acted on City official's recommendations of what was available, and now it is being taken. James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin: said that when people complain about a takings, that Council needs to look at the time of applications, that this was brought up during the planning meetings, and when the Planning Commission discussed it some people there complained about potential use of property and they had ample time to present applications and this never done. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: said she became a property owner December 30, 2003 and never received notification of a petition to change the zoning and was not aware of that issue until signs went up and she got a letter for a Planning Commission public hearing; that she wasn't originally notified of a petition; and that some people signed the petition because they felt uncomfortable not doing so, and she has concerns of the legal process. Tami Palmquist, speaking on behalf of Centennial Properties: she read the prepared letter, which letter was later distributed to Councilmembers; and that it is stated in that letter that Centennial Properties' recommendation is that a transition buffer be created between the heavy commercial uses along the freeway to the lower density UR 3.5; that the UR 7 buffer could be extended to Flora Road, and they have spoken to property owners in the area who support that concept. FJDullanty, Jr., 422 West Riverside, Spokane: said that he submitted the letter Cary referenced earlier on behalf of Centennial Properties; that he feels there are some procedural issues to address; that our ordinance requires in this type of rezone, that our Planning Commission, acting as a hearing body, must make Findings, Decision, and Conclusions, and an analysis of how and why they got to where they are before they can recommend to the City Council; that he finds minutes in the file but no Findings, and feels the matter needs to go back; that this not an implementing ordinance of the comprehensive plan, that it is now UR -7* which is the implementing ordinance under the current comprehensive plan; that if we are going to change the zone, then the rules of Parkridge are applicable; and that certain things are required and do not appear to be included in the record to support a re -zone; nothing has changed and Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 there needs to be a showing of changed conditions or circumstances that would require a re -zone; and that there is a presumption of validity with UR -7* and that has not been overcome. He mentioned that he did not have time to review the Public Works staff report. He added that it must be shown that this request would relate to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens and property owners; and he asks that Council refer this back to the Planning Commission to make the appropriate Findings and analysis. Stan Schultz, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake: he stated that he is a semi - retired lawyer; that he practiced environmental and land use law for over 30 years; and that he represents Ken Tupper and a company that he develops called "Lots and Land;" that most of his property shown on this map is vested and the rezone doesn't affect him or the LLC much. Mr. Schultz stated he sent Attorney Driskell an e -mail concerning similar remarks made by Mr. Dullanty; that he asked City staff for copies of the Planning Commission Findings, that he received a copy of the minutes but no Findings, and that the minutes do not meet the legal standards for Findings and he urges Council to send this back to the Planning Commission. Mary Pollard, Greenacres: she stated that there are some good findings from the Planning Commission other than antidotal, and feels there is ample information; that there has been a change in the area, because of the rezone to UR -7, which is an administrative decision, that it has brought about new developments that are vested, and makes a huge impact as there are 15' roads that are not even meeting the County's standards; and she estimates on her road alone there would be 1,000 cars trips per day; that the zoning designation of UR 3.5 was very short lived as it was in error, it was agricultural prior to that; that the neighborhood is an old neighborhood; people bought property under UR 3.5 or even with UR -7, if they had ten acres and wanted to build a barn, that would be a nonconforming use; and that is why she fought so hard for this kind of zone change ten years ago, that they were granted that change. She stated she feels there needs to be lower density in order to provide adequate infrastructure, that they won't have sewers unless the developers handle it; that there are road problems with sharp turns along the river and on Montgomery; and she encourages Council to look at the long standing neighborhood, people who have been there for a long time. Aldin Scherrodd, 17315 E Montgomery: he said the developers' attorneys make it sound like they were blindsided by this change in the zoning that they are requesting, but that the citizens were blindsided by the County not giving notice that they were going to change the zoning; that they changed it from the SR- 1 to the UR -7 without property owners' knowledge; that the entire area and the community members way of life is affected by it and the developers are not the ones put out. Bill Gothmann, 10010 East 48 and Planning Commission Chair: said that the rationale for including the vested properties in the rezone was that if those properties should at some time in the future not take advantage of their vesting, then the Planning Commission felt it should revert to the underlying zoning, that of the 3.5, rather than go back to R -7 which it would do if they had excluded them. Councilmember Taylor several times voiced his objection to allowing multiple comments from the same person, and stated that he feels it is setting a bad precedent and that Council has not done so in the past. Mayor Wilhite stated she feels there has been enough testimony, and closed the public comment period. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to table this motion and ask staff to bring the matter back at the next study session with information pertaining to the legality and infrastructure impacts, and items written by Public Works Kersten in his memo. Vote on tabling the motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. Mayor Wilhite called a recess at 7:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 4. Motion Consideration: Council Approval, Lodging Tax Advisory Grant Recommendations — Councilmember Flanigan Councilmember Flanigan explained that the recommendations have been reviewed by Council and last week's discourse was also heard, and that he recommends allowing public comment. Councilmember Taylor stated at a previous meeting, a request was made for the City to reserve $40,000 of the lodging tax funds to be used for marketing of CenterPlace; and he previously inquired why he had not heard of that request as looking at the record, it appears it was an added agenda item to the November 2 meeting; and he would like to know the purpose of the funds. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson explained that the request was general in nature for marketing of CenterPlace, and that while there were no specifics, examples were given such as making a video that could be mailed to perspective users or could be played on a loop at the building to show people what was available; to print and mail invitations in conjunction with the grand opening, brochures, advertising either in publications or at locations; and possibly in conjunction with the grand opening, for entertainment or refreshments; and that it was felt that $40,000 could accomplish conservative marketing, especially if it included mailings. Mayor Wilhite said she views this $40,000 request not as a taking funds from other requestors, but as a means to allow staff to have some say over the funds; that if we had given the funds directly to the CVB, they likely would have asked us to assist in the ad, much the same as was done previously. Councilmember Denenny stated he would support the recommendations of the committee; but that concerning Valleyfest and the Heritage Museum, he wants good analysis to demonstrate that the funds were used as the hotel/motel regulations allow. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson that Council approve the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Grant recommendations as shown. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis stated that he feels the $40,000 would be a great use to promote the valley ceremony. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Munson said he would support the motion as made with the addition of asking for feedback from the hoteliers as to what is putting their "heads in beds," and would like a questionnaire to be available to answer questions to get an idea of how the funds are spent. Councilmember Flanigan said yesterday's committee addressed that issue; that the contract and accompanying letter will specifically request a six -month presentation to Council to present data showing how the funds were used in Spokane Valley; and he added that the statutes specify tourism and not necessarily "heads in beds," and the committee also wants accountability from all entities. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Approval of Contract for Supply and Installation of Kitchen Equipment at CenterPlace — Steve Worley /Mike Jackson Senior Engineer Worley explained the proposal for the kitchen equipment package at CenterPlace, and of the recent bids; that the only bidder to supply a list of proposed substitution was the apparent low bidder, Spokane Restaurant Equipment, Inc.; that staff and the project architect /consultant reviewed the cost and schedule impacts and recommends Council approval. Mr. Worley explained in an effort to keep the construction moving forward in a timely manner, it is also requested that the City Manager be granted an additional $50,000 in change order authority for Mooney & Pugh's contract for CenterPlace, as the current amount already authorized in change orders for this project is approximately $46,000. After brief discussion of the type of kitchen and equipment, it was moved by Councilmember Flannigan and seconded, to approve this contract for installation of kitchen equipment, and to authorize an additional $50, 000 in change order authority to the City Manager. Before inviting public comment, Mayor Wilhite stated that she does business with one of the purveyors of the contract but the amount of business is well below the level indicated for conflict of interest. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis stated that it looks like we are doing better, that instead of the $8 million in property taxes it appears that amount will be closer to $10; that he hopes Council will continue to table the utility tax, and that feels the business registration fees should be higher. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Business License/Registration Update — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that this report is to clarify some questions brought up about the business registration process. He explained that the three most prevalent questions are: (1) does the City of Spokane Valley's $13.00 fee include the $9.00 that the State charges? (2) what does the State's renewal notice show; and (3) what does it cost to license a business both with the City and the State? Director Thompson said that the answer to question #1, is no; that the two fees are separate. He explained when the fee was originally discussed, the idea of a $25.00 fee was brought up and that $25.00 would have included the $9.00 State charges; but in June those fees were split and it was determined that the City's would charge a fee of $13.00 and that fee would be separate from the State fee. In response to the second question, Director Thompson said that notice shows the $13.00 City fee and an additional $9.00 renewal fee; and for the last question, he explained that if a business is already registered with both entities, then the renewal fee of $9.00 and $13.00 would be required; but if the entity is registering for a first time, there is a first time State fee of $15.00, in addition to the City's $13.00 fee. He explained that the total fee could range from $22 to $28.00 or higher if other endorsements were needed. Director Thompson added that instead of having 3300 business licenses in our database, we are down to 2231, as approximately 70 business closed within the last two years, which is fairly common. He stated that once our system is running smoothly, we will compare our business license database with the State's sales tax database which should help locate several businesses not yet identified in the City limits. Mayor Wilhite explained that she could like the Council to consider having the state license just show one fee; that the way the renewal /license notice is now, it appears there are two different license fees, and she feels we may have conveyed to the public that the total license would be $13.00, including the state's $9.00; and she would prefer letting the public know that our business license is not costing the public $13.00 but rather $22.00. Mayor Wilhite said she would like the documentation given to the public to simply state the flat fee, and we would pay the Department of Licensing any assessment required. Finance Director Thompson said he will talk to the Department of Licensing to see if it is possible to simply make the fee show up as one, nonitemized fee, and that he will report his findings back to Council. In other business, Councilmember Taylor said he would like to have the Council's goals posted on the wall for all to see, and the Council can ascertain if actions taken are in line with implementation of stated goals. It was decided this might be a good discussion for the upcoming winter retreat. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. iristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting: 12 -14 -04 Approved by Council: 01 -11 -05 t,, tn1 X14, f Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page 8 of 8 NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN ADDRESS TELEPHONE (In 6 i 1%k C -L E7 - 11-0 L9 i OetavA , ►tc `IS - SiFLo G 1 \ 1 1111k CJ1 poan SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE ) v PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET Citizen comments on any item. Please state your name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to THREE MINUTES. /f gay I am here speaking on behalf of Centennial Properties, LLC. They are the owners of approximately 43 acres of land in the vicinity of the proposed zone reclassification area, as shown on the map attached to these comments. Of this total, approximately 10 acres are included within the zone reclassification area abutting the north side of Mission Avenue. The balance of the property is located south of Mission Avenue and is zoned "Light Industrial ". We are supportive of your process of evaluating the needs of the community and the desire of the neighborhood, as reflected in the zone reclassification petition, to manage the density in this area. We believe that it is important that property owners work together to meet the needs of the various property owners and the community as a whole. It is our recommendation that a transition buffer be created between the heavy commercial uses along the freeway to the lower density UR 3.5 zoning that is proposed. Our property is positioned to create such a buffer and we would support comprehensive planning and zoning of this property from Light Industrial to "office ", "medium density residential ", and low density UR -7 residential" uses that would form this buffer. The transition buffer area is shown in concept on the attached map. As part of this recommendation we are requesting that the current UR 7 zoning on the 10 acres north of Mission remain unchanged and be a part of this transition area. The UR 7 buffer could logically extend easterly to Flora Road and we have spoken to property owners in this area that support this concept. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to working with the neighborhood in the future. f aK? ?airt 1 1 .z 12/14/2004 RnwT 1. N#C..XI OK I® M . m11AM a IN= taiga A law, K 1&.4 caKNOUr mot*, q CDOIRIy ottAn M. t11MC11 /O$L)LI 11WI LA 1tf .1v L 1LTOIOIL DCKA13 AUJ Li•t 6611.5 L W[nINIADGD't ICCISAIS a eIWI GL•UI L Rlfot%l• 6DW.&D n.veta+ -- ITML Tr. =ma MX1UZL r. NDNYttDr KINK K AWY DLNr'.9 K tMrb- f L 1A3L MTY. D.. I.6 vrixt / ?WY S. 04.014, TI MM R. L.:w1O* etAtZC F. DAISY WR1bW M. MOM nOWTL MAMMON WAIL At.. TS.II.IL w, iTA 1LY KKEY DAVID 1l RJR/ tlfe MI' 14c .U4Jc 6(11711ia 1. WIT Icz). VOT CILIUM L. V DT 111.L.:"1 M. cRtr 4LY. IUIIL` C 110111lllA D YAAAKKKr CDtECUYALArG[L• RYAN to BRAW 10:• I.% L NA4LO.0 t MADA /SW CaoslTS CA1O`Kt6• BOLAND & cOLDINI RACY A DRD 1W. a roe• vio A1aYUK CrA•I K JL11Sr t TARRY n iaVM 1101%0. mecum OP COuleam * in Di.GV.I /mil1e•A R. A7-.li •Nm tw9N w pm - rl.o.�aiod 6N. th.e e• Ne winked a Gbh/RR. Ube u�:m 6091+ .iLo elmrs 1 Ifl da - »Arched 1 M. Ady 10:06 WITHERSP'OON KELLEY 4 9P9211008 NO.B03 0002 WITHERSPOON, KELLEY, DAVENPORT & TOOLE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ATTORNEYS & COUNSELOR$ Ms. Deanna Wilhite, Mayor City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Wilhite: 1100 U.S. SANK SUII.DLNG 422 WEST RIVERSIDE AVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 -0300 Tdephaae: (509) 624 -5265 TeIecopier• (509) 45&2728 December 14, 2004 RE: REZ 17 -05 Rezone North Greenacres Area COEU3 D'A181113 OMG11 WDLSD'MANF.VIEW ptRLDtt;q tmNOP:WM 90U[8VARD. COEUR D'AuDa IDAMO 14i11.Las We have been asked by our client Centennial Properties to comrnont with respect to the proposed rezone ofthe Greenacres area from UR -7 * to UR -3 5. We have been provided a copy of the staff report as well as a Request for Council Review before the City of Spokane Valley Council. We understand that the City Council has been given 3 choices with respect to this matter. (1) pass the Ordinance at its next reading; (2) send the matter back to the City Plan Commission for further deliberation or direction; or (3) hold a public hearing itself. A review of the public files and records in this matter, would lead us to believe that all the appropriate procedures have not yet been followed with respect to this particular action. We understand that this rezone was requested by a petition containing at least 51% of property owners within the area pursuant to section 14.402.100 (4) (b) of the City's interim development code. We also understand, that the City Planning Commission (the hearing body) considered the matter on several occasions. However, our review of the file would indicate that the City Planning Commission as hearing body did not promulgate any Findings, Conclusions or Decisions with respect to the recommendation, nor did they set forth specific factors that were considered at the hearing and their own analysis. What appears to have been transmitted to the City Council are the minutes of the Board meeting only. Accordingly, we believe that any action taken by the City Council would be in violation of its ordinance and subject to its reversal. Additionally, we believe that the actions of the city in considering the rezone need to take into consideration the requirements of Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 85 inn. 2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978). Parkridge, as you may recall was also a rezone sought by neighboring 12/14/2004 10:06 WITHERSPOON KELLEY a 9P9211009 110.803 0003 l -\ • Ms. Deanna Wilhite, Mayor City Council December 14, 2004 Page 2 property owners similar to the case at bar. As you are aware, any rezone which is not intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan must bear substantial relationship to the public health safety and welfare of the community and especially the surrounding property and property owners. We believe that the mandates ofParkridge are applicable even though this rezone is of a larger area, and therefore there must be some demonstration of change in the area since the last rezone and adoption of the comprehensive plan. Again, the record fails to provide any information or justification for the rezone other that surrounding property owners are concerned about "higher density ". While the wishes of the property owners are germaine they are only part of the consideration involved. Finally we do not believe that the Planning Commission properly took into consideration the potential traffic impacts to the area. Until such time as the City adopts its Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and analyze the impacts of Mission Avenue as a possible North Valley Arterial. This action may be premature. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter, and should you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. F)D /j1g Cc: Wayne Frost Cary Driskell G :llunlaad Empire Paper 423111Gcneral 1001Driskcll hr 121304.wpd Very truly yours, WITHERSPOON, LLEY, DAVENPORT Spokane . Valley Memorandum To: City Council Through: Dave Mercier, City Manager CC: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director d/ Date: December 13, 2004 Re: Greenacres Rezone - Council Information Request hr 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org The following is a response to questions raised by Council during the December 7, 2004 City Council Study Session. 1. What at are the requirements for road improvements for each new development in the Greenacres area? The following is the current status of projects in the propose rezone: • PE- 1706 -93 — Flora Meadows — The original plat was submitted to the County in 1993. An application for a time extension to the original plat was received on November 23, 2004. On December 9, 2004 Spokane Valley Community Development issued a decision for this project. The time extension was denied. The applicant has the ability to appeal this decision. If the plat is re- filed, an updated traffic study will be required. • SUB -11 -04 — D2 Subdivision — This project is in the preliminary review stages. Conditions for Approval have not been prepared. A traffic scoping meeting was held. A traffic study is required but not yet submitted. • SUB -12 -04 — D1A Subdivision — This project is in the preliminary review stages. Conditions for Approval have not been prepared. Although the project is less than 20 lots, the developer's engineer submitted an updated traffic study for the area. The preliminary plat map is being updated at this time. At this time, their proportionate share of the Barker /Mission signal is 0.29 %. • PE- 1921 -03 — Flora Springs PUD — This project is currently in street and drainage review. Conditions of Approval are in place by the Hearing Examiner's decision. Please refer to conditions #35 and #46 of the Hearing Examiner's Conditions of Approval and the email indicating the proportionate share (2% of signal cost) for the Barker /Mission traffic signal. These items are attached. 4 • SUB -05 -04 — D1 Subdivision — Conditions of Approval are in place from the Hearing Examiner. Please refer to conditions #14 through #17 of the attached Hearing Examiner's Conditions of Approval for this project. There have been no construction plans submitted to date. 2. What are the processes and regulations Staff follows to analyze the road improvements required for new development? The process varies with the type of application submitted. Attached is a "Subdivision Schedule" developed by Community Development and is currently on the City's web site. It shows the typical process. The regulations are as follows: • Phase 1 Development Regulations, Section IV Concurrency (attached) The regulations require each intersection affected by the project shall be reviewed and analyzed to determinethe proposed project causes the level of service at affected intersections to fall below adopted standards. If an intersection falls below adopted standards the applicant must agree to modify the project or provide transportation improvements and /or a binding financial commitment that will bring the level of service up to adopted standards. • Zoning Code 14.710.200 Required Improvements and Dedication 14.710.200 Required Improvements and Dedication Prior to the issuance of any approvals or permits subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the County Engineer shall determine the extent and type of roadway improvements, including future or phased improvements, required. The County Engineer shall utilize the Arterial Road Maps and road construction standards adopted by the County, and shall consider the functional, safety, efficiency and coordinated future expansion needs of the roadway to serve the traveling public and emergency vehicles. The County Engineer shall also determine the extent of additional right -of -way needed and whether the land area required should be dedicated to or purchased by the County. If the County Engineer detennines that purchase is appropriate, the County Engineer shall ensure that County funds will be allocated or made available through prioritizing and / or scheduling the applicable road project. This may include adding the road project to the County Six Year for Arterial Road Construction, if appropriate. The applicant is typically required to dedicate the required property to conform to the right -of -way width required for roads fronting on the development. • Spokane County Road Standards Section 3.18 (attached) The applicant is typically required to construct frontage improvements along the entire portion of the plat in accordance with the above Road Standards. 3. Sewer program for Greenacres...and more specifically, how far have the sewer lines been built to date? The sewer line has been extended from the west down Mission to the Flora Springs PUD. Greenacres is in the County 2004 adopted 6 -year plan and is scheduled for 2010. 4. Barker Road construction and its affect on traffic circulation in and out of Greenacres. Barker Road construction and Barker bridge construction will have a significant impact on traffic during the construction period. We are currently proposing to keep half of the road and /or bridge open for two lanes of traffic. Traffic will be required to move at a slower speed and there will be some delays. Detours may be required in some areas. As the designs develop for these projects specific traffic requirements will be developed. Concurrency Phase 1 Development Regulations Attachment A Section IV. Concurrency A. Concurrency Facilities and Services 1. Definitions a. Adeouate Public Facilities — Facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. b. Available Public Facilities — Means that facilities or services are in place or that a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is six years from the time of development. c. Concurrency — Means that adequate public facilities are available when the service demands of development occur. This definition includes the two concepts of "adequate public facilities" and of "available public facilities" as defined above. d. Double Plumbing Dry Side Sewers — A sewer service line installed at the time of on -site sewage disposal system construction, which will connect the structure wastewater system to a public sewer, when the public sewer becomes available. (Ref. SCC 8.03.1242) e. Drvline Sewer — A sewer line, constructed at the time of property development, that is not put into service until the public sewer system is extended to the development. The installation of Dryline Sewers within a development facilitates the simple and straightforward connection of the development to sewer when the public sewer system is extended to the boundary of the development. f. Project Permit/Project Permit Application — Any land use or environmental permit or license required from a review authority for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, short plats, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by the Critical Area Ordinance, site - specific zone reclassifications, manufactured home parks, and change of condition request. Applicability The following facilities and services must be evaluated for Concurrency: a. Transportation b. Public Water c. Public Sewer d. Fire Protection e. Police Protection f. Parks and Recreation g. Libraries h. Solid Waste Disposal i. Schools 72 of 78 \ J Phase 1 Development Regulations 3. Direct Concurrency Transportation, Public Water and Public Sewer shall be considered Direct Concurrency Services. Concurrency requirements for public water and public sewer service are detailed in Section IV, F. Transportation facilities serving a development must be constructed, or a financial guarantee for required improvements must be in place prior to occupancy. Applicable permit/project applications shall require Transportation Concurrency Review, described below. A Concurrency Certificate shall be issued to development proposals that pass the Transportation Concurrency Review. 4. Indirect Concurrency Fire Protection, Police Protection, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, Solid Waste Disposal and Schools shall be considered Indirect Concurrency Services. Spokane County shall demonstrate the adequacy of Indirect Concurrency services through the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP will be updated annually, at which time all Indirect Concurrency Services will be evaluated for adequacy. The evaluation will include an analysis of population, Level of Service and land use trends in order to anticipate demand for services and determine needed improvements. If any Indirect Concurrency Services are found to be inadequate, the County shall adjust the Land Use element to lessen the demand for services, include a project in the CFP to address the deficiency or adjust the Level of Service. Any of the approaches shall require amending the Comprehensive Plan. B. Transportation Concurrency and Review 1. The following project permits /project applications shall be subject to Transportation Concurrency Review. a, b. c. d. e. Subdivisions Short Plats Zone Changes with site plans Planned Unit Developments Commercial /Industrial building permits 2. The following shall be exempt from Concurrency Review: Attachment A f. Residential building permits over 4 units g. Conditional Use Permits h. Manufactured Home Parks i. Extension of time (see exemption No. 2.b.) j. Change of conditions A Certificate of Concurrency, issued by the Division of Engineering, shall be required prior to approval of the above applications. a. Project permits that were issued, or project applications that were determined to be complete (see RCW 36.70B) prior to the effective date of these Concurrency Regulations. b. The first renewal of a previously issued, unexpired project permit, provided that substantial progress has been made as determined by the appropriate review authority. 73 of 78 Phase i Development Regul<`. ... `; Attachment A c. Any project permit that will have insignificant transportation impact, and that will not change the traffic volumes and flow patterns in the afternoon peak travel period, as determined by the County Engineer. d. The following project permit actions: 2. Procedures i. (Boundary line adjustments; ii. Final subdivisions /Final PUD's /Final Short Plats/Final Binding Site Plans; iii. Temporary Use Permit; iv. Variances. e. Proposed project permits/project that do not create additional impacts on transportation facilities. Such projects may include but are not limited to: i. Any addition or accessory structure to a residence with no change or increase in the number of dwelling units over 4 units; ii. interior renovations with no change in use or increase in number of dwelling units over 4 units; iii. Any addition, remodel, or interior completion of a structure for use(s) with the same or less intensity as the existing use or a previously approved use. C. Transportation Concurrency Review Procedures 1. Applicability All project permits, except for those exempt, shall apply for Transportation Concurrency Review at the time applications for project permits are submitted. Inquiries about availability of capacity on transportation facilities may be made prior to project permit applications, but responses to such inquiries are advisory only and available capacity can only be reserved through a Concurrency Certificate as set forth in these regulations. a. Applications for Transportation Concurrency Review shall be submitted on forms provided by the Review Authority. b. Transportation Concurrency Review shall be performed for the specific property, uses, densities and intensities based on the information provided by the Applicant/Property Owner. The Applicant/Property Owner shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the uses allowed. c. The Review Authority shall notify the Spokane County Engineer, or his /her designee, of all applications received requiring Transportation Concurrency Review and shall request a Concurrency Determination. 74 of 78 4. Concurrency Certificate Phase 1 Development Regulations Attachment A d. Spokane County Engineer shall notify the Applicant/Property Owner and the Review Authority of the results of the Concurrency Determination within 30 days of receipt of Application for Transportation Concurrency Review. if additional information is needed to determine Concurrency, such additional information may be requested by the Spokane County Engineer. Such request shall not make the original project application deemed incomplete. e. The project permit may be conditioned as necessary to ensure that an improvement relied upon to demonstrate Concurrency will be completed or a Transportation System Management Strategy shall be a part of the permit decision. f. If the proposed project fails the Concurrency Test and the project permit cannot be conditioned to accomplish concurrency, the project permit(s) shall be denied. g. 1 f the proposed project passes the Concurrency Test, the Division of Engineers shall issue a Concurrency Certificate to the Applicant/Property Owner. The Certificate shall be used to maintain an accountine of traffic impacts on Counry Roads and the capacity that has been reserved. h. if the project permit has been withdrawn, expires, or is otherwise cancelled, the Concurrency Certificate shall automatically be voided. The appropriate review authority shall send notice of all voided Certificates to the Applicant/Property Owner and the County Engineer. 3. Relation to Other R.equirements Compliance with or exemption from the requirements of these regulations shall not exempt a project from compliance with all other County, State, and Federal regulations. a. A Concurrency Certificate shall only be issued upon payment of any concurrency fee due. b. A. Concurrency Certificate shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities and project described in the application and project permit. c. A Concurrency Certificate is not transferable to other property, but may be transferred to new owners of the same property. d. A Concurrency Certificate shall remain valid so long as the accompanying project permit has not expired or been revoked. c. A Concurrency Certificate is valid for any modification of the permits for which the Certificate was issued so long as such modification does not require the Applicant to obtain a new project permit. f. Any capacity that is not used because the full extent of the development is not built shall be returned to the pool of available capacity. 75 of 78 Phase t Development Regulations Attachment A 5. Concurrency Certificate Fees Fees for issuing Concurrency Certificates shall be based on an adopted fee schedule. D. Phased Development When a project is proposed in phases or construction is expected to extend over some period of time, the Applicant/Property Owner may offer a schedule of occupancy that will be used by the County Engineer to determine the schedule of transportation improvements that must be completed, or financially guaranteed, prior to occupancy of each phase. However, the required transportation improvements shall be determined by analyzing the traffic impacts estimated to be generated by the fully completed project. E. Transportation Concurrency Test Procedures 1. Highway Capacity Manual methods selected by the County Engineer shall be used to analyze project impacts to intersections. Level of Service information in the Capital Facilities Plan, which is updated annually, shall be used as a starting reference to analyze project impacts. 3. Level of Service information shall be updated as necessary to account for traffic levels resulting from the following: a. traffic from newly constructed projects, b. projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; and c. projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; and, d. non - project, general background traffic increases. Level of Service information shall also be updated as necessary as a result of any discontinued Concurrency Certificates, funded road projects or new Level of Service analysis. 4. Each County intersection affected by the proposed projects shall be reviewed and analyzed for Concurrency. The Applicant/Property Owner may be required to provide a traffic analysis if existing information does not provide adequate information for the Concurrency assessment. 5. Project proposals shall pass the Concurrency Test if (1) the transportation impacts from the proposed project does not decrease the Level of Service of affected intersections below the adopted standards; or, (2) the Applicant/Property Owner agrees to modify the project or provide transportation improvements and/or binding financial commitments that will result in the Level of Service of each deficient intersection meeting or exceeding the adopted standards. 76 of 78 Phase 1 Development Regulations Attachment A F. Water and Sewer Concurrency Inside Urban Growth Areas New development shall not be approved within the Urban Growth Area boundary unless the proposal can demonstrate the availability of public water and sewer services consistent with adopted Levels of Service, and consistent with the definition for Concurrency in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update. New development must: 1) be con.nccted to a live (fully operational) public sewer at the time of occupancy, or 2) be located within the Spokane County 6 -year Sewer Capital Improvement Program, as adopted. New development located within a 6 -year Sewer Capital Improvement Program area may install septic systems on an interim basis until such time as sewer service is available. All new development shall install dry line sewers and double plumbing if the new development will rely on an interim septic tankldrainficld system rather than being connected to a live sewer. Once sewer service is available, the development shall be required to immediately connect to the County's sewer system. New Development shall be deemed to have met the "availability" threshold for sewer concurrency if the developer has approved sewer plans, and provides adequate financial security to cover the full cost of constructing the sewerage facilities required for the development. Acceptable plans and security shall be provided before final approval of the proposed development. Developer- financed extensions of public sewer may be allowed within any area of the Urban Growth Area provided capacity and infrastructure needs are adequately addressed. For purposes of this section new development shall include subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, manufactured home park site development plans, planned unit development, and zoning reclassifications. Conditional use permits shall also be considered new development if the proposed use would result in an increased amount of wastewater generated on the site. New development not requiring sewer and /or water service (e.g. cellular towers) is exempt from this section. G. Limitation of Services Outside Urban Growth Areas. 1. Public Sewer Service shall not be provided outside the Urban Growth Area except as follows: a. In response to an immediate threat to public health or safety. b. When necessary for the protection of aquifers designated in accordance with RC\V 36.70A.170. c. To vested development that is required to be served with sanitary sewer as a condition of development approval. 77 of 78 Phase 1 Development Attachment A d. As may otherwise be allowed by state law. The extension of sewer service according to the exceptions permitted in this section shall not be considered an inducement to types or levels of growth that are not appropriate in the rural area. 2. The provision of public water service and construction of water service lines or other water system facilities shall be allowed outside Urban Growth Area boundaries. The design of public water systems in rural areas shall not be considered an inducement to types or levels of growth that are not appropriate in the rural area. Section V. Applicability. These regulations shall not apply to land use applications vested in accordance with state and local law. Section VI. Conflicts Between Provisions. This ordinance shall apply as an overlay and in addition to other adopted plans, ordinances and regulations affecting lands in Spokane County. In the event of any conflict between this ordinance and other plans, ordinances and regulations, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between this ordinance and any development agreement which has been executed under RCW 36.70B.170, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, the development agreement or provisions therein shall govern and prevail during the term of the agreement. Section VII. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Board of County Commissioners. Section IIX. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section IX. Repeal IUCA Interim Regulations. The Spokane County Interim Development Regulations Designating Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUCA) (13oCC Resolution 97- 0321), as amended; are hereby repealed. 78 of 78 PE- 1921 -03 Flora Springs PUD SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Prior to or during construction, or final plat approval, as applicable: 35. Roadway and drainage improvements shall be installed along the frontage of the final plat with Mission Avenue. A Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington shall, prior to construction authorization by the City Engineer, submit final roadway and drainage plans and a drainage report, including calculations that conform to the City's Interim Standards for Road and Sewer Construction and the City's Interim Guidelines for Stormwater Management, and all other federal, state and local requirements. 36. Permits shall be required for any access to or work within the right -of -way of the City of Spokane Valley roadway system. All new permits shall conform to the City Interim Road and Sewer Standards for new driveway access approaches. All work shall be subject to inspection and approval by the City Engineer or designee. 37. The applicant shall submit engineering plans pertaining to stormwater drainage that specify the location, numeric or alphabetical reference, size (in square feet) and any other intended uses of casements or tracts for drainage purposes. 38. Parking is required for each unit to accommodate residents. Each parking area shall be designed so that residents do not back out onto public roadways. The driveways shall be designed to account for stormwater runoff treatment. Treatment shall be allowed to flow onto the yard area, provided the grade keeps potential runoff from the public right -of -way. 39. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentations Control (TESC) plan, prepared by a Washington State licensed Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department prior to any construction. The TESC plan shall be prepared using best management practices (EMP's) currently accepted within the Civil Engineering profession. The TESC plan shall follow Spokane Valley regulations, as set forth in the 2001 Edition of the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, the 1998 Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management Spokane County, and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. 40. Prior to construction plan acceptance by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual, prepared by the applicant's engineer, for the street and stormwater systems. This manual shall include a discussion of the design life of the various components, recommended repair and maintenance schedules, calculated annual costs for repair and maintenance, and calculated replacement costs for each component of the systems. The manual shall specify the recommended individual monthly homeowner financial assessment to accomplish the identified maintenance and replacement tasks. 41. The Temporary Erosion and Sedimentations Control (TESC) plan shall be implemented throughout the duration of any construction. The TESC structures, such as silt ponds or silt traps, shall be installed prior to the start of site work, and the TESC measures shall be HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision PE- 1921- 031PUDE -5 -03 Page 18 \ \ implemented and maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site has stabilized and is approved by the City of Spokane Valley. Each BMP shall be inspected after each rainfall event or every 24 hours during an event. 42. The applicant is advised that there may be existing utilities either underground or overhead affecting the applicant's property, including property to be dedicated or set aside for future acquisition. Spokane Valley will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation regarding these utilities. The applicant shall contact all applicable utility companies regarding the responsibility for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work. 43. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer /Land Surveyor, who shall furnish the City Engineer with "Record Drawing" plans and a certificate in writing that all improvements were installed to the lines and grades shown on the approved construction plans and that all disturbed monuments have been replaced: All work is subject to inspection by the City Engineer or by his staff. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed public right -of -way until the City Engineer has issued a permit. 44. The applicant shall submit an Illumination plan for the on -site streets and public streets, for review and approval by the City Engineer. 45. The applicant shall specify all existing and proposed informational and directional signage on the submitted roadway or drainage engineering plans. 46. Prior to final plat/P.U.D. approval, the applicant or successors in interest shall pay to the City of Spokane Valley its proportionate share of the costs of the improvements at the Barker Road/Mission Avenue intersection, or shall enter into an agreement identified and approved by the City's Public Works Director agreeing to contribute an identified proportionate share to the BarkerRoad/Mission Avenue improvement costs. 47. Prior to final pIatfPUD approval the applicant shall submit written evidence of the formation of a Homeowner's Association (}-1OA) to perpetually operate and maintain the on- site private street network and associated facilities, including but not limited to stormwater drainage facilities. The HOA shall make adequate provision for the funding of the routine maintenance and the replacement of the various street and stormwater systems at the end of the service life of the respective components, and any other improvements that may be legally required in the future. Such funding may be done through a sinking fund, or similar funding mechanism. 48. The final plat dedication shall state: "The City of Spokane Valley is not responsible for any road maintenance of private roadways within the plat. All road maintenance is the perpetual responsibility of a Homeowner's Association, if formed, or individual property owners within the plat." HE findings, Conclusions and Decision PE- 1921- 03/PUDE -5 -03 Page 19 Sandra Raskell From: Don Ramsey Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:23 AM To: Sandra Raskell Cc: Kevin Snyder; John Hohman Subject: Flora Springs issues Traffic issues remaining for Flora Springs: Don 1. The TIA for the River Crossing PUD identified 14.8% of the traffic signal at Barker & Mission was River Crossing's proportionate share. River Crossing puts 252 new PM peak trips through the intersection. Flora Springs puts 35 PM trips through the intersection. The proportionate share for Flora Springs is 2.0% 2. The connectivity issues with adjacent property is unanswered 3. Pedestrian circulation is unknown. 10/8/2003 Page 1 of 1 SUB -OS -04 131 Subdivision 12. Submit a final plat containing the following note on the face of the plat: "All lots within this plat shall comply with the building setback requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot coverage standard and other applicable lot development standards for the UR -7 zoning district or successor zoning designation in effect at the time of building permit application." 13. Submit a final plat adding the word "Road" to the street names going north and south. SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT —DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION: 14. Construct frontage improvements along the entire portion of the plat abutting Tschirley Road, consisting of fifteen (15) feet of asphalt from centerline to property frontage, a two (2) foot wide curb and gutter, a ten (10) foot wide planter strip and a five (5) foot wide sidewalk. 15. Construct frontage improvements along the entire portion of the plat abutting Baldwin Avenue, consisting of fifteen (l 5) feet of asphalt from centerline of property frontage, a two (2) foot wide curb and gutter, a ten (10) foot wide planter strip and a five (5) foot wide sidewalk. 16. Submit a .final plat specifying the dedication of a twelve (12) foot border easement the entire portion of the plat abutting Tschirley Road and Baldwin Avenue. 17. The applicant shall pay 1.57% of the cost for the proposed signal at Barker Road and Mission Avenue. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall execute a developer's agreement establishing when and how this amount will be paid to mitigate the impact of the development. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTIL11'LES: 1S. A Public Sanitary Sewer casement shall be shown on the face of the final plat and the following note shall be specified on the face of the final plat: "The perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, its successors and assigns is for the sole purpose of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, removing, and all other uses or purposes which arc or may be related to a sewer system. Spokane County, its successors and assigns at all times hereinafter, at their own cost and expense, may remove all crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with the constructing, instalthng, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, removing and all other uses or purposes which are related to a sewer system. The grantor(s) reserves the right to use and enjoy that property, which is the subject of this easement, for purposes which will not interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided, the Grantor(s) shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill on the easement, or diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the easement. The easement described hereinabove is to and shall run with the land." 19. The final plat shall contain the following note: "Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for the connection of each parcel to the County's system of sewerage. Uses on properties HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SUB -05 -04 Page 15 Subdivision Schedule Sii�kan� jUatley Informational Meeting Application Complete /Incomplete Incomplete (Applicant notified in writing of incompleteness due to missing information andlor items on plat map) Formal Application Submittal (28 calendar days to deem application complete) COMPLETE Planning Division SUBDIVISION SCHEDULE Submit envelopes for Notice of Application mailing SEPA Environmental Review 1 • 2 —1 i Notice of Application sent to property owners within 400 feet & site posted (14 day comment period) Technical Review Meeting (Staff, Agencies, & .Applicant) Staff and Agencies review application Notice of Public Hearing sent to property owners within 400 feet, legal notice published in newspaper & site posted (15 calendar days before hearing) All conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval have been met (5 years to apply for Final Plat Approval) 4 4 Hearing Examiner issues an appealable decision (21 calendar day appeal period) Final Plat Application submittal (Average 30 calendar day process) Staff and Agencies review application SEPA Decision (14 calendar day comment & appeal period) Public Hearing DISCI.Ammt: This schedule is informational only, Actual decision - making timeframes may vary for each application, Maximum of 120 calendar days allowed by code to issue final decision after deemed complete FINAL DECISION Recording by City (applicant pays all recording fees). City staff notify applicant of required fees before recording takes place and applicant submits a check to the City addressed to Spokane County Auditor's Office. * Applicants are encouraged to consider holding an informational meeting with the City staff to get early input into project design and application processing information.. Contact (509) 6S &0197 to schedule an appointment. Version dated: 7/13/2004 Road Standards Sect 3.17 CUL -DE -SACS Dead -end public roads shall have a cul -de -sac constructed at the end. Cul -de -sacs are shown on the Standard Plan sheet entitled "Cul -de -Sac Public Roads ". In areas not served by fire hydrants, cul -de -sacs shall have a radius of 50 feet. On paved rural roads, a paved cul-de -sac with a 45 -foot radius and a 5 -foot gravel shoulder may be used. At the end of private roads, the developer shall construct an area for vehicles to turn around. This turn - around area shall be constructed as shown on the Standard Plan sheet entitled " Cul-de -Sac Private Roads ". 3.18 CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND PATHWAYS 1. Requirement for all public roads within urban, commercial, and industrial land use zones: A. Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be constructed on both sides of the road. Sidewalk will not be required on cul -de -sac roads less than 400 feet in length measured from the centerline of the intersecting street to the radius point of the cul-de -sac. This requirement applies to all new roads, roads to be reconstructed, or where there is a change of use of a commercial property. The County Engineer may require sidewalk and /or curb and gutter on one or both sides of the road in rural areas where pedestrian traffic can be expected to occur, including but not limited to arterial roads, commercial uses, industrial uses, schools, parks, churches or shopping areas. B. If roads abutting commercial property have concrete curb and gutter and /or sidewalks for which the following actions are requested: 1. A building permit for a new building, or 2. Change in use of an existing building. The owner shall replace broken or off -grade curb and gutter and/or sidewalks. The project Sponsor shall remove or replace all driveways not conforming to this chapter as directed by the County Engineer. C. Where new concrete curb is to be placed to form a wider road than the existing paved road, the area between the existing edge of the pavement and the new curb shall be paved as directed by the County Engineer. Where the existing curb is removed and replaced at a new grade, the Sponsor shall pave the road next to the gutter to match the new grade of the gutter. Spokane County Standards Page 3 -16 February 2001 3.19 NOT USED 3.20 CURB RAMPS Private roads may be permitted when: D. Standard: See Standard Plans entitled "Curbs and Gutters" and "Urban Driveways - Separated Sidewalks ". 2. On shouldered public roads, pedestrian walkways may be incorporated into the shoulder of the road. This is done by constructing shoulders wider than those shown on Tables 3.01, 3.02, and 3.03. The Sponsor's Engineer shall use the structural section of the shoulder for the walkway area. The Sponsor shall construct ramps to provide passage of disabled persons. The ramp shall be constructed in curb and sidewalk at all corners of intersections. Ramps shall be constructed at other crosswalk locations. Ramps shall be constructed as shown on the Standard Plan entitled "Curb Ramp ". 3.21 NOT USED 3.22 PRIVATE ROADS A private road is a privately owned vehicular access route serving more than three Tots, parcels or tracts which do not have frontage on a public road right of way. Private roads within mandated non - attainment areas for suspended particulate shall be paved. Private roads in all other areas shall provide an all- weather driving surface. The traveled way of a private road shall be designated as a fire lane under the Uniform Fire Code, as amended. Spokane County will not perform an in -depth review of private road plans, inspect the construction of private roads, or maintain private roads. 1. The roads are within a subdivision approved pursuant to 58.17 RCW and the Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance. 2. A title notice has been approved and recorded with the County that provides for maintenance of the private roads and associated parking areas by owners in the development, and A. A ten (10) foot easement shall be provided for on each side of the roadway for roadway maintenance and utilities, and Provision is made for the roads to be open for emergency and public service vehicle use, and Spokane County Standards Page 3 -17 February 2001