Loading...
Agenda 02/26/2015 po ne .000Valley® Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 26, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 12, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Public Hearing - CTA-2015-0001, Proposed text amendment to 19.40.150 Animal Raising and Keeping • Planning Commission Findings of Fact— Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • Discussion— Spokane Transit Authority, bus bench policy discussion X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 12,2015 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman,Community Development Director Heather Graham Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tim Kelley Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Mike Phillips Gabe Gallinger,Development Services Manager Susan Scott Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Joe Stoy Micki Harnois,Planner Sam Wood Christina Janssen,Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 12, 2015 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero in favor, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Anderson,Kelley, Graham, Scott and Phillips attended the Comprehensive Plan Community Visioning meetings. Commissioner Graham also attended the Mission Road Improvement meeting as well as a press conference in Olympia representing the Central Valley school nurses and the school nurse organization supporting stronger legislation for e-vaping devices. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: John Hohman, Community Development Director, thanked the Commissioners who attended the Comprehensive Plan Visioning meetings. He said the follow up meeting would be March 4, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. The next meeting will cover the things learned at the Visioning meetings,where we are in the process and where the process is headed. Staff will evaluate the site specific requests, the deadline for submitting them is March 31, 2015, and then be bringing those forward after making an evaluation of them. He reminded the Commissioners of the City sponsored Planning Commission Short Course on February 25, at 6:00 p.m. He said the training provided is excellent. He also said City Attorney Cary Driskell and Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb would be providing training this evening which is required by state statute. Mr. Hohman also introduced Development Services Manager Gabe Gallinger. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued Deliberations for CPA-2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave.between Pines and Mamer Roads. Previously the Commission had a motion to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0001, then a motion to continue the discussion to this meeting was approved with a seven to one vote. Planner Christina Janssen reminded the Commission they had a study session on January 8, a public hearing on January 22 where they continued their deliberations on CPA-2015-0001 to this meeting. This is a citizen requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan and corresponding zoning from Office to Community Commercial. Ms. Janssen reminded the Commission the goal of the evening is to formulate a recommendation to forward to the council. The focus should be on the land itself, its current designation, the proposed designations, and the surrounding designations. Plans change so the proposed use should not be a consideration. At the 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6 time of development, an extensive review will be performed and any improvements necessary will be addressed at that time, and the financial burden will fall to the person who makes application for those improvements. The Chair recognized Mr. Driskell who said he and Commissioner Kelley had a conversation and Commissioner Kelley needed to say something. Commissioner Kelley stated he would be recusing himself from the discussion of CPA-2015-0001. (At the last meeting Mr. Kelley stated he had received some volunteer services provided by the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly where the applicant's attorney works. Mr. Schwartz, the attorney, and Mr. Kelley both have stated they have never met each other.) Mr. Driskell said staff would come get Mr. Kelley after discussion of the matter closed, and Mr.Kelley stepped out of the room. Ms. Janssen said the Commission had the staff report which reviewed the amendment, adequate noticing had occurred and no comments have been received. The site is unique in location and landscape. It is located on a frontage road with visibility from 1-90 with a steep slope to the south of about 30 percent. The site is affected by constant freeway noise and light and is not appropriate for residential development. There are more uses allowed in the Community Commercial zone, but less than the Regional Commercial directly adjacent to I-90. Staff has also discussed the Office zoning is not working in general or in this area, and it will be reviewed during the legislative update of the Comprehensive Plan, currently underway. Mr. Hohman reiterated staff would be looking at the zoning in this area in particular because of the comments he and other staff members have received from people who either own the property or would like to develop property, around this area. He said the reason staff supported this amendment was because so many people have come to the City and said this area is a problem zoned as Office. He said we know from years of experience in dealing with this area we need to do something. He reminded the Commission the development issues would be handled at the time of a permit request and staff is here to answer any questions the Commission have. Commissioner Anderson said he had a list of items concerning the amendment. He said his personal beliefs are for minimum zoning and business growth,but he said we are all aware we are not here to address his personal beliefs. He said the zone change would add about 34 uses, 11 uses with conditions, over what is currently allowed. However later he reported there were 37 uses which were the same. He said he had analyzed the staff report and documents which had been submitted at the last meeting and his comments are as follows: • Staff report findings and conclusions (C)(1)(a)(i)(1) in the analysis "Analysis: The Community Commercial classification is intended to serve several neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states that Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. The amendment is consistent with the size requirement; the location's visibility along the 1-90 corridor lends itself to regional services/business. However, the access to the area is limited and not conductive to regional development. The reclassification may improve marketability of the property and the public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards established by the City's development regulations." He said it may be true, but it is not our responsibility to worry about marketability. "Public health and safety and welfare should be promoted' He said he didn't see any support provided for that statement. • From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(i)(3) "The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. Analysis: The location of 1-90 adjacent to the site does not appear to be conducive to residential development or office uses since the land has sat vacant. Residential uses in the area have been converted to office or commercial uses while the remaining residential uses appear to be on the decline. Other commercial uses located in the area have been successful." He said he did not see any support for the statement. He said technically we could say the new owner is creating 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 the condition change. He continued, under the analysis it states "the site does not appear to be conducive to Office use since the land has sat vacant." He did not see any support for the reason for vacancy and wondered if vacancy is a justification for a zone change. • From the staff report(C)(1)(a)(ii)(3) "The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood and will likely promote the most appropriate use of property. Commercial development of this property will support the existing commercial uses in the area. Vacant property does not create a population base necessary for businesses to thrive." He said the neighborhood is currently zoned office, and it still has several residences, which are now zoned office,a new zone would not guarantee no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. • From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(ii)(4) "The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The land has sat vacant and it can be concluded that the property's current land use designation does not meet the desirable market criteria for office uses. The City has ample office designated land along the Argonne/Mullan, Pines, and Evergreen Corridors available for development or redevelopment. The proposed amendment should create a marketable piece of property that is more compatible with uses located in the vicinity." He said he did not think the City used vacancy as a criteria for change. • From the staff report (C)(2)(c) Compliance with Title 19 "The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; (staff analysis)As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare." He said he did not see any support for this statement and said there could be no change and there could be a negative change depending on what is developed on the property. • From the staff report (C)(2)(d) "The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; (staff analysis) The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable for the development of the property." He said he did not see any support for the need or appropriateness. • From the staff report (C)(2)(e) "The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way)to property of the same or higher zoning classification; (staff analysis) The property located north of the subject property has a Regional Commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Regional Commercial zoning designation. The subject property is adjacent to these properties over Nora Avenue and Interstate 90, both public rights-of-way. The subject property meets the requirement." He said there is right-of-way, which is Nora Avenue. He said what is across I-90 has no bearing on this rule, he saw nothing in the intent of a rule, of a public right-of-way being the plural of public-right- of-ways, as a touch. He stated he thought everyone understood public right-of-way went from one side of the street to the other. He said this was his opinion, and the way he read that rule. • From the staff report (C)(2)(f) "The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; (staff analysis) The amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a property that is currently vacant with little chance of redevelopment as currently zoned. The Community Commercial designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime freeway exposure." He said little chance of development was not supported with any needs. • Referring to the letter from Mr. James Cross (submitted at the public hearing), Paragraph #7 "To realize the highest and best use of this property, we request approval of the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance in order to allow the development of commercial use." He said he believed every owner desired to use their property to the highest and best use,but he did not think it was the City's responsibility to make decisions based on that factor. 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 • He said in addressing the letter from Witherspoon Kelly (also submitted at the public hearing), many of the items have been addressed but it refers to the NAI Black study (also submitted at that public hearing) regarding the averaging of office vacancies in the Spokane Valley. He said the discussion was about vacant office property and he didn't see anywhere in the report a discussion of vacant office property. He said it would have been a great report if it would have compared vacant office zoned property to commercial zoned property. The report talked about office floor space and vacant office floor space. • From Mr. Schwartz's Letter, "Section D, Considerations. The following legal principals are offered for your consideration. 'We also recognize that although zoning applies a degree of permanency, municipal authorities must be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances which juste revision of existing zoning classifications. Otherwise, the outdated land use restrictions may become unreasonable and refusal to amend or modify zoning ordinance could result in arbitrary and unreasonable conduct.' Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn2d 786, 480 P.2d 368 (1966)" He said the threat was understood but he would counter that changing the zoning would allow all other vacant property owners to bring the same threat if we didn't rezone their property also. He said he did not have any fear of not approving this rezone as a problem for the City. He said based on the rules for making Comprehensive Plan amendments, he did not see the necessary requirements had been met. With the change we would be injecting a new zone between Office zones, which consist of office and residential uses. With this change we would be allowing all uses which are allowed under the Community Commercial zone,not one specific use which may exist in harmony with its neighbors. He did not know what the past zoning for the area was, but because we are considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a code text amendment, he could support the change. Commissioner Scott said she looked up the land use for adjacent when using an eight-lane freeway and then Nora Avenue as an adjacent right-of-way. She said the definition said 'the two objects would not be widely separated' and she said the land use definition said having a `common border.' She said one was on the Interstate and one was on Nora, without it, you lose the connection for the higher zoning on the other side. She has observed in the Comprehensive Plan and on the maps, Community Commercial is generally located along arterials or the intersections of arterials. She commented, 'you could do all the roadwork you wanted' but she did not think Nora would ever qualify as an arterial. She said to her, changing these parcels in the zone could be considered 'spot zoning' without the other supporting criteria. She said she believed the residential zoning was in place under Spokane County, stayed the same when the City incorporated but changed to Office when the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow asked where Commissioner Scott had gotten the definitions of`adjacent.' Commissioner Scott said she had gone to Black's Law,which had been cited in the letter from Mr. Schwartz. She said it goes further to state `laying near, or close to, but not actually touching.' She said it goes further on to say the difference between adjacent and adjoining is the former applies to "two objects which are not widely separated." Ms. Barlow said it sounded like a viable definition however, she would direct the Commission to the definition staff is using,which is in the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5). Using the City's definition is how this property is able to meet the criteria, because it is contiguous, and the definition in the Municipal Code specifically states that adjacent includes public right-of-way. Ms. Barlow stated staff had conferred with the City's legal counsel to confirm it was appropriate to be able to use both right-of ways as contiguous. Ms. Barlow also spoke to the character of changing neighborhoods and residential uses in transitioning neighborhoods. Mr. Driskell commented he did not know if there were two contiguous rights-of-way or it is shown as one right-of-way which was wider than most but was still right-of- way. The legal interpretation is this meets the criteria set forth in the SVMC as adjacent. He also cautioned the Commissioners about using legal terms such as `spot-zoning' because this does not meet the legal requirements of a 'spot zone' and did not apply in this case. Commissioner Anderson 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 asked if the separate ownership would make a difference in classifying them as two separate rights- of-way. Mr. Driskell responded he did not think the code contemplated different ownership, but regardless there was no intervening use between them. Commissioner Stoy clarified the Regional Commercial across the right-of-way,was a higher intensity commercial use, allowed larger scale commercial uses than the Community Commercial being proposed. The request is for a less intense use than Regional Commercial. Commissioner Phillips said he came ready to support the amendment. He said Mr. Anderson made some valid points. He disagreed with staff that going across two separate right-of-ways is adjacent or concurrent to, but he was still willing to support it so hopefully there would be more development in the valley rather than vacant lots just sitting there. Commissioner Wood said he would like to see the property develop and have some use. The (for sale) signs are lined up along there. Steinway has semi trucks to haul things in and out of their parking lot. He said the road has good access in his opinion. He would like to see the City develop more businesses along the freeway, (the proposed use) would seem appropriate to him. The amendment seemed practical,new business energizes the community. He said whenever possible we should support these businesses. He was supporting the motion. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission their options were to recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend an amendment. If an amendment is the recommendation, a new public hearing date would need to be set. Mr. Driskell confirmed these were the options. Ms. Horton reminded the Commission they had a motion on the floor, to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0001 to the City Council. The Chair then called for the vote. The vote on the motion by a show of hands was three in favor, Commissioners Phillips, Stoy and Wood. Three against: Commissioners Anderson, Graham, Scott. The motion fails. The amendment moves forward with no recommendation. Staff will return at the Feb. 26, 2015 meeting with the Findings of Fact for the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Commissioner Kelley then returned to the dais. Study Session: CTA-2015-0001 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal (SVMC)19.40.150(C)Animal Keeping: Planner Micki Harnois explained to the Commission the City is proposing to change SVMC 19.40.150(C) animal keeping regulations by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminologies to keep in line with the rest of the code and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Ms. Harnois stated a nutria, also known as a Coypu or a river rat, is classified as an invasive aquatic animal species and it is prohibited to keep them in this state. Currently the code also allows for the keeping of nutria, so they needed to be struck from the City's code. Ms. Harnois explained beekeeping is becoming a popular home hobby and industry. Currently the SVMC allows a maximum of 25 hives only on lots 40,000 square feet or larger. The proposed language would require the number of hives be limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area. Beehives are to be located a minimum of five feet from side and rear property lines and twenty feet from front or flanking street property lines. A six foot high flyaway barrier, which forces the bees to fly up and away, and an adequate supply of water for the bees will need to be located close to each colony. Planning Commission Training: Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act,Appearance of Fairness Doctrine: Mr. Driskell and Mr. Lamb gave the Planning Commission an extensive training session regarding the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act, and Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. They explained how and when to use the City email system, how to guard their personal emails systems, 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 what a serial meeting is, how to handle conflicts of interest, what an open meeting is, and how to avoid the problems of perceived meetings which are not held in public. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Scott asked for clarification for the difference between findings and conclusions in the staff report and the Planning Commission findings. Ms.Barlow explained the findings in the staff report supported the analysis staff did on the proposed amendment. After the Planning Commission conducts its hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact support the decision the Planning Commission made regarding the subject. The two could be similar but are not going to be the same,because they support two different processes of the procedure. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary .,11s141 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 26,2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150, Animal Raising and Keeping by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Staff has encountered recent interest to change the SVMC beekeeping regulations. The SVMC currently prohibits beekeeping on lots less than 40,000 square feet which creates an unnecessary obstacle for hobby beekeeping. Staff has researched beekeeping and determined that with practical measures prescribed that include setbacks,fly away barriers and source of water,beekeeping activities can be compatible in urban neighborhoods. Additional changes included in the code text amendment will correct inconsistency with state law and minor text clarifications.WAC 220-1290 identifies nutria as a prohibited aquatic animal species and the keeping of nutria is proposed to be eliminated.A review of SVMC has shown that various terminology must be clarified. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this amendment on February 12,2015. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was sent to the Spokane Valley News Herald for publishing on January 30,2015 and February 6,2015.Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F)provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s)must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of CTA-2015-0001 to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois-Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-2015-0001 B. Proposed SVMC Revisions C. Presentation COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spolkane 4.00Valley' STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2015-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE:February 13, 2015 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 26, 2015,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150, Animal raising and keeping by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions,and SVMC 19.30.040 Development regulation text amendments.. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the clarification of terminology,prohibit the keeping of nutria and add beekeeping requirements. STAFF PLANNER:Micki Harnois,Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.40.150 Animal Raising and Keeping A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 30,2015 and February 6,2015 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: February 11,2015 SEPA Checklist Routed for comments January 27,2015 DNS issued February 13,2015 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.40.150. The intent is to allow beehives on smaller lots with additional safety measures required that include flyaway barriers, setbacks of hives,and a continuous source of water to be located on the property. This will encourage beekeeping as a productive hobby and help to contribute to the trend of urban agriculture. The regulations were proposed after a review of beekeeping issues and state and local regulations. Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2015-0001 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment will allow reasonable opportunity for an urban agricultural activity while protecting adjacent property owners from adverse impact, does not affect the character of the neighborhood, and maintains a flexible and consistent regulatory environment. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Policy -1.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Policy -13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Goal G-2 Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Policy-2.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Neighborhood Policy-2.4 Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. Neighborhood Policy-2.6 Encourage community gardens in residential areas (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment establishes regulations that will reasonably protect adjacent property owners from adverse impacts of the beekeeping activity. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2015-0001 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was completed for CTA-2015-0001 consistent with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, recommends approval of the proposed amendment to add beekeeping requirements, clarify various terminology and prohibit the keeping of nutria. Page 3 of 3 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted,the keeping of poultry and livestock(excluding swine and chickens)is subject to the following conditions: A. The lot or tract shall must exceed 40,000 square feet in area; B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; PVC. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to,any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure,or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any dwelling habitation; E-D. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to, any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure,or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; E-E. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses,mules,donkeys,bovine,llama or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre;or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acres;or 3. Any equivalent combination of subsection(F)(1)and(F)(2)of this section; FT,F. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl(excluding chickens), including duck,turkey,goose or similar domesticated fowl,or rabbit,mink,nurtria, chinchilla or similar animal,may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition,a shed,coop,hutch or similar containment structure shall must be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl;and 14 . Structures,pens yards,enclosures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. EH. In residential areas,the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area,with a maximum of 25 birds allowed, 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibited; 3. Coops,hutches,or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line,five 5-feet from side and rear property lines,and 15 feet from flanking streets;-. 4. Coops,hutches,or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings occupied structures on neighboring properties and 5. All chickens shall must be rendered incapable of flight. I In residential areas,beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 12 pt 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Hanging: feet of lot area. 0.13",Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style: A,B,C,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left+ 2. Beehives shall be setback a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. [Formatted:List Paragraph 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level: consisting of a solid wall,solid fencing material,dense vegetation or 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+ combination thereof,that is parallel to the side or rear property lines and Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 1"+Indent at: P P Y ( ) 1.25" extends beyond the beehive(s)in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives;and 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. miw Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION �`T Planning Commission Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Hobby Beekeeping Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.40.150 (C) Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Purpose of Presentation 1) Overview of beekeeping code text amendment f i rof 2) Discuss miscellaneous proposed 1 itiff:oreags clarifications to animal raising and g i. t f keeping terminology :. w, 4 . 2 SOOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Overview Beekeeping Regulations Proposed Current • One beehive/4,356 gross square . 40,000 minimum lot size feet of lot area • Setbacks for hive(s): ' Up to 25 hives allowed — side and rear yard — minimum 5 feet — front and flanking - minimum 20 feet • 6' high flyaway barrier required • Constant source of water required ju COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION `T Proposed minimum lot area is 4,356 square feet • Supports hobby beekeeping activity • Regulating the number of hives minimizes potential conflict between people and honeybees • Approximately a maximum of 10 hives per acre SPokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Setbacks 5-20 feet Proposed Regulation Purpose of the Regulation • Setback from a side or rear • Helps lessen the fear factor yard property line is 5 feet of bee stings • Setback from the front or • Keeps bees out of sight flanking street is 20 feet • Helps avoid neighbor's concerns spokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A G �ivrsioN `r- Proposed safety measure— Flyaway barrier • Forces the bees' flight path above people's heads — avoids conflict between people and bees • Typical 6' high fence or shrubbery • Bees are out of sight-out of mind Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' iNG �ltialley DIVISION Proposed measure — Source of Water safety Regulation Regulation Purpose • Sources can be: pond, • Keeps bees on site fountain, flower pot or — If no water, bees will look for dripping faucet the nearest water source — continuous water on which could include beekeeper's property neighbor's pool or birdbath, • Recommendation : Place at e.g. least 20 feet away from — Honey bees need to collect hive water for pollination ju� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAmt Minor Text Amendments to Section 19.40. 150 (C) • Clarification of various terminology — shall vs must — dwelling vs habitation or occupied structures • Prohibiting the keeping of nutria — Prohibited by State Law CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ®old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Deliberations — CPA-2015- 0001 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission held a study session January 8, 2015, a Public Hearing on January 22, 2015, and deliberations on February 12, 2015. BACKGROUND: CPA-2015-0001 is a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Office (0) with and Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) Comprehensive Plan designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. The Planning Commission held a study session on this item on January 8th, 2015, and a public hearing on January 22nd, 2015. The Planning Commission deliberated on February 12th, 2015 and the vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. Therefore, pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(E)(3), the amendment is forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation either for or against approval. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Findings for CPA-2015-0001 1of1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2015 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-0001 February 26,2015 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1st of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1st, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the City received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, designated as CPA-2015-0001 and CPA-2015-0002. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. The two proposed amendments were considered concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H), the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2015-0001: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On December 15, 2014, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists, and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non- Significance (DNS) were issued for each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 12,2014. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On January 2, 2015, notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and the subject site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign,with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject site. 8. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). Planning Commission Findings-CPA-2015-0001 Page 1 of 2 9. On January 22, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2015-0001. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on February 12, 2015, and the vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission vote on CPA-2015-001 resulted in a tie. Therefore, pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(E)(3), the amendment is forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation either for or against approval. D. Recommendations: CPA-2015-0001 is forwarded with no recommendation from the Planning Commission either for or against approval. Approved this 26th day of February,2015. Joe Stoy,Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings-CPA-2015-0001 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ®old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings Comprehensive Plan Amendment—CPA-2015-0002 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission held a study session January 8, 2015 followed by a Public Hearing on January 22, 2015. BACKGROUND: CPA-2015-0002 is a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to a Mixed Use Center (MUC) land use designation with a Mixed Use Center(MUC) zoning classification. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CPA at the January 22, 2015 meeting. Following a staff presentation and public comment on the amendment the commission discussed the merits of the proposal. Three of the commissioners felt the amendment was inappropriate for the site based on potential negative impacts to the residential uses north and east of the site. Four commissioners felt the amendment was an appropriate extension of the mixed use center uses located east and south of the site. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, and the Commission voted 4 to 3 in favor of the motion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Findings for CPA-2015-0002 1of1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-0002 February 26,2015 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1St of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1st, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the City received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, designated as CPA-2015-0001 and CPA-2015-0002. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. The two proposed amendments were considered concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H), the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2015-0002: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On December 15,2014,the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists, and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non-Significance (DNS) were issued for each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 12,2014. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On January 2, 2015,notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and the subject site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign,with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject site. 8. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). 9. On January 22, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2015-0001. 10. The public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment may be served by the proposed amendment. A change to Mixed Use Center (MUC) would provide opportunities for a variety of uses to occur on the site. The allowed new uses are varied and include retail, office, storage, and multi-family residential. At Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2015-0002 Page 1 of 4 the time of development, improvements such as sidewalks and drainage facilities may be required. Development may also provide employment opportunity, increased housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self- storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic, or banks as examples. 11. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. b. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. c. Encourage the development of mixed use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle, and regional transit. d. Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. e. Cities required to plan under GMA shall ensure amendments to their comprehensive plans provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions. This shall include the accommodation of medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to growth. 12. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. Several single-family and duplex dwelling subdivisions have occurred north and east of the site. Substantial multi-family development has occurred west of the site with the construction of the River House apartments. Mission Avenue and Flora Road are designated minor arterial roadways and a round-about was constructed at their intersection. A large vacant MUC parcel is located south of the site,and a greenhouse operation occurs adjacent to the site. The site has been impacted by the increased traffic, construction, and commercial activity. These changing conditions combine to make the extension of the MUC zoning to the parcels reasonable and appropriate. 13. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 15. The proposed amendment and zone change would allow the construction of multi- family or commercial buildings to a height of up to 60 feet. Regulations such as relational height standards, setbacks, screening, and landscaping would address impacts from incompatible uses. Environmental impacts would be addressed at time of development and impacts not addressed by regulations would require mitigation prior to permit approval. 16. The proposed amendment and zone change have the potential to reduce open space if developed with buildings. However, this is privately owned property and development is allowed consistent with zoning regulations. The smaller lot located on the northwest corner of Mission and Flora consists of a residential home with an accessory building. The larger parcel consists of a residential home with an accessory building. Approximately two acres of the larger parcel are vacant and covered with natural vegetation. No effect on streams, lakes, or rivers is anticipated. 17. Commercial and multi-family development may have an impact on the adjacent residential uses. All development shall adhere to the development requirements contained in SVMC Title 22. Those requirements include Type I screening and 20 foot setbacks for any building on the site adjacent to a residential use or zone. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2015-0002 Page 2 of 4 Type 1 screening consists of a six-foot sight obscuring fence with a five-foot wide landscaped area vegetated with a combination of trees and shrubs that will reach at least six feet in height at maturity. The proposed amendment would be compatible with multi-family and commercial uses located west of the site. Several single- family residences lie adjacent to the site along the north boundary and across Flora Road from the site. Development requirements would serve to mitigate impacts to the single family uses, but the single family uses may experience visual and noise impacts from new development. 18. The site is located at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. Public transportation is not available to the site but is identified in the Spokane Transit Authority Comprehensive Plan as a future route. A Centennial Trail trailhead and Greenacres Park are both located near the site. The site is located within the Central Valley school district, and is within the Consolidated Irrigation District service area. 19. The change to MUC would provide opportunities for a variety of uses including retail, office, storage, and multi-family residential. Development may provide employment opportunity, increase housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self-storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic,or a bank. 20. As shown in Figure 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, 3.5% of the land in the City is designated MUC. The MUC designation is primarily located along the Indiana and Trent Avenue corridors. Over half(56%) of the MUC designated land is found in the six largest parcels. The property owners have requested the MUC designation in order to develop the property. 21. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment would not significantly increase population density and does not require population analysis. 22. The proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chapter 3—Transportation; and Chapter 7—Economic Development. C. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2015-0002. Proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2015-0002 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2015-0002. Approved this 26th day of February,2015. Joe Stoy, Chairman ATTEST Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2015-0002 Page 3 of 4 Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N/A AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Discussion with Spokane Transit Authority DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: STA is reviewing their current policies relative to bus stops. Kathleen Weinand, Transit Planner for STA, has requested to discuss this matter with the Commission to obtain input on the development of policy framework. She has provided materials for your review prior to the discussion. She will be present at the February 26 meeting. No action will be taken by the Commission—this is for discussion purposes only. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Memo—Kathleen Weinand,AICP,Transit Planner B. Bus Stop Policy Framework C. Bus Stop Environment Industry Best Practices Handout Spakar� nsit 328-RIDE•TTfeTra456-4327 www.spokanetransit.com memo Planning Department To: Spokane Valley Planning Commissioners From: Kathleen Weinand, AICP Transit Planner CC: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Re: Feb. 26, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item-Bus Stop Policy Framework Date 2/18/2015 STA is engaged in a project to address ongoing issues surrounding bus stop access, signs and poles, shelters, benches and other bus stop investments. The first phase of this process involves discussion with stakeholders to create a policy framework for better defined standards, policies, procedures and coordination with partner jurisdictions. Discussion will address questions such as: • What is important to the City of Spokane Valley in regard to these areas? • Should there be a shift from the current roles and responsibilities between STA and local jurisdictions for the installation, maintenance, and liability of signs and poles, benches, shelters and other stop investments? • Is there interest in allowing shelter advertising throughout the community? • What are the goals for the placement of shelters and benches? Are they different than what is currently expressed in STA's Comprehensive Plan? The possible product of this phase of the project is amendments to STA's Comprehensive Plan. Please find the attached selection of existing relevant policies from STA's Comprehensive Plan and a collection Bus Stop Area Industry Best Practices for your review. I look forward to your discussion and input on these matters. Please contact me at 509 325-6055 or kweinand@spokanetransit.com if you have any questions prior to the meeting. Thank you. Page I of STA Comprehensive Plan Policy Related to the Bus Stop Environment HP 7. Permanence HPT features permanence of investments. Regardless of mode, HPT should express to the customer through wayfinding, tactile enhancements at stations, or alignments that it will be available in the future. This permanence and definitiveness is also critical in directing those developing the built environment to focus new growth around transit. I 5upporl Successful infrastructure investments align with the mission, long-term goals, and long-range plan of a transit agency. To ensure that infrastructure investments are cost-effective, useful, and efficient, capital projects must support long-term agency objectives. Infrastructure built with the support of the transit agency's coordinated long-range vision is more likely to succeed than infrastructure built independent from system-wide goals. SI 4. Strategic Opportunism Transit agencies faced with free or low-cost capital opportunities should consider the long-term operating expenses to prevent those investments from becoming liabilities. On the surface, any free or inexpensive land/facility offered to the transit agency may seem too good to pass up. However, if it is not part of a long-range plan or a strategic opportunity to improve service, seemingly excellent development opportunities can become burdensome investments. Refusing donated/inexpensive capital may seem foolish, but it may prevent those projects from becoming an unnecessary strain on the transit agency's network and finances. 51-1.0 — Capital Investment Considerations Use the following list of considerations to help evaluate the benefits of proposed capital projects. Capital projects are required as a part of an assortment of services which are provided. STA does not have the resources to complete all of the capital projects identified. However, the following list of considerations help STA evaluate the benefits of each project. These considerations are in addition to the other policies in this plan. Consider the impacts on operational cost, STA staff requirements, speed and reliability of service, and how the project supports the transit network and system. • Impact to the Customer Experience Consider the impacts on ridership, customer comfort and usability of the system. 1 • Value Engineering/ Expected Lifetime Consider options which may increase durability, reduce maintenance needs and add value relative to the cost. Also consider the expected useful life span of the capital investment. • Impact to Safety and the Environment Consider the safety, environmental and other impacts related to how the project will impact the surroundings of employees and customers. SI-3.0 — Passenger Interface Components 3.1 Stops All STA bus stops shall feature signs with readable and accurate information. Transit stops are one of the most important pieces of the transit network and should be treated accordingly. They determine the access for the customers, so their placement, type, and branding should be carefully considered. 3.2 Benches STA shall work with local authorities to ensure that bus benches are placed properly, designed adequately, and serve the needs of customers sufficiently. Benches provide comfort for all types of passengers. Although local jurisdictions are responsible for the operations and maintenance of bus benches, coordination with STA increases the likelihood that everyone's needs are being met. Generally, STA recommends bench locations which meet one of the following criteria: 1) 10 or more weekday average boardings 2) Transfer point between two or more routes 3) Adjacent to ridership generator with a high percentage of riders with limited mobility .,.3 chaca!tPrS , n#1 wninitic The placement and maintenance of shelters or other weather cover for passenger waiting areas where appropriate shall be encouraged. STA shall work with local and regional jurisdictions to position bus shelters, awnings and other weather protection which can encourage ridership by protecting waiting patrons from adverse weather elements. Shelters also provide an appropriate location for posting important ridership information. Stops to have shelters funded by STA must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) 25 or more weekday average boardings 2) Transfer point between two or more routes 3) Adjacent to a ridership generator with a high percentage of riders with limited mobility 3.4 Lighting Stops, benches, and shelters shall have pedestrian-scale lighting whenever possible. 2 While any lighting enhances the safety and security of transit stops, System Infrastructure benches, and shelters, lighting designed specifically to illuminate the path of a pedestrian can do a better job than general street lights. 3.6 Pedestrian Infrastructure As funding allows, Spokane Transit may partner with local jurisdictions to improve pedestrian infrastructure in locations where there is a direct and tangible benefit to customers accessing a transit stop or other transit facility. The vast majority of STA's transit customers use public sidewalks to access transit stops. By allowing people to safely and efficiently reach their destination, pedestrian infrastructure plays a significant role in completing the transit network. STA supports efforts to improve and enhance pedestrian connections to its facilities. Financial contributions to such infrastructure should maximize transit benefit and grant opportunities and should be directly determined by Spokane Transit, and other jurisdictions or agencies. r F-1.3 Advertisi- STA shall pursue and permit advertising as a revenue opportunity consistent with jurisdictional and community standards. Advertising provides an important source of income for STA. However, the negative impacts of advertising on STA riders and other community members can be notable. STA should recognize this and ensure that the attempt to secure revenue does not negatively impact public perception or ridership. A if"' n,; ,l Prime irts-t- Integrate sustainability into facility design, construction, and demolition. The physical plant that supports the agency has a long term effect on the agency's ability to operate efficiently and represents an opportunity to conserve natural and financial resources. • Anticipate emerging requirements e.g., ADA. • Integrate sustainable design criteria into facility design and construction decisions. • Strive to achieve the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard for facilities. • Construct facilities to the highest defined energy conservation standard justified by net present value analysis of capital and forecast energy costs of at least 30 years. • Maximize use of recycled building materials. • Incorporate recycling (deconstruction practices) into the demolition of obsolete STA facilities. Title VT C'mmnlianres Sarcasm-wieli Transit Amcanitipc Sp*rvires Pnlir- Installation of transit amenities along bus routes are based on the number of passenger boardings at stops and stations along those routes with variances from this policy to support connectivity of routes and riders with limited mobility. 3 Bus Stop Environment Industry Best Practices Overall Bus Stop Environment Considerations • Connectivity -allows directness between origins and destinations Begin J SA. Curvilinear Sidewalk After i Sus Stop I a' 'I 1 Pedestrian I� r • Access 1l s l Provide Connection r # Through [7 v Gated 0' Landscaping with Land � �� Use ♦0 C II a • I Walled Stopig Cafforet unity Located in Grass ;+. Instal i Straigght Side+ralks E?f//) to Bus Stop 4 I DESIRABLE] UNDESIRABLE Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program • Transit System Performance • Customer Comfort • Effect on the Traffic Flow of Other Vehicles • Safety-freedom from risk& danger • Security- riders feeling of well being • Legibility-info provided is understandable • Quality-well built &well maintained • Universal Access -Design stops to meet the needs of all users. -ADA compliance where feasible. • Crime Prevention Though Environmental Design (CPTED) -Clear lines of sight -Graffiti resistant materials • Territoriality -Use design to enforce desirable actions -Vegetation to define pathways and access areas -Changes in pavement denoting bus stop area -Benches that deter laying down • Safe&Convenient Pedestrian Crossings i SpohaneTrarir New a Bus Stop Policy Framework-Industry Best Practices 1 February 4, 2015 • Standardization- results in less confusion for bus operators, passengers, and motorists. • Periodic Review of Bus Stop Conditions- recommended to ensure the safety of bus passengers. Shelters and Benches Industry Best Practices Selection of Shelter Locations Considerations • Average daily boardings • Proximity to major trip generators • Passenger transfer activity • Planned neighborhood improvements • Transit corridor marketing efforts • Equity among communities • Proximity of other nearby sheltered areas • Microclimates • Customer and community requests • Pedestrian traffic and demographic information • Traffic volume and circulation • Crime rate in area of the bus stop Shelter Design Considerations • Strength and durability of structure and materials • Resistance to weather conditions, graffiti, cutting, fire and other forms of vandalism • Consider potential greenhouse effect • External or internal lighting • Appropriateness of design for the neighborhood • ADA compliance for wheelchair accessibility • Accommodation of trash can • Semi-transparent enclosure that allows a coach operator to see inside the shelter Bench Design Considerations • Installed inside all standard shelters but also independent of shelters. • Should be placed facing the street • Materials chosen for strength &durability • Resistant to weather conditions, graffiti, cutting, fire & other vandalism • Appropriate design for the neighborhood • Placed on the back side of the sidewalk with space to allow pedestrians to pass • Should not conflict with ADA wheelchair accessibility and loading at the bus stop • Should be anchored to prevent unauthorized movement • Be easy to relocate to allow for route changes, street improvement projects, etc. a SpalaneTransir Bus Stop Policy Framework-Industry Best Practices 2 February 4, 2015 Adjacent On-Street Parking Industry Best Practices Remove adjacent on-street parking when stop is located or install curb extension or bump-out. Sidewalk _ � I I i I � - — . Sidewalk ■ Building Area Curb Extension Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program F�Spohaow a neTrat My iir Bus Stop Policy Framework-Industry Best Practices 3 February 4, 2015 Bus Stop Signs Industry Best Practices Bus Stop Signs • Clearly indicates the presence of transit service • Shape, color, reflectiveness should identify the area as a stop from a distance of 300-500 feet • Mounted on their own pole • Sign indicates where the front of the bus should be located at the stop FRONT OF BUS B 1J S II , D BUS STOP SIGN Best Practices Stop Information • Minimum -Phone#and website -Name or ID#of stop -Routes that serve the stop -Destinations of routes that serve the stop • To Encourage Casual & First-Timers -Fare info -Schedule -Real-time arrival info -Route map ( SpohaneHow a greatTraiir Bus Stop Policy Framework-Industry Best Practices 4 February 4, 2015