The URL can be used to link to this page

2015, 04-14 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PROCLAMATION: (1) Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day; (2) Money Smart Week PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of vouchers listed on April 14, 2015 Request for Council Action Form: $2,545,487.72 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31, 2015: $449,477.27 c. Approval of March 24, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes d. Approval of March 31, 2015 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2015-0001 - Christina Janssen [public comment] 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment 2015-0001 — Christina Janssen [public comment] 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2015-0002 — Marty Palaniuk [public comment] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment 2015-0002 — Marty Palaniuk [public comment] 6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-008 Additional Lodging Tax — Erik Lamb [public comment] Council Agenda 04-14-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 7. First Reading Ordinance 15-009 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings — Erik Lamb [public comment] 8. First Reading Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping — Lori Barlow [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: SRTMC Interlocal Agreement — Sean Messner [public comment] 10. Motion Consideration: CMAQ/TA Call for Projects — Steve Worley [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11. Gambling Tax — Mark Calhoun 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY: N/A CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetinj' Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2'1 and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 3rd and St'— Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 04-14-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 *Wane jValleym rottamation City of Spokane Valley, Washington Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day WHEREAS, The month of April is designated as National Child Abuse Prevention Month and Wednesday, April 22, 2015, is declared as Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day; and WHEREAS, Children whose parents or caregivers use drugs are at a higher risk for abuse and neglect, and are actually three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected; and WHEREAS, Over seventy percent of childhood neglect and abuse in our nation is directly tied to substance abuse; and WHEREAS, Expectant parents need to receive information about the effects that drugs and other substances have on their judgment and parenting abilities, as well as the effects that drugs and substances have on unborn babies; and WHEREAS, The statewide Washington Alliance for Drug Endangered Children (WADEC) along with its partner the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (GSSAC), invite all residents of Spokane Valley to participate in Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dean Grafos, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Councilmembers, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, April 22, 2015, as Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day for the City of Spokane Valley, and I urge all Spokane Valley citizens to honor this observance by valuing all children through our words and actions every day in every way we can. Dated this 14th day of April, 2014. Dean Grafos, Mayor' *dime jValley� WHEREAS, WHEREAS, rottamation Money Smart Week 1 11 Economic and financial literacy is necessary for people of Spokane Valley to be successful entrepreneurs, voters, students, families, and citizens; and Spokane Valley citizens can benefit from being empowered to idents and manage realistic financial goals and to make wise financial decisions to help them achieve their dreams; and WHEREAS, BankOn seeks to engage the 14,000 Spokane County citizens who are unbanked, and the 49,000 who are under -banked; and WHEREAS, Money Smart Week was created by the Federal Reserve Bank in 2002 and a coalition has been created for the greater Spokane community to advance education, financial literacy and community development; and WHEREAS, The CASH (Creating Assets, Savings and Hope) Coalition, representing individuals, non profits, businesses and community organizations, encourages Spokane Valley citizens to connect with mainstream financial institutions, enhance financial management skills, and actively participate in free financial education seminars and activities; and WHEREAS, The Spokane Valley Council is pleased to join Money Smart Week partners in celebrating a week designed to help consumers better manage their finances through the collaboration and coordinated effort of hundreds of organizations across this nation. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Dean Grafos, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim April 20 through 24, 2015, as Money Smart Week and I encourage citizens, local agencies, businesses and organizations to support and participate in community career and technical education programs to enhance the individual work skills and productivity. Dated this 14th day of April, 2015. Dean Grafos, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 03/18/2015 11; 5102, 5103, 5105, 5106; 34988 $ 71,012.82 03/20/2015 34989-35014 $ 102,455.19 03/20/2015 6070-6072 (-voided 35015) $ 393.00 03/23/2015 35016-35036 $ 122,970.10 03/26/2015 6073-6076 $ 621.50 03/26/2015 35037-35082; 325150195 $ 187,974.14 03/27/2015 35083-35100 $ 43,827.49 04/01/2015 35101-35106 $ 6,712.57 04/03/2015 35107-35138; 331150039 $ 1,724,060.80 04/03/2015 6-77-6081 $ 553.00 04/07/2015 5104, 5115-5118, 5124; 35139-35140 $ 284,907.11 GRAND TOTAL: $ 2,545,487.72 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101— Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civil Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301— REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/18/2015 3:16:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 11 3/20/2015 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN Ben59983 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 400.00 Total : 400.00 5102 3/20/2015 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben59985 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 30,284.56 Total : 30,284.56 5103 3/20/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben59987 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,185.67 Total : 31,185.67 5105 3/20/2015 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben59989 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,173.47 Total : 7,173.47 5106 3/20/2015 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben59991 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,172.35 Total : 1,172.35 34988 3/20/2015 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben59981 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 796.77 Total : 796.77 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 71,012.82 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 71,012.82 Page: 1 vchlist 03/20/2015 10: 09: 48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: L Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 34989 3/20/2015 004209 BERTRAND, LARRY ROBERT 34990 3/20/2015 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 34991 3/20/2015 000101 CDW-G 34992 3/20/2015 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 34993 3/20/2015 000743 CROWN MOVING CO INC 34994 3/20/2015 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 34995 3/20/2015 002920 DIRECTV INC 34996 3/20/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34997 3/20/2015 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 34998 3/20/2015 000917 GRAYBAR 34999 3/20/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 55191.0414 EXPENSE SZ07067 49244 09-10001-15 XJN75T5M5 25300163025 43437 FEB15 1042 FEB15 1148 977766919 288653 288654 289201 289202 289205 289206 Fund/Dept 303.000.206.595 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.518 001.013.000.513 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 Description/Account Amount EASEMENTAQUISTION CIP 0206 Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: IT MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE Total : Total : FINANCE RELOCATION MOVE Total : T10 -MST -296/B27160 - VENUE 11 P Total : CABLE SERVICE MAINTENANCE S Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FEBRUi GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS- FEDER Total : SUPPLIES: GENERAL Total : COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 1,012.00 1,012.00 12.93 12.93 1,441.30 1,441.30 73.91 73.91 6,222.50 6,222.50 1,335.85 1,335.85 56.99 56.99 34.85 34.85 3,455.68 7,000.00 10,455.68 26.14 26.14 26.48 3.96 101.82 66.05 275.70 28.81 Page: _ _1 vchlist 03/20/2015 10:09:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 -2-- Bank 2' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 34999 3/20/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 35000 3/20/2015 002964 HALME CONSTRUCTION 35001 3/20/2015 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 35002 3/20/2015 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 35003 3/20/2015 001987 JENKINS, ART 35004 3/20/2015 004210 JORDAN, BENNIE E 35005 3/20/2015 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 35006 3/20/2015 004208 NASH, ROY & DANA (Continued) 289207 289208 289213 289214 289228 289229 289238 289239 289331 289332 289367 PAY APP 3 600445010 600445011 600447223 EXPENSE EXPENSE 55191.0409 439 492 497 499 Fund/Dept 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.058.057.558 403.223.40.00 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.013.000.513 402.000.193.531 303.000.206.595 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 45103.0414 303.303.156.595 Description/Account Amount COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY•2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 COPIER COSTS FEBRUARY 2015 Total : RETAINAGE RELEASE Total : SCHEDULE 572DD016: 3/11-4/10/1° SCHEDULE 572D3651: 3/11-4/10/15 SCHEDULE 572DA494: 2/19-3/18/1E. Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EASEMENTAQUISTION CIP 0206 Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 241.36 39.23 87.83 19.45 248.78 28.46 13.99 9.86 402.39 21.76 3.80 1,619.73 32,812.54 32,812.54 745.84 830.28 839.80 2,415.92 369.91 369.91 195.32 195.32 1,579.00 1,579.00 253.50 1,092.00 2,230.40 398.20 3,974.10 PARCELAQUISTION FOR CIP 0156 22,736.00 Page: vchlist 03/20/2015 10:09:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 9 .3, Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35006 3/20/2015 004208 004208 NASH, ROY & DANA 35007 3/20/2015 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 35008 3/20/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 35009 35010 35011 35012 35013 (Continued) 22740 22742 758872938001 758873028001 758895273001 759317885001 759757507001 759759676001 3/20/2015 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING LLC, LIBERTY LA 2015 3/20/2015 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 3/20/2015 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3/20/2015 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3/20/2015 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 35014 3/20/2015 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 50312429 3550.231 3550.232 3258948926 3258948927 3258948928 3258948930 MARCH 2015 MARCH 2015 B Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.076.000.576 001.076.301.571 001.018.013.513 001.018.013.513 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.013.000.513 402.402.000.531 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : SENTINEL EPS QUARTERLY BILLIN SENTINEL IPS QUARTERLY BILLINI Total : SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC SUPPLIES: OPS SUPPLIES: OPS SUPPLIES: HR SUPPOLIES: HR Total : 2015 SUBSCRIPTION: M. JACKSON Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT FEBRUARY: Total : Total : Total : FILE COMPLAINT FILE COMPLAINT SUPPLIES: OPS SUPPLIES: COUNCIL/MANAGER SUPPLIES RETURN: CITY MANAGE SUPPLIES: CITY MANAGER Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET DARK FIBER LEASE Total : 22,736.00 1,197.00 1,197.00 2,394.00 26.59 27.10 33.89 -19.91 16.27 31.90 115.84 12.00 12.00 11,952.51 11,952.51 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 48.93 57.85 -57.85 107.10 156.03 560.73 409.41 970.14 26 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 102,455.19 vchlist 03/20/2015 10:18: OOAM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: j -4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount -.S Ie!_ NCE 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank PARKS REFUND 001 237.10.99 DAMACE DEP'OS1 CREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 Bank total : 210.00 vchlist 03/20/2015 10:18: OOAM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: —2 -- Bank Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6070 3/20/2015 004211 BREASTFEEDING COALITION OF WA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 213 52.00 Total : 52.00 6071 3/20/2015 004213 RICHLING, STEVE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUD 210.00 Total : 210.00 6072 3/20/2015 004214 WA VIRTUAL ACADEMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT AUDITORIUM 131.00 Total : 131.00 3 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 393.00 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist 03/23/2015 8:27:09AM Voucher List Page: 7 _1 - Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35016 3/23/2015 001081 ALSCO 35017 3/23/2015 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC LS PO 1582401 LSPO1588008 LSPO1593778 INV011481 35018 3/23/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9623561 9625538 S0102380 35019 35020 35021 35022 35023 35024 35025 35026 3/23/2015 003317 COEUR D' ALENE PRESS, SHOSHONE I\ 4285933 3/23/2015 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 3/23/2015 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3/23/2015 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 3/23/2015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 3/23/2015 004205 KIWANIS CLUB OF LIBERTY LAKE 3/23/2015 000193 3/23/2015 001860 109357 Feb 2015 Feb 2015 852018 03/09/2015 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC April 2015 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY G268398 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 101.043.000.542 Description/Account Amount FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MATS AT PRECINCT Total : JANITORIAL SERVICES: FEBRUAR Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : ADVERTISING FOR SUMMER CAMI Total : COFFEE SERVICES AT CENTERPL, Total : SUPPLIES: PW MAINTAND GEN G( Total : 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.090.000.518 001.016.000.521 Total : EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE Total : TICKET SALES FOR FATHER/DAUC Total : CITY HALL RENT Total : SUPPLIES AT PRECINCT Total : 20.39 20.39 20.39 61.17 2,501.87 2,501.87 157.87 284.91 20.63 463.41 305.00 305.00 20.70 20.70 124.54 124.54 166.00 166.00 147.49 147.49 11,270.00 11,270.00 35,511.52 35,511.52 84.26 84.26 Page: 7 vch list 03/23/2015 8:27:09AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: S Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35027 3/23/2015 002475 POST FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5542 35028 3/23/2015 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 10-627022 35029 3/23/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 35030 3/23/2015 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES 35031 3/23/2015 000854 SPW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5943178 6487111 6487278 March 2015 1510.02 35032 3/23/2015 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION, SOLUTI 150211173101 35033 3/23/2015 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2230 2235 35034 3/23/2015 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 35035 3/23/2015 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 35036 3/23/2015 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 59000257 8925542 8925543 8927597 8937869 Mar 2015 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.016.000.521 001.076.302.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 309.000.217.594 309.000.203.594 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.560 Description/Account Amount COMMUNITY BUSINESS FAIR Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS FEB 20 VANDALISM REPAIRS MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC" Total : SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: MA Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : ANSWERING SVC: CP SEA4590531 Total : 0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE 0203 - ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE Total : J389-1 TESTING DRINKING WATER Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 200.00 200.00 23.31 23.31 58,934.26 4,540.40 489.10 63,963.76 1,594.56 1,594.56 1,255.00 1,255.00 31.20 31.20 1,500.00 1,460.50 2,960.50 27.00 27.00 117.46 34.78 1,876.29 69.68 2,098.21 160.60 160.60 21 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 122,970.10 Page: vchlist 03/26/2015 3:38:42PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6073 3/28/2015 004212 AMICA INSURANCE PARKS REFUND 00123710.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 6074 3/28/2015 004218 BAGLEY, TINA PARKS REFUND 001.23710.98 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUr 210.00 Total: 210.00 6075 3/26/2015 004216 KING CHAPEL PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 213 52.00 Tota : 52.00 6076 3/28%2015 004217 NYVCHIK, MIROSLAVA PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 149.50 Total : 149.50 4 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 621.50 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 621.50 vchlist 03/26/2015 4:18:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: JO 1 -- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35037 3/26/2015 002543 AIR ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT & TOOLS 201148 35038 3/26/2015 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA EXPENSE 35039 3/26/2015 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 151016 35040 3/26/2015 002326 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS 35041 3/26/2015 001565 BERRETH THOMAS PRINTING 35042 3/26/2015 000322 CENTURYLINK 35043 3/26/2015 002077 COLVICO 35044 3/26/2015 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC 35045 3/26/2015 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 35046 3/26/2015 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 35047 3/26/2015 000686 DEPT OF LICENSING 35048 3/26/2015 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 248-105426-01 248-282171 248-284977 30344 MARCH 2015 145872 MARCH 2015 355043 568325 23201 0030712 RE-313-ATB50317055 RE-313-ATB50317057 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 311.000.220.595 Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES GENERAL 001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES GENERAL 001.032.000.543 PRINT SERVICES Total : Total : Total : 001.076.000.576 2015 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14 - Total : 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.543 001.032.000.543 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 POLE REPAIR SERVICE Total : COMMON AREA CHARGES MAINT Total : TRAFFIC SERVICES ON CALL CON Total : TOWER RENTAL APRIL Total : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER: J DIN( Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL & ILLUMINATION MAIN 3.31 3.31 20.70 20.70 354.41 354.41 35.86 138.70 36.85 211.41 298.93 298.93 474.19 474.19 2,043.25 2,043.25 182.71 182.71 1,895.40 1,895.40 206.07 206.07 116.00 116.00 21,804.22 11,784.66 Page: 10 vchlist 03/26/2015 4:18:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 ( a3' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35048 3/26/2015 000734 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION (Continued) 35049 3/26/2015 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST MARCH 2015 35050 3/26/2015 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 35051 3/26/2015 001926 FARR, SARAH 35052 3/26/2015 000106 FEDEX 35053 3/26/2015 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN 35054 3/26/2015 000007 GRAINGER 35055 3/26/2015 002568 GRANICUS INC 35056 3/26/2015 003362 INLAND GEAR 35057 3/26/2015 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC 35058 3/26/2015 003185 LAMB, ERIK 35059 3/26/2015 002956 LELAND TRAILER AND EQUIPMENT 35060 3/26/2015 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2-974-54929 EXPENSE 9683407705 9687978859 62844 20926 MARCH 2015 EXPENSE 36738 FEBRUARY 2015 Fund/Dept 001.076.304.575 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 001.018.014.514 001.032.000.543 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 101.000.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : POSTAGE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : SOFTWARE MAINT BROADCASTIN Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 2015 SPRING MEETING : M JACKSI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 1640259 33,588.88 40.00 40.00 395.75 90.08 485.83 72.45 72.45 5.53 5.53 20.70 20.70 173.05 3.96 177.01 719.59 719.59 41.78 41.78 40.00 40.00 47.33 47.33 34.68 34.68 410.82 Page: I ( �" vchlist 03/26/2015 4:18:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: )2„ -a-- Bank 3" Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35060 3/26/2015 002203 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 35061 3/26/2015 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 35062 3/26/2015 004197 NORTHWEST RADIATOR 35063 3/26/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. (Continued) 22792 35970 759508235001 760207101001 760496328001 760789721001 35064 3/26/2015 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER FEBRUARY 2015 35065 3/26/2015 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301-MR15 35066 3/26/2015 004173 POWDERTECH 35067 3/26/2015 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 35068 3/26/2015 002520 RWC GROUP 35069 3/26/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 101.000.000.542 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 Description/Account Amount Total : BARRACUDA MESSAGE ARCHIVEF Total : SUPPLIES PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 001.090.000.518 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 27904 101.000.000.542 SANDBLAST SERVICE 28002 101.000.000.542 SANDBLAST SERVICE Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : IN24006 001.090.000.594 COPIER FOR FINANCE IN24007 001.090.000.594 COPIER FOR PUBLIC WORKS Total : 2470N 2970N 3136N 3608N 3687N 3688N 3698N 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : 410.82 2,385.97 2,385.97 668.23 668.23 61.59 42.60 19.99 32.98 157.16 59,562.27 59,562.27 39.00 39.00 46.20 46.20 92.40 10,572.31 10,572.31 21,144.62 159.08 140.69 126.14 191.49 463.40 92.55 298.56 1,471.91 6514751 101.042.000.542 ON-CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC C 169.57 Page: —3' vchlist 03/26/2015 4:18:10PM Voucher List Page: P 3 4 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 35069 3/26/2015 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. (Continued) Total : 169.57 35070 3/26/2015 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 1611-1 35071 3/26/2015 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-729197 5-729745 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : 225.39 225.39 97.78 11.02 108.80 35072 3/26/2015 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS INVC067571 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 968.52 Total : 968.52 35073 3/26/2015 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY FEBRUARY 2015 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 926.64 Total : 926.64 35074 3/26/2015 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. PAY APP 6 311.223.40.00 RETAINAGE RELEASE 50,036.99 Total : 50,036.99 35075 3/26/2015 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 72357 001.018.016.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 140.00 Total : 140.00 35076 3/26/2015 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 843400 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION 274.31 Total : 274.31 35077 3/26/2015 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8040052531 101.000.000.542 SERVICE TIRE REPAIR 44.02 8040052731 101.000.000.542 SERVICE PLOW 800.03 8080033437 001.058.057.558 53667D: SERVICE 36.90 8080033687 001.058.057.558 38904D: SERVICE & REPAIR 557.58 Total : 1,438.53 35078 3/26/2015 001464 TW TELECOM 06904352 001.076.305.575 PHONE/INTERNET CITY HALL/ CEI` 1,247.16 Total : 1,247.16 35079 3/26/2015 003171 WESTERN TRAILERS SALES 88955L 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 625.57 Total : 625.57 35080 3/26/2015 002960 WICK, BEN EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 70.43 Page: i3 vchlist 03/26/2015 4:18:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: q Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35080 3/26/2015 002960 002960 WICK, BEN 35081 3/26/2015 001949 WILSON, SAYDEE 35082 3/26/2015 002651 WOODARD, ARNE (Continued) EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 325150195 3/25/2015 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY 63 47 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 47 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept 001.018.014.514 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : CRY WOLF CHARGES Total : Bank total : 187,974.14 Total vouchers : 187,974.14 70.43 305.52 305.52 38.36 81.28 119.64 4,304.53 4,304.53 Page: -I -5- vch|ist 03/27/205 12:33:4 ankcode: apbank Voucher Date Vendor wch r List Page: \5 „a-- invoice 35084 3/27/2015 000030 AVISTA 35085 3/27/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINE 196811-1 7484810000 February 2015 March 2015 SUPPLY IC 9828541 S0104487 35086 3/27/2015 001795 BRIDAL FESTIVAL 35087 3/27/2015 000705 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 35088 3/27/2015 000809 EVCO SOUND & ELECTRONICS 35089 3/27/2015 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 35090 3/27/2015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 35091 3/27/2015 000252 LOVVE'8BUSINESS ACCOUNT 35092 3/27/2015 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW 2015 35381 24051 109997 110090 856311 February 2015 CP M -3- O45 CP P 3-16-2015 Fund/ ept 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.070.300.576 101.042.000.542 881.070.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001D70.305.575 001.076.305.575 801.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 ADI -2015-0001 001.058.058.345 Description/Account mount RENTALS FOR CENTERPLACE Total : UTILITIES NOT ON MASTER UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AV|SlA UTILITIES: PW MASTERAVISTA Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C L|wENSERVICE AND SUPpLYATC Total : BRIDAL FESTIVAL REGISTRATION: T•ta : RECYCLING COLLECTION CP Total : SERVICE LABOR FOR CENTERPLP Total : COFFEE SERVICES AT CENTE PL COFFEE SERVICES AT CENTERPL Total : EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE � otal� OPERATING SUPPLIES: FINANCE/ Total : K4EDk\AoDPURCHASES EXPENSE AGENCY PRODUCTION & PLANNIN Total : 45.65 45.65 18.00 7,179.29 28,779.78 35,977.1,7 381.11 10.32 391.43 2,145.00 2,145.00 20.00 20.00 116.31 116.31 35.00 205.12 240.12 52.68 52.68 79.55 79.55 1,920.50 190.00 2,110.50 Page:BUILDING PERMIT REFUND 100.00 4~ }�� vchlist 03/27/2015 12:33:41P Voucher Last Spkane Valley age: )(co -2' ank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35093 3/27/2015 004215 004215 NELSON, JOHN E & CANDACE J (Continued) 35094 3/27/2015 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION INC. 2313041 35095 3/27/2015 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 35096 3/27/2015 001083 STANDAR r March 2015 March 2015 PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 52960 35097 3/27/2015 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS 35098 3/27/2015 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 35099 3/27/2015 001444 UNITED LABO'"TORIES 35100 3/27/2015 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 18 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 18 Vouchers in this report 12224569 481800 INV113413 8949891 8951678 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 escription/Account Amount Total : ANNUAL INSPECTDON OF WET SPF Total : WATER CHARGES: PW WATER CHARGES: PARKS Total : FEBRUARY 2015 MONTHLY MAINT Tots I: MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE: Total : NAME TAGS Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES AT PRECIS' ICT SUPPLIES AT PRECINCT Total : Bank total : 43,827.49 Total vouchers : 43,827.49 100.00 206.53 206.53 43.48 39.36 82.8x1 605.46 6 5.46 81.53 81.53 19.57 19,57 381.55 381.55 372.10 799.60 1,171.70 Page: ) Iv -2 " vchlist 04/01/2015 10:53:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: y 7 -a-- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35101 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 35102 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 35103 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 35104 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8573 March 2015 8565 March 2015 8565 March 2015 8565 March 2015 8565 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 8557 March 2015 35105 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8599 March 2015 8599 March 2015 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.013.000.513 OMNI HOTELS AND RESORTS Total : 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 101.000.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.517 106.000.000.537 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 NAT'L LEAGUE OF CITIES NAT'L LEAGUE OF CITIES SCRA SPALDING AUTO PARTS APWA IMSA RADIO SHACK ACCIS ACCIS VALLEY BOWL TROPHY DISPLAYS2GO Total : Total : GREATER SPOKANE INC GREATER SPOKANE INC TRAVELOCITY TRAVELOCITY CUPPAJOES CAFE CAPITAL DOME DELI SPOKANE INT'LAIRPORT RED LION INN THE GOVERNOR RED LION HOTEL RED LION HOTEL RED LION HOTEL GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP SUPER SHUTTLE Total : 1,813.68 1,813.68 685.00 190.00 36.40 -271.75 194.00 75.00 43.47 952.12 75.00 250.00 203.21 293.12 821.33 25.00 -25.00 279.60 275.60 272.76 10.77 15.00 12.38 221.16 283.91 261.38 247.76 30.00 26.00 1,936.32 001.076.305.575 FRED PRYOR CAREERTRACK 99.00 001.076.305.575 NEEC 65.00 Page: 1"7 -I-- vchlst 04/01/2015 10:53:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1S Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 35105 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 8599 March 2015 001.076.301.571 FIRST AID SUPPLIES ONLINE 8599 March 2015 001.016.000.521 HOME DEPOT 8599 March 2015 001.076.305.575 T AND A SUPPLY 8599 March 2015 001.076.305.575 THE EPSON STORE 8599 March 2015 001.016.000.521 FASTENERS INC 8599 March 2015 001.076.000.576 MOTION AUTO SUPPLY 8599 March 2015 001.076.305.575 GREAT WOLF LODGE 35106 4/1/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 8581 March 2015 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 6 Vouchers in this report Total : 229.30 18.11 44.45 99.00 27.57 9.77 130.89 723.09 001.058.055.558 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 56.50 001.058.051.558 INLAND NW PARTNERS 80.00 001.058.051.558 ICSC 135.00 001.058.057.558 PETERS HARDWARE 10.76 001.058.056.558 O'DOHERTY'S IRISH PUB 43.82 001.058.056.558 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 60.84 001.058.056.558 PIZZA RITA 39.11 001.058.050.558 NORFMA 40.00 Total : 466.03 Bank total : 6,712.57 Total vouchers : 6,712.57 vchlist 04/03/2015 1:01:49PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: ) 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35107 4/3/2015 000212 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC 35108 35109 35110 35111 35112 35113 35114 35115 4/3/2015 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 4/3/2015 004235 BRENT CHILD DDS APRIL 2015 APRIL 2015 15126 CRY WOLF 4/3/2015 004132 COBBLESTONE CATERING & EVENTS 1013 4/3/2015 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 4/3/2015 003624 DEHN, SHELLY 4/3/2015 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 4/3/2015 004232 DRISCOLL, DAVID & PATRICIA 4/3/2015 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC INC 35116 4/3/2015 004234 EPICURUS INC 35117 4/3/2015 004165 EXPRESS SERVICES INC 2721033015 EXPENSE MARCH 2015 CRY WOLF 91435 91485 91515 CRY WOLF 15528249-4 15552295-6 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.058.055.558 001.016.000.342 001.058.056.558 001.090.000.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.342 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.016.000.342 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 Description/Account Amount NOTARY RENEWAL: S. PASSMORE NOTARY RENEWAL C. BAINBRIDGI Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE Total : CATERING SERVICES: CD Total : DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION CITY !- Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE Total : EMPLOYMENT SERVICES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Total : 141.96 134.35 276.31 1,237.50 1,237.50 165.00 165.00 187.56 187.56 154.50 154.50 28.58 28.58 329.10 329.10 15.00 15.00 45.00 45.00 40.00 130.00 25.00 25.00 890.63 760.00 1,650.63 Page: vchlist 04/03/2015 1:01:49PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2O 2' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35118 4/3/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 35119 4/3/2015 000917 GRAYBAR 35120 4/3/2015 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 35121 4/3/2015 003177 GUTH, ERIC 35122 4/3/2015 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD 35123 4/3/2015 002684 HINSHAW, CARI 35124 4/3/2015 001944 LANCER LTD 35125 4/3/2015 003325 LEGAL BRIEFINGS FOR BUILDING 35126 4/3/2015 004230 MAN UP GRAPHICS LLC 35127 4/3/2015 004164 NETWORKS 2000 INC 35128 4/3/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 43522 43523 977951684 977961596 977974894 977988617 25024 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 0451812 15444063 CSV REFUND 18900 761388674001 761580179001 762345325001 762345326001 Fund/Dept 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.011.000.511 001.032.000.543 001.011.000.511 001.058.056.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.057.558 001.000.000.321 001.090.000.518 001.018.013.513 001.076.000.576 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: GENERAL CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES GENERA SUPPLIES: GENERAL Total : BUSINESS CONNECTIONS A. WOC Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : BUSINESS CARDS Total : RENEWAL BUILDING PERMITS LAV Total : CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND Total : HP CAREPACK RENEWALS SUPPLIES: HR SUPPLIES: CENTER PLACE SUPPLIES: FINANCE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 71.40 92.65 164.05 138.79 107.30 -135.27 71.74 182.56 30.00 30.00 78.53 78.53 92.00 92.00 63.25 63.25 114.95 114.95 99.49 99.49 13.00 13.00 2,340.16 Total : 2,340.16 62.88 97.25 4.12 6.29 Page: '%/C: vchlist 04/03/2015 1:01:49PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 21 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35128 4/3/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 35129 4/3/2015 004236 PARDUN PROPERTIES LLC 35130 4/3/2015 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 35131 4/3/2015 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 35132 4/3/2015 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 35133 4/3/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35134 4/3/2015 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 35135 4/3/2015 001250 SYTE NET SERVICES INC (Continued) 76234586001 762807393001 CRY WOLF Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.016.000.342 Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE Total : 26588 001.058.055.558 NAME PLATES 26679 001.011.000.511 NAME TAG 45102.0103 CIP 0166 42000114 51502570 3258948931 3258948932 3258948933 3258948934 3258948935 3258948936 3258948937 3258948938 3258948939 8208 35136 4/3/2015 004233 TIMBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CRY WOLF 303.303.166.595 303.303.166.595 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.090.000.518 001.016.000.342 ROW ACQUISITION CIP 0166 Total : Total : CLOSING COSTS 45102.0103 ROW Total : MARCH 2015 ANIMAL CONTROL SE FEBRUARY 2015 HOUSING INVOIC Total : SUPPLIES CREDIT: CD SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD SIUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: CD RELOCATE CABLE Total : Total : 35.36 63.13 269.03 660.00 660.00 86.42 16.09 102.51 22,705.00 22,705.00 614.45 614.45 20,496.17 117,234.00 137,730.17 -11.35 191.07 55.37 121.73 389.34 377.14 81.47 11.08 148.16 1,364.01 1,149.26 1,149.26 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE 165.00 Page: vchlist 04/03/2015 1:01:49PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 21 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35136 4/3/2015 004233 004233 TIMBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURI (Continued) 35137 4/3/2015 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9742482738 974613036 35138 4/3/2015 003592 WHEELING PARK COMMISSION, OGLEB CARTER03242015 331150039 3/31/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 33 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 33 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 9290200719 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount Total : MAR 2015 VERIZON CELL PHONES MAR 2015 WIRELESS DATA CARD Total : CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 230 165.00 1,136.20 400.12 1,536.32 2,631.88 Total : 2,631.88 MARCH LAW ENFORCEMENT CON Total : Bank total : 1,547,756.00 1,547,756.00 1,724,060.80 Total vouchers : 1,724,060.80 Page: 22 — . vchlist 04/03/2015 1:50:35PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 23 4 - Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6077 4/3/2015 004238 ABUSE RECOVERY MINISTRY SVCS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 110.00 Total : 110.00 6078 4/3/2015 002226 CENTRAL PREMIX PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 6079 4/3/2015 004237 HANSEN, TAMI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SMALL DINING 52.00 Total : 52.00 6080 4/3/2015 004240 MCNEILL, DIANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION SULLIVAN PARK S 136.00 Total : 136.00 6081 4/3/2015 004239 WESTBY, BRYAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 BILLING ERROR REFUND 45.00 Total : 45.00 5 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 553.00 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 553.00 Page: 23 --I— vchlist Voucher List 04/07/2015 3:24:37PM Spokane Valley Page: 2(-1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5104 4/3/2015 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben60215 001.018.016.518 PERS: PAYMENT 76,620.90 Total : 76,620.90 5115 4/3/2015 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben60217 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 33,081.80 Total : 33,081.80 5116 4/3/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben60219 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 35,930.30 Total : 35,930.30 5117 4/3/2015 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben60221 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,343.68 Total : 7,343.68 5118 4/3/2015 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben60223 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,172.35 Total: 1,172.35 5124 4/3/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben60232 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 963.57 Total : 963.57 35139 4/3/2015 000120 AWC 35140 4/3/2015 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben60209 Ben60230 Ben60211 403.231.16.00 001.231.16.00 303.231.21.00 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT Total: 116,505.41 10,708.99 127,214.40 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,580.11 Total : 2,580.11 8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 284,907.11 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 284,907.11 Page: vchlist Voucher List 04/07/2015 3:24:37PM Spokane Valley Page: Z5 -2-- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 04-14-2015 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending March 31, 2015 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 279,671.63 $ 5,475.00 $285,146.63 Benefits: $ 153,062.36 $ 11,268.28 $164,330.64 Total payroll $ 432,733.99 $ 16,743.28 $449,477.27 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember City Staff: Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Christina Janssen, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Prior to the invocation, Mayor Grafos announced that Council would hold an executive session at the end of tonight's meeting. In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Councilmember Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended the Health Board meeting where they continue examining the composition of the board as well as the Board's governing manual; and that he went to a STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting. Councilmember Pace: said he judged a Home School science fair; went to the Greater Valley Support Network meeting, the STA Board meeting, and the State of the County address. Councilmember Higgins: said he went to the Japanese American Citizens League annual get-together; said he and City Attorney Driskell testified in Olympia on the transportation bill, which he said will be explained further later by Mr. Driskell. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the State of the County address; as part of the Chamber of Commerce trip, he went to Olympia where the focus was on transportation projects, and said the Barker Grade Separation and Interchange are in the Senate package now; went to a Spokane Valley Business Association meeting which focused on transportation and said he gave a report on issues being addressed by the legislature. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy Mayor Woodard: as part of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, said concerning the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) applications, they found an additional $68,000 to go toward the sidewalks around Seth Woodard School, and said that recommendation was unanimously forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration. MAYOR'S REPORT: Reported that he attended the State of the County address; and went to the NE Mayor's Conference where they talked about the need for a transportation bill for the State. In that regard, he asked for Council support to submit the following proposed testimony and/or letter of support: "The City of Spokane Valley requests legislative action to address the need for increased transportation funding in the 2015 Legislative Session, including direct funding for local transportation needs. We all recognize that quality transportation infrastructure is an important aspect of economic development. Yet, local revenues simply cannot support the high cost of bridge and road construction projects. The City of Spokane Valley is supportive of the legislature's consideration of the transportation revenue package that includes Barker Road overpass. The Barker/State Route 290 (Trent) overpass would open up 500 acres of industrial property for development with a potential economic output of $2 Billion creating up to 9,800 new jobs in the state. Recognizing that state, county and city government in Washington all face the immense financial challenge of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, we support statewide measures to fund essential projects. The City of Spokane Valley is maximizing their local support for the Barker Overpass and we have committed a $2.9 million City match for this critical project. We are deeply appreciative of the past and present funding support from the State of Washington transportation programs and we offer our support as you consider transportation funding options to address statewide needs." City Manager Jackson said it has been our practice to sign in to support or not to support a bill; and said he recommends extending our support by providing the testimony as stated. There was Council discussion about the suggested testimony versus the actual transportation bill, and/or a letter of support, and it was ultimately determined that Council would support the testimony as stated. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Sandy Pavelich: said she represents residents of the Valley concerned about the Painted Hills Golf Course purchased by the Black Development Company; said she sent Council a notice that Black had sent to residents, and said residents are concerned about the environmental impact resulting from the floodplain and the consequence that might occur with the aquifer and wetlands in the Chester Creek watershed; said they are also concerned with increased traffic; said if there is another fire storm in the area, there is a concern about evacuating people in the area. Bob Race, Spokane Valley: he invited Council to a Kiwanis sponsored "Paint -A -Helmet" event April 25 at the Spokane Fair & Expo Center and he handed the Clerk a flyer advertising the event; on another topic, said he spent more than 40 years in the transportation industry and noticed that the Industrial Park in Spokane is full and there are no opportunities for development unless this Council fully supports the issue so there is an opportunity for funding the Barker Road Interchange; said railroad crossings will be closed in various areas so this is a vital interchange to compensate for that; said the project is supported by the Valley Business Association, Valley Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Club, and others and for those who choose not to support this he thinks there will be a major issue "come election time" with 9,800 jobs that don't happen because this Council has chosen not to support the issue. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Minin& Moratorium — Erik Lamb Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave a brief overview of the moratorium, and emphasized that this does not impact existing uses today; that after tonight's hearing and review of comments, this will be placed on a future Council agenda for consideration of approval of the Findings of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Director: said he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, mentioned and then read most of the Commissioners March 24, 2015 letter to Council, which in summary states that the County believes the current moratorium will have unintended consequences of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley, that it will significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction, and that it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley Road area, and they request Council either repeal the ordinance, or repeal it and in its place adopt chapter 14.260 of the Spokane County Code as this City's interim development regulation chapter. Mr. Peterson also included as an attachment to the letter, a copy of the County's Code Chapter 14.620, Mineral Lands. John Shogren, Central Pre -Mix: spoken in opposition to the moratorium; said he realizes this is temporary but it will lead to making it more difficult to run a business; said he noted this was not intended to impact existing businesses but said that is rarely the case as it will lead to more regulations and red tape; said he has over 300 employees and he feels this will financially damage his business; said a gravel pit and land use are not mutually exclusive in the long term. Paul Franz, Local General Manager for Central Pre -Mix: said the ordinance mentions that reclamation renders the land unusable for anything else; said he has picture that shows that is false; said mining is an interim use of a piece of land and it is very common to be reclaimed into useful property; said to say it destroys property permanently in incorrect; said the land doesn't go away and is still valuable and can be re -used; said this moratorium stops changes they were going to make. Juno McDonald, Licensed Professional Engineer: said she is the corporate environmental engineer for Central Pre -Mix; she disagreed that the moratorium does not affect existing operations; said they are often expected and required by the Department of Natural Resources to make updates, and under the moratorium would be in direct conflict with their permitting agency; she asked Council to repeal the moratorium and if not, their attorney will submit comments to hopefully be fully exempt. Stacy Bjordahl: Attorney speaking on behalf of CPM Development Corporation, which she said owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley; she submitted a letter explaining their position, which letter she said was previously submitted to legal counsel; said the Growth Management Act mandates that natural resource lands be preserved and protected, but the City's development regulations currently do not do that; said the City does not have a shortage of industrial land but rather has 80 years' worth of industrial land so the supply is not in jeopardy; said the sites are interim and will be reclaimed and are put to good use; said her letter suggests some amendments to the moratorium; and asks that the moratorium either be repealed or amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted. Lance Senter: said he is a recently retired exploration geologist and said the moratorium will hurt the City's economy as well as the economy of the surrounding area; said he is not a member of Central Pre- mix or any other industry, but speaks for himself as a private citizen; he knows the importance of using natural resources; said the land can be reclaimed; said this City advertises itself as being business friendly, but this seems contrary to that and he would like the moratorium repealed. There were no other public comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of vouchers listed on Mar 24, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $2,078,406.67 Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 15, 2015: $304,305.44 c. Approval of February 9, 2015 Council/County Special Joint Meeting Minutes d. Approval of March 10, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes e. Approval of March 17, 2015 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Christina Janssen, and Marty Palaniuk After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 15-006 adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA 2015-0001 and CPA 2015-0002, to a second reading. After Planner Janssen went through the proposed amendment as shown in her PowerPoint presentation, Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Stanley Schwartz, Attorney representing Applicant: he mentioned several documents included in the record and delivered to the Planning Commission: a letter from him to the Commissioners, a letter from the property owner, and a letter and study from NEI Black about surplus office space in Spokane Valley; he mentioned the Staff Report is favorable to this change, and that the proposal shows it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; said this is a unique site; his client was unable to attend tonight's meeting but will be here for the second reading; and he encouraged approval of the amendment to put the property to a higher and better use. There were no other comments for this proposed amendment. Planner Palaniuk then explained the second proposed amendment, a request to change the designation from Low Density Residential with a single-family residential zone classification, to a Mixed Use Center designation with a Mixed Use Center zone classification. Mr. Palaniuk noted the public comments which were received outside the public comment period, including a petition from twenty-five homeowners in opposition to the proposal, have tonight been distributed to Council. Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Joe House, Spokane Valley: said he lives around the corner on Montgomery and owns two properties on Flora Road; said developing this as mixed use is not good use of the land; that it needs a buffer between the existing houses and those that will be built; said he collected over 50 signatures from people in the neighborhood asking that this proposal be denied; said he hasn't spoken to anyone in that area in favor of this; and he submitted his letter and petition. Patricia Abraham: said she submitted this request on behalf of her mother and the next-door neighborhood; said she has lived in the community all her life and understands some of the concerns; said the original plan was to put in a senior citizen's mobile home development; but things have changed and now that doesn't seem to be a good fit; said she was left with the problem of what could be done with the property; said the proposal now is to put in a storage unit which she said, won't have a lot of traffic impact; said it could be used for storage of boats and RVs and for people who need to store things while looking for a home; said this is currently one of the only parcels left still zoned R3 and she is trying to maximize it; that it would create contiguous zoning, and properties around the area are either mixed use center, or R-4. In response to a question from Deputy Mayor Woodard about permitted uses of the property, Mr. Palaniuk said some permitted uses would be multi -family, offices, self-service storage, as well as others; said there could be a development up to 60' with retail on the bottom and some multi -family on top; it could include some retail, although that is fairly limited. Mr. Jackson suggested Council amend the motion to split the proposals into two ordinances for the second reading. It was then moved by Deputy Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to amend the motion to split the proposals into two ordinances for the second reading; and Council voted unanimously to approve the fully amended motion to advance Ordinance 15-006 adopting comprehensive Plan amendments CPA 2015-0001 and CPA 2015-002 to a second reading, and to split the ordinances at the second reading and to consider each independently. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendments — Christina Janssen, Marty Palaniuk After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance ordinance 15-007 adopting updates to the Official Zoning Map to a second reading, and to split the ordinances into two separate ordinances to be considered independently. Planner Palaniuk gave a brief overview of the proposed change. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-008 Additional Lodging Tax — Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 15-008, amending SVMC 3.20 to impose an additional special excise tax on the sale of lodging to be used for certain capital expenditures for tourism promotion purposes, to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the proposal, which is as a result from a recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC); and said if approved, the funds would be set aside as a capital reserve and would not be subject to appropriation by the LTAC and City as part of the annual distribution process until a project or plan for tourism facility was developed and proposed by the City. Mr. Lamb explained that such additional funds would be placed into a separate fund with the revenues from the additional 1.3% limited to acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the lodging tax as allowed and provided by law. Further, Mr. Lamb said in order to approve an additional tax, the municipality must provide a 45 - day period for the LTAC to comment, but as this recommendation was originally from the LTAC, if it is Council's desire to impose an increased tax, it could only do so after April 11, 2015. There was discussion about the use of the funds and Mr. Lamb explained that it must be a capital improvement; that there is reference to a sports venue but that is not limited to just sports, but it could be any capital improvement that would generate over -night stays at hotels; said the anticipated amount of extra funding is $330,000 a year. Councilmember Hafner said if these funds were kept for ten years, that would amount to over $3 million, and he asked if a soccer field would be an appropriate use and Mr. Lamb replied it would. The importance of a plan was also mentioned and Mr. Lamb explained that the state auditor has indicated this could not be used solely to develop a plan, but the revenues could be used for a tourism promotion plan of some sort to determine how best to spend the revenues within Spokane Valley. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Lee Cameron, Owner Spokane Hospitality and Mirabeau Park Hotel & Convention Center: said he brought two versions of the same support letter, with several different signatures; and another letter from the City of Spokane Valley Hotels expressing a willingness to increase the tax, but sharing some concerns; he said there is strong support on this proposal from the lodging community in Spokane Valley to invest in facilities; said a lot of funding goes outside the City, some comes back but much doesn't and we don't have a marketable tourism facility; he feels it is essential that dollars be in a dedicated fund for that purpose; said Council provided some direction and goals and he feels this proposal fits those well; he also noted that a blank signature doesn't mean a vote against this proposal, as many were out of town or had to seek corporate authorization. Jody Sanders: also mentioned the letter from the City of Spokane Valley hotels expressing some concerns; said they support raising the tax as a facility is needed in the valley; and that they look forward to working Council as this moves forward. Coleen Heinselman, Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT General Manager Spokane Valley Hampton Inn Suites: also voiced her support and said she feels it would be a great asset to get people here and stop sending them downtown. Andy Rooney, General Manager Mirabeau: said he supports the tourism of Spokane Valley and feels it will make it a very vibrant community and help in the long run. There were no further comments. Councilmember Wick said that the LTAC had some very deliberate discussion about this as there was a lot of confusion about the tax; and said he supports the motion and appreciates the Hotel Association gathering the signatures. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 6. Proposed Resolution 15-003 Amending 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution 15-003 adopting the 2015 amended TIP. Mr. Worley explained that this amends just the 2015 TIP by deleting projects that did not receive funding, and adding those projects that were not completed in 2014 and have been carried over to 2015. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: CMAQ Call for Projects Steve Worley [public commcnt] 8. Motion Consideration: City Hall Architectural Services Contract — Gabe Gallinger It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the design contract for the City Hall project to Architects West, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. Senior Engineer Gallinger explained that this proposal was before Council last week when a detailed description of the steps taken so far were explained; said staff recommends Architects West as the most qualified firm. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned an e-mail received from Dr. Philip Rudy expressing support of the plan and location for a new City Hall; and expressing some safety concerns concerning traffic. Each Councilmember received a copy of the e-mail. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. CMAQ/TA (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality and Transportation Alternatives) Call for Projects — Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that this has been moved to an administrative report rather than a motion, as after the materials were originally submitted for inclusion in the Council packet, staff met with and received more information from SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council). Mr. Worley explained that when this item was last discussed, some comments were made about the Pines Road underpass, to move that forward instead of the Sullivan Road Bridge Improvements as part of Bridging the Valley; that it was felt the Pines project would be better as a grade separation already exists at Sullivan; and that we should switch Appleway Trail from Pines to Evergreen, to Sullivan to Corbin. Mr. Worley said we don't know if we will get state funding for the Evergreen to Sullivan so it was suggested leaving that in, and if we find out before the end of April when the applications are due, that it got funded, then we could switch it out, and if it didn't get funding, we would stay with Evergreen to Sullivan, which would give us a complete trail from University to Sullivan Road. Concerning the Argonne Road Bridge over I-90, Mr. Worley said the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) determined that was a capacity -improvement project and not an air-quality project; said the corridor from Trent to Sprague is all three lanes and said staff tried to explain how much better traffic would flow and thereby reduce congestion and improve air quality, but the FHWA said that it was not eligible under the CMAQ so we have to remove that project. Further, Mr. Worley explained, in trying to Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT find another project to take its place, he said that corridor is our most congested corridor, so staff is struggling to find another area that has enough congestion to improve the air quality; said he hasn't found it yet but plans to come back in a week or so for another recommendation. Mr. Worley also noted that the Pines Road underpass is a very expensive project. Mr. Worley said that sidewalks were mentioned at the last meeting about why we are not doing more infills; and he said that SRTC is looking for a sidewalk connectivity project so perhaps the Safe Routes to School projects that were submitted in the past might work well for this, specifically Bowdish Road Sidewalk Project, 8th to 12, and 12th to the Elementary School; or as an alternative, perhaps we could look at streets in the areas around the Appleway Trail and try to identify streets that cross the trail, and then provide sidewalk connections from Sprague to 4th where the roads cross the trail. Mr. Worley said the drawback to that idea is those areas are not on the bike/pedestrian master plan, so the score would be reduced; therefore Bowdish might be the best alternative. Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wick both stated that perhaps this would be a good opportunity to look at the pedestrian/bike plan. After further discussion, Councilmembers they said felt the Bowdish Sidewalk project is important. It was noted this will likely return to Council in a few weeks. 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos: There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY: The (10) Department Monthly Reports; and (11) SRTMC Interlocal Agreement were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson briefly mentioned the Legislative Agenda and said we should know this week about the funding of Appleway Trail from Evergreen to Sullivan; he also stated that perhaps next week staff will give an update on some of the numerous marijuana bills; said our proposal regarding lien authority was increased to include a $5,000 cap but some of the other language was changed which he said could pose a problem as it limits the ability to declare special assessments over $5,000, which means that would limit all other cities as well; said he is working with Lobbyist Briahna Taylor on that issue. Mr. Jackson reminded Council of this Thursday's unveiling of the sculpture of the Dance of the Sun and Moon, which was donated to us from the Spokane Valley Arts Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately thirty minutes, and that action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:06 p.m. At approximately 8:14 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to authorize staff the City Manager, and the rest of the staff to execute necessary documents to settle Cingular vs Spokane Valley in the amount of $20, 077.34 Immediately thereafter, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington March 31, 2015 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Sean Messner, Traffic Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. 1. SRTMC (Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center) Interlocal — Sean Messner Senior Traffic Engineer Messner explained that we have been involved with the Regional Transportation Council for at least ten years; that it is a partnership that includes our City, Spokane County, Spokane City, WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), STA (Spokane Transit Authority), and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council). Mr. Messner said that the purpose of this agreement was to give us a regional management center to help monitor traffic cameras and help promote better flow of traffic; he said the proposed amendment continues our level of service for this year with no monetary change as the purpose of this amendment is to formalize WSDOT as the lead agency; he said the other terms of the agreement would continue moving forward with the status quo. Mr. Jackson added that the initial agreement was prior to our incorporation; that we started paying dues but the interlocal was never changed to include us; SRTC no longer operates as the lead so a new agreement was needed. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the sentence on page 4 of 5, "There is nothing restricting any agency from forming a new agreement for similar purposes as the SRTMC" and whether there are limited choices. Mr. Messner explained that does not limit choices; that the City of Spokane has their own traffic operating center and a direct link to SRTMC; that there is nothing preventing agencies from doing something similar, and said we would like to do that as well. There was some discussion about bringing cable into our building as well as a new city hall; of the opportunity to apply for CMAQ grants; and that ideally we would like to perform those functions that are occurring now at the TMC. Mr. Jackson said that we agreed to continue on an interim basis, there is no charge to us this year; that some entities want to maintain the regional aspect and that we need to look at what we get for what we pay; and again that this is an opportunity for everyone to look into this as it seems that in the future, it could be fairly economical as well as more convenient, for us to have this in-house. Mr. Messner said that this will be coming back to Council with one of two options: to continue with the SRTMC, or sign another interlocal agreement or another mechanism to dissolve our participation in the Council Study Session: 03-31-2015 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT SRTMC. Mr. Messner also explained that we would be looking at ownership of fiber as there are numerous components in those traffic signals, and not a lot of documentation of who owns what. Mr. Jackson said that since this is a one-year temporary agreement, and will need to be decided on in November, this gives us time to gather more information in order to make a decision. Council concurred that staff should bring this back at a future meeting. 2. University Overpass Study — Sean Messner Traffic Engineer Messner gave Council a briefing on the Overpass Study, said the study began a few years ago and it has turned out to be an extensive study with lots of data; said we are "coming down the final stretches of the study" as we try to determine where we might be in 2040; said there is no crossing in the study area and the bike/pedestrian plan shows a need for some form of crossing. He said the purpose of this study was to identify those deficiencies and to plan for the future; said the report is in the process of being finalized and will contain about 400 pages. Mr. Messner went over the Study's background and purpose, goals and objectives, area in question, existing levels of service and travel time, existing pedestrian and bike networks, showed the areas of existing transit, preliminary alternatives, and performance measures. He then explained some of the alternatives on Argonne, such as a new southbound lane, or a four- or six -lane diverging diamond, with the new southbound lane on Argonne as the preferred alternative for congestion relief. Mr. Messner also discussed congestion relief for Pines, and mentioned the preferred pedestrian/bicycle alternative for Montgomery Drive. Discussion included mention of the idea of a bridge for bicycle traffic only versus bicycles and automobiles; and projecting growth in neighborhoods like University or Painted Hills. Mr. Jackson said that tonight's agenda item is informational, and if we receive grant funding for a new southbound lane on Argonne, that would come to Council for approval; adding that Council could see more information later for the Pines area, but won't see more information on the University area for quite some time. 3. Marijuana Legislative Update — Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb stated that staff has been keeping close watch on several marijuana -related bills; that last January there were about eighteen proposed bills, but now there are a few less which is more a result of consolidation of bills rather than bills that have died. Mr. Lamb mentioned that the two primary bills are Senate Bill 5052 and House Bill 2136; that 5052 is the reconciliation of medical and recreational marijuana; he said he spoke with Lobbyist Briahna Taylor this morning and said there is so much change going on with these bills, that several of them change almost daily. He said the two bills are tied together and that 2136 is the revenue sharing bill; he said that Ms. Taylor said there is strong confidence in Olympia that 5052 will pass in some form. Mr. Lamb said that 5052 would eliminate collective gardens in a timed, phased -out approach with operations ceasing July 2016; but the collective gardens have been replaced with the cooperative, which was limited to four people but now can have up to ten with no restrictions of how the people cycle through; said they would have to register with the Liquor Control Board, with the big issue of where they can be located; originally they had to be twenty- five miles from a retail shop. He said the House wants it to one mile, and the Senate prefers fifteen miles. Mr. Lamb said the Department of Health would create standards while it focuses on the THC which is the hallucinate part, as well as the cannabidol, which is the medicinal part. Under bill 5052, Mr. Lamb explained, people between eighteen and twenty-one can enter to purchase, and qualified patients can get arrest protection by carrying some type of card to demonstrate patient status. Mr. Lamb said all that is tied to 2136, the revenue sharing part which will modify the existing tax to collect a 30% single tax at the retail level; which all boils down to very limited distribution. Mr. Lamb mentioned there was a proposal to change the definition of "public place" to tie it to the existing definition of public place in the title for liquor to make it clearer. Mr. Lamb mentioned that we have commented on 2136 and other bills to try to include language regarding private consumption lounges, but that has not yet been successful, although we are still trying. Mr. Lamb mentioned the idea Council Study Session: 03-31-2015 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT of providing more flexibility concerning the 1,000 -foot buffer, with some jurisdictions feeling that was too restrictive while others felt it needed more flexibility. The number of allowed plants to be grown at home was also mentioned, and Mr. Lamb said the idea of allowing everyone to grow up to six plants at their home appears to be a dead issue. He said the bill about purchasing by minors hasn't gone anywhere as legislators are trying to focus on the big picture for now. Mr. Lamb said this legislative session began January 12, and the last day of the regular session will be April 26. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos. There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 5. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos. Mayor Grafos mentioned that today is our City's twelfth birthday. 6. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said that concerning Senate Bill 5694 for our lien authority, the proposal has gone to the House Finance Committee and that they will take testimony beginning at 8:00 a.m. Friday, and that he and City Attorney Driskell are planning to attend and comment. Mr. Jackson said the House Finance Committee has concerns that our first lien authority might inhibit the ability to collect state property tax which primarily supports the schools, although Mr. Jackson said he doesn't think that it would be inhibiting; he said we will also have to straighten out the language about the combined assessment and lien authority cap as none of the cities would appreciate limiting the ability to impose a special assessment. Mr. Jackson said that Deputy City Manager Calhoun received an AWC (Association of Washington Cities) action alert and he tried to contact Lobbyist Briahna Taylor about the senate budget proposal to reduce revenue sharing for liquor to all cities of about $20 million, so over a two-year period, that would be a $400,000 reduction for our city; and said he would like for us to oppose that reduction if Council concurs. They all nodded in agreement. Concerning vaping lounges, Mr. Jackson said if we can't pass some restrictions for state control, we can come back and discuss the issue more with Council to see what we can do as a city; but said it seems the first thing would be to address consumption by minors or over -consumption by anyone. Mr. Jackson said the Liquor Control Board does not inspect premises since there is nothing in the laws about vaping lounges; therefore there are no rules or regulations for any agency to make sure there are no minors in those establishments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 03-31-2015 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Fl Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006: 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140, and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 24, 2015, the City Council agreed to bring the amendment forward for a second reading. BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1st to October 31st of the following year. Jim Cross and Rainy Day Dagator submitted a timely application for a site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. To maintain consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and its development regulations, the City Council will also consider zoning classification changes concurrently with the proposed comprehensive plan amendments under proposed Ordinance No. 15-007. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 8, 2015. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on January 22, 2015 and deliberated on February 12, 2015. Following deliberations CPA -2015-0001 was forward to Council with no recommendation as the Commission vote ended in a tie. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-006 which also included CPA -2015-0002. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0002. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-006 adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0001. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0001 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3) Draft Ordinance 15-006 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN CPA -2015-0001; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, consisting of the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and related maps (collectively, and as subsequently amended, the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A.130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based upon citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 06-010, has been amended by Ordinance No. 07-026, Ordinance No. 08-011, Ordinance No. 09-008, Ordinance No. 09- 039, Ordinance No. 10-007, Ordinance No. 11-001, Ordinance No. 11-007, Ordinance No. 11-009, Ordinance No. 12-014, Ordinance No. 12-018, Ordinance No. 13-008, and Ordinance 14-005; and WHEREAS, an application was submitted by the applicant or owner to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015-0001 and herein; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and Ordinance 15-006 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2015, the Commission continued deliberations and voted to forward CPA -2015-0001 to Council without a recommendation as the Commission vote resulted in a tie; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0001 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0002. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0001. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0001: 1. 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 November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in RCW 43.21C (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Ordinance 15-006 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 2 of 5 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the affected site. 10. On January 6, 2015, the site subject to a site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission voted to continue deliberations to the next meeting. 12. On February 12, 2015, the Commission continued deliberations and CPA -2015-0001 was forwarded to Council with no recommendation, as the Commission vote resulted in a tie. 13. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA -2015-0001 concurrently with CPA -2015-0002 to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendments. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 15. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The proposal meets the desirable size as outlined in the SVMC 19.060.050 and the location's visibility along the I-90 corridor lends itself to regional services and businesses. 16. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA chapter 36.70A RCW, and provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA—compliant Comprehensive Plan. 17. The proposed amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The site does not appear to be conducive to residential development or office uses as the site has sat vacant. Residential uses in the area appear to be on the decline and other commercial uses located in the area have been successful. 18. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 19. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 20. Commercial development on the south side of I-90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other businesses located in that corridor. The topography of the site provides a barrier between the multifamily development to the south and the City's development regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Ordinance 15-006 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 3 of 5 21. The proposal will likely promote the most appropriate use of the property. 22. The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment will provide additional development opportunities in an area with good visibility and which has been unable to prosper under the current land use designation. 23. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 24. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Goal LUG -4: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. 25. The proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 26. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public general health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (maps). File No. CPA -2015-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. Applicant: Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC, 7607 West Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Amendment Location: Parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146, 45104.9156 & 45104.9157 addressed as 13110, 13120, & 13220 E. Nora Avenue; generally located 1300 feet west of the intersection of Mamer Road and Nora Avenue; further located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Ordinance 15-006 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 4 of 5 Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scriveners errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Mayor, Dean Grafos Ordinance 15-006 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 5 of 5 Spokane .000Valley COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 15, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 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. Project Number: CPA -2015-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific comprehensive plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. Location: Parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146, 45104.9156 & 45104.9157 addressed as 13110, 13120 & 13220 E. Nora Avenue; generally located 1300 feet west of the intersection of Mamer Rd and Nora Avenue; further located in the SW '/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Applicant(s): Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC 7607 W. Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Owner(s): Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC 7607 W. Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Date of Application: October 29, 2014 Date Determined Complete: October 29, 2014 Staff Contact: Christina Janssen, Planner (509) 720-5333 christina.ianssen(aspokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Staff Report A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: CPA -2015-0001 Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 3.22 acres in size. The northern most 2/3 of the site is generally flat and covered with natural vegetation. South of this the site slopes upward at approximately 30% is covered with mature evergreen trees and other vegetation. Comprehensive Plan: Office (0) Zoning: Office (0) Existing Land Use: Three parcels are vacant and one parcel is being used for single family residential. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan — Regional Commercial (RC) Zoning — Regional Commercial (RC) Existing Land Uses —Nora Avenue, I-90 and Commercial South Comprehensive Plan — High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning — High Density Multifamily Residential district (MF -2) Existing Land Uses — Multifamily dwelling units East Comprehensive Plan — Office (0) Zoning — Office (0) Existing Land Uses — Commercial and Retail West Comprehensive Plan — Office (0) Zoning — Office (0) Existing Land Uses — Single family residential and professional office. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on December 12, 2014. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria Page 2 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that (analysis is italicized): (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 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. (2)The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 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. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded Page 3 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The integration of commercial development on the south side of Interstate 90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other businesses located in that corridor. The topography provides a natural barrier between a commercial designation and the multi family development located adjacent to the site at a significantly higher elevation. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of the submittal of any building permit applications, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. (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. (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. (5) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The amendment will have no impact on population density and does not demand population analysis. (6) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: Page 4 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 The proposed privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15 to 17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Community Commercial centers may be designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan amendments or through subarea planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency; As stated in previous analysis, future development of the site will be required to meet the concurrency standards at the time of building permit issuance. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. 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; The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable for the development of the property. 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; 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. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The surrounding land uses include multifamily residential, retail and office uses. The existing land uses are compatible with the proposed land use designation and zoning district. f. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; 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 Page 5 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime freeway exposure. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The community commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. 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. Community Commercial centers may be designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan amendments or through sub -area planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility. In addition, light assembly or other unobtrusive uses not traditionally located in commercial zones may be allowed with appropriate performance standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses or zoning districts. The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment will provide additional development opportunities in an area with good visibility and which has been unable to prosper under the current zoning designation. The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG -4: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan require that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. Page 6 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 The amendment is currently served with both public water and sewer. Nora Avenue and Maurer Road, both local access streets, provide roadway access and tie into Mission Avenue to the south and Pines Road to the west. Pines Road is a designated state roadway and Mission Avenue is a minor arterial road according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will provide public transit service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 7 of 7 Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 8, 2015 Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act and public records. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice Chair for the year 2015. Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway and the Old Mission Trailhead. Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road. Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility easements, none would be impacted. Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:29 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STV -2014-0001. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals. Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year extensions afterward. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes. Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Harnois confirmed as correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times when he needed the extra time to finish a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small, but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring. Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days. Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that evening for approval. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Maurer Rd. Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the Study Session began. Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however, the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder. She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for changes in general. Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW. The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of I-90 as a connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining how the ROW, and I-90, is used to reach the approval criteria. Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there. Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd. Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is located on two minor arterials. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at Flora Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area. Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the same. Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions. Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening, there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment, and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety, welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself. Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different way. Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would be attached to the findings as part of the record. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton ON: cn=Deanna Horton, o=City of Spokane Deanna Horton Valley, ou=Community Development, email=dhorton@spokanevalley.org, c=US Da t e: 2015.02041137:05 -08'00' Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 22, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Martin Palaniuk, Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and walkable urbanism. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without bias and stayed on the dais. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, ID. Mr. Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not appropriate for residential. Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr. Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr. Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future. Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes. The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC 19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office. Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr. Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it was just "office buildings" in the study. Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr. Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant office square footage within office buildings. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there for some time, so they were marketing the property. Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was not aware of other property along the freeway. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015- 0001 at 6:53 p.m. Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd. Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission Avenue is also considered a minor arterial. Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr. Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores. Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria before it could be sited. Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr. Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed. Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex. Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being proposed. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner. Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to test Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject properties, which were located for him. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open- minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr. House would not be able to comments. Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001: Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not be any action necessary. Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use. Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here and the deadline for making requests is November 1st of each year. He felt the suggestion would qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year. Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001. Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision. He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001. As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion. Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15 meeting. Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information. Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have the opportunity to review new material. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed Discussion for CPA -2015-0002: The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it (Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them (the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road, but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential, would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet. Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in the future. This is where he finds his difficulty. Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr. Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone, it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where there is already that traffic passing by. Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Bariow's suggestion to some point, except part of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the same person who owns the large parcel in the request. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property. Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property. She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west. As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA. Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell. Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it. Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being proposed. Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV -2014-0001: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact. She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01- 08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right- of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend in their final action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was seven to zero, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 12, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Micki Harnois, Planner 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 I-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 1-90 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 modem 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 not 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 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Comprehensive Plan Map CPA -2015-00011 CPA -2015-0001 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from 0 to C; subsequent zoning change from 0 to C. W I T H E R S P O O N •KELLEY SPOKANE 1 COEUR D'ALENE Attorneys & Counselors Stanley M. Schwartz Admitted in Washington & Idaho email: sms@witherspoonkelley.com January 22, 2015 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission City of Spokane Valley Valley Redwood Plaza Building 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 101 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Re: CA -2015-001 Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC (Applicant) Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of the applicant, Jim Cross, and Rainyday Dagator, LLC, in support of the requested comprehensive plan map and zone change map from Office (0) to Community Commercial (C). Mr. Cross and his company, Rainyday Dagator, LLC, are the owners of property which is located at 13110, 13120, and 13220 E. Nora Avenue, approximately 1300 feet west of Mamer Road ("Subject Property"). Background A. Property Characteristics. The property is adjacent to Nora Avenue, which borders the I- 90 right-of-way corridor. As you know, this portion of I-90 is a controlled access, multi -lane, high speed, high capacity roadway intended exclusively for motorized traffic. City Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.2.2. Suffice it to say the Subject Property experiences continuous noise, light, and other related affects. To the east of the property the existing land uses are commercial and retail, and to the west there are some remaining single family residential properties and various office uses. B. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The City Staff Report acknowledges the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is consistent with the area requirement and "the amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant comprehensive plan." Staff Report, p. 3. With regard to a "change in conditions," staff concludes that the subject property "does not appear to be conducive to residential development or office uses since the land has sat vacant." There is a conclusion that other commercial uses in the area have been successful. Id. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 www.witherspoonkelley.com Tel: 509.624.5265 Fax: 509.458.2728 S1110092.DOCX January 22, 2015 Page 2 In further support of the above analysis, we are submitting a letter from James Cross, President, Lyle Pearson Motor Cars, dated January 16, 2015. Mr. Cross discusses the request for this land use change given the property's excellent visibility from I-90 and the fact that it is surrounded by, and adjacent to, commercial developments that are easy to locate for residents and visitors. Accompanying Mr. Cross's letter is a January 16, 2015, letter from Jeff K. Johnson, President, Black Commercial, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. Mr. Johnson attaches the fall 2013 and fall 2014 surveys of available suburban office space in Spokane Valley as well as the 2014 Greater Spokane Market Report. Suffice it to say, the Spokane Valley is averaging an office vacancy rate that has fluctuated between 18.32% and 21.56%. Mr. Johnson believes that a healthy and fairly valued office market would have a vacancy rate of between 8-10%. The Staff Report makes the following points. • . "Integration of commercial development on the south side of Interstate 90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other businesses located in that corridor." Staff Report, p. 4. • The "site specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood and would likely promote the most appropriate use of the property. Commercial development of this property will support existing commercial uses in the area." Staff Report, p. 4. • "Mt can be concluded that the property's land use designation does not meet the desirable market criteria for office uses." Staff Report, p. 4. The Applicant agrees with the above points. C. City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code. With regard to the Zoning Code, two criteria should be discussed. First, whether the property is adjacent and contiguous to property of the same or higher zoning classifications, and second, whether the comprehensive plan map amendment has value for the community. Staff Report, p. 5. The Zoning Code mentions that adjacent and contiguous" includes "corner touches and property located across a public right-of- way." Clearly, this property is adjacent to property across a public right-of-way by virtue of the existence of Nora Avenue and I-90. Black's Law Dictionary (9t Addition, 2009) defines "adjacent" as "lying near or close to, but not necessary touching." Legally, the understanding set forth in the City Zoning Code is consistent with Black's legal definition. The final point is related to the future use of the Subject Property. Staff wrote: (a) the amendment would "provide opportunity to redevelop a property that is currently vacant with little chance for redevelopment as currently zoned" and (b) "the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding comprehensive plan amendments." Staff Report, p. 6. January 22, 2015 Page 3 D. Considerations. The following legal principals are offered for your consideration. • The adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and "zoning is a discretionary exercise of police power by legislative authority." Lillions v. Gibbs, 47 Wn.2d 629, 289 P.2d 203 (1955). a "Courts will not review, except for manifest abuse, the exercise of legislative discretion." State XEX REO Smilanich v. McColum, 62 Wn.2d 602, 384 P.2d 358 (1963). • Manifest abuse of discretion involves arbitrary and capricious conduct. Such conduct is defined to be without consideration and in disregard of the facts." State ex rel Lopez - Pacheco v. Jones, 66 Wn.2d 199, 401 P.2d 841 (1965). • "We also recognize that although zoning applies a degree of permanency, municipal authorities must be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances which justify revision of existing zoning classifications. Otherwise, the outdated land use restrictions may become unreasonable and refusal to amend or modify zoning ordinances could result in arbitrary and unreasonable conduct." Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn.2d 786, 480 P.2d 368 (1966). Conclusion We are aware that the Subject Property carries with it the comprehensive plan map and zoning designation that was applied in 2006. It is apparent, given the underutilization of this and some surrounding properties, as well as, the high office vacancy rate that the office designation is not allowing the property to achieve its highest and best use. The present conditions relating to the development of surrounding uses, the office vacancy rates and the continued development along this segment of the I-90 corridor are important factors warranting this land use change. The Applicant respectfully requests that its application to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map be approved to allow the establishment of "Community Commercial." Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, WITHERSPOON • KELLEY Stan`iley M. Schwartz SMS/kh JAGUAR January 16, 2015 City of Spokane Valley To whom it may concern: AtD ROVE 'VOLVO Re: Property Located at 13110, 13120, and 13220 E. Nora Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA File No. CPA -2015-001 On behalf of my company, Rainyday Dagator, LLC, I am submitting this letter in support of the request for a site specific Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing the present office space land use designation to a community commercial designation with associated zoning. Background. 1 am one of the owners of two dealerships that sell high end motor vehicles such as Mercedes- Benz, Volvo, Land Rover, Acura, and Porsche. We have dealerships in Spokane and Boise, Idaho. As you can appreciate, these high quality motor vehicles serve individuals that desire to drive a premium automobile for business and pleasure purposes. We find that our customers specifically search for our dealerships in order to purchase our cars. We believe this is a somewhat specialized motor vehicle market. Prior to purchasing the above property, I investigated the Spokane market and found that the above location provided excellent visibility from I-90, contained good access and was surrounded by, and adjacent to, commercial developments that were well known or easy to locate for residents and visitors. I believe the location of this property will support the development of a high end vehicle dealership that will serve as a destination for many purchasers. I also believe there is a demand for this type of auto dealership adjacent to the 1-90 corridor and the regional commercial development. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change We have acquired four parcels of property on East Nora Avenue, which is approximately three blocks east of the Pines Road interchange. Two parcels contain a residential structure, with the remainder of the property vacant. Historically, the property has been zoned residential with the present office zoning being in existence for the past nine years. Little has changed in this area. LYI E PEARSON PREMIER MOTOR CARS ISI 106060; 1 1 1310 W. 3rd Avenue • Spokane, WA 99201 • 509.892.9200 • 1.888.337.1155 • Fax 509.242.1983 JAGUAR VOLVO The NAI Black reports show the City of Spokane Valley has a surplus of office space. On the other hand, there is a continued demand for commercial space given the growth opportunities presented by the City of Spokane Valley. I am seeking a modification of the Comprehensive Plan designation and its intended zoning to "community commercial." This will allow the property to be redeveloped for commercial uses, which is consistent with the adjacent property and surrounding uses. I am also confident that this redevelopment will create additional employment opportunities and enhance the sales tax revenues for the City. Conclusion. 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 alow the development of commercial use. We recognize that there will be further requirements associated with permit applications and will be prepared to develop our site and the associated infrastructure in a manner that conforms to the City's requirements. Thank you for your consideration. ry truly yours, James ross President Lyle Pearson Premier Motor Cars LYLE PEARSON PREMIER MOTOR CARS 1S1106060; 1 } 1310 W. 3rd Avenue • Spokane, WA 99201 • 509.892.9200 • 1.888.337.1155 • Fax 509.242.1983 (Vote: The full report is available upon request to City Staff) NAI Commercial Real Estate Services, Worldwide. January 16, 2015 Stanley M. Schwartz Witherspoon Kelley 422 West Riverside Ave., Suite 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: NAI lack Fall 2013 and 2014 Market Survey Dear Mr. Schwartz: tel 509 6231000 fax 509 622 3500 www.naiblack.com Bieck Commercial, Inc. 107 South Howard Street Suite 500 Spokane WA 99201 Enclosed you will find summaries from the Fall 2013 and 2014 Valbridge Survey of office space in Spokane County, to specifically include Spokane Valley, as well as, our 2014 Greater Spokane Market Report. A. Fall 2013 Survey. The Fall 2013 Survey of suburban office space shows that Spokane Valley (east of Havana) contained 3,280,413 square feet available for rent, including the largest amount of vacant space at 707,194 square feet. This left Spokane Valley with a vacancy rate of 21.56%. While this rate was below Spokane's South Hill (south of lou' Avenue), which was measured at 23.99%, the actual amount of vacant square feet was only 42,522. For comparison purposes, the area outside of the City of Spokane Central Business District (bounded by Indiana, Havana, 14th Avenue, and the Spokane River) contains a vacancy rate of 13.82% with about 300,000 less square feet available for rent than Spokane Valley. B. Fall 2014 Survey. The Survey in Fall 2014 showed available suburban office space declined to 18.32%. However, this still left approximately 632,942 vacant square feet. Again, the area south of 141h Avenue in the City of Spokane had the highest vacancy rate of 24.9%, but the actual vacant square footage was 48,818. Given the above information, I believe that Spokane Valley has a long way to go to recover and get back to a healthy office market. Typically, we believe the vacancy rate of 8-10% is suitable for Spokane Valley in order to maintain a healthy and fairly valued office market. C. 2014 Greater Spokane Market Reams. Our NAI Black 2014 Greater Spokane Market Report discusses the existing office/medical office space in the Spokane area. On page 8 you will see our discussion of suburban office space on the periphery of the central business district. Build on the power of our ncfwor c r ; Over 300 offices worldwide. www,naiglobal.com Individual member of The Spokane Valley market comprised of 120 buildings surveyed showed weakness with vacancy increasing from 15.83% to 21.56%. Rental rates decreased from $14.97 per square foot to $13.34 per square foot. There were a number of major tenants that shifted locations in Spokane Valley over the last year. The sharp increase in vacancy may, in part, be due to a more accurate assessment of vacancies complied for the fall 2013 report. Here are thoughts on the Spokane Valley retail market. The Valley market is heating up with infill and absorption around the Valley Mall and steady activity along Sprague Avenue from Pines to Sullivan Road....These transactions confirm that the Sullivan and Evergreen intersections remain the most desirable sites for national retailers in the Valley....The overall retail vacancy rate in the Spokane Valley ended 2013 at 10.95%. NAI Black, 2014 Greater Spokane Market Report, p. 6. As you know, NAI Black has been in the Spokane Market for over 50 years and is actively engaged in the management, leasing, and sale of commercial real estate properties throughout Eastern Washington and North Idaho. As for my background, I have been engaged in commercial brokerage since 1980, and have written a book and numerous articles on various aspects of commercial real estate. I am pleased to provide the above information and trust it is of value to you and your client. Very truly yours, BLACK COMMERCIAL, INC. an NAI Buck company Jeff K. Johnson SIOR, CCIM President SURVEY OF SUBURBAN OFFICE SPACE IN SPOKANE COUNTY Fall 2013 Survey (Current Geographic Areas) (VALBRIDGE PROPERTY A AUBLE, JOLICOEUR & GENTRY, INC./KIEMLE & HAGOOD/NAI BLACK/GOODALE & BARBIERO COMPANY/CROWN WEST REALTY) AVERAGE AVERAGE RECENT LOCATION NO. RENTABLE VACANT PERCENT RENTAL RATE RENTAL RATE SURVEY DATE BLDGS. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. VACANT $/SF/YR $/SF/YR Periphery of CBDe Oct. 2013 120 2,988,366 412,916 13.82% $17.33 $15.27 Southb Oct. 2013 12 177,256 42,522 23.99% $18.61 $16.87 Northc Oct. 2013 52 995,042 137,501 13.82% $16.61 valley° Oct. 2013 120 3,280,413 707,194 21.56% $14.39 Weste Oct. 2013 8 392,342 65,155 16.61% $15.04 $12.93 $13.34 N/A 3 Bounded by Indiana, Havana, 14th, and Spokane River/Latah Creek b South of 14th `North of Indiana d East of Havana e West of Spokane River/Latah Creek Note: The rental basis for the "average' and "average recent rate" is a mix of full-service, modified and triple net rents as well as rentable and usable areas. The rates are not adjusted to one specific basis and should only be considered as an economic indicator. Source: 10/2013 - Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. (509-747-0999) Copyright 2013 Vatbridge Property Advisors i Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, inc. Reprinted here with permission. SURVEY OF SUBURBAN RETAIL SPACE Fall 2013 Survey IN SPOKANE COUNTY (Current Geographic Areas, Includes Shopping Centers) (VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS! AUBLE, JOLICOEUR & GENTRY, INC./KIEMLE & HAGOOD/NAI BLACK/GOODALE & BARBIERI COMPANY) AVERAGE AVERAGE RECENT LOCATION NO. RENTABLE VACANT PERCENT RENTAL RATE RENTAL RATE SURVEY DATE BLOGS. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. VACANT S/SFNR $ISF/yR Periphery of CBDa Oct. 2013 43 840,240 100,962 12.02% $13.63 $13.58 Southb Oct. 2013 26 989,005 40,374 4.08% $16.64 $25.10 North° Oct. 2013 121 5,918,763 673,075 11.37% $16.11 $14.19 Valley(' Oct. 2013 117 5,940,517 650,618 10.95% $12.20 $10.26 Waste Oct. 2013 6 251,017 18,690 7.45% $15.88 $18.21 a Bounded by Indiana, Havana, 14th, and Spokane River/Latah Creek b South of 14th North of Indiana d East of Havana e West of Spokane River/Latah Creek Source: 10/2013 - Valbridge Property Advisors 1Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. (509-747-0999) Copyright 2013 Valbridge Property AdV130r3 Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. Reprinted here with permission. SURVEY OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE Fall 2013 Survey (VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS 1 AUBLE, JOLICOEUR & GENTRY, INCJKIEMLE & HAGOOD/NAI BIACK/GOODALE & BARBIERI COMPANY/CROWN WEST REALTY) LOCATION SURVEY DATE West Oct 2013 CBD Oct 2013 North Oct. 2013 East Oct 2013 Valley Oct. 2013 Liberty Lake Oct 2013 NO. TOTAL SURVEYED SURVEYED SURVEYED AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE BLDGS. DATABASE SURVEYED TOTAL VACANT PERCENT RENTAL RATE RENTAL RATE RECENT RECENT TOTAL BLDG. NO. BLDG. BLDG. VACANT S/SF/M0 $/SF/MO RENTAL RATE RENTAL RATE IN DATABASE AREA (SF) BLDGS. AREA (SF) AREA (SF) BLDG AREA (SF) OFFICE WAREHOUSE S/SF/MO-OFFICE S/SF/MO-WHSE 138 4,224,727 24 329,693 166 2,892,799 211 3,798,516 664 14,662,479 25 1,685,798 TOTALS 1,228 27,594,012 138 4,224,727 324,637 7.68% 24 329,693 41,473 12.58% 166 2,892,799 228,880 7.91% 211 3,798,516 571,069 15.03% 664 14,662,479 1,218,284 8.31% 25 1,685,798 212,665 12.62% 1,228 27,594,012 2,597,008 9.41% Source: 10/2013 Valbridge Property Advisors I Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. (509-747-0999) Copyright 2013 Valbridge Property Advisors I Atsble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. Reprinted here with permission. $0.62 $0.82 $0.68 $0.58 $0.63 $0.83 $0.64 $0.31 $0.63 $0.30 $0.41 $0.87 $0.44 $0.35 $0.64 $0.36 $0.30 $0.56 60.28 $0.28 $0.67 $0.37 $0,31 N/A N/A $0.30 $0.55 $0.25 SURVEY OF SUBURBAN OFFICE SPACE IN SPOKANE COUNTY Fall 2014 Survey (Current Geographic Areas) (VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS 1 AUBLE, JOLICOEUR & GENTRY, INC./KIEMLE & HAGOOD/NAI BLACK/GOODALE & BARBIERI COMPANY/CROWN WEST REALTY) AVERAGE AVERAGE RECENT LOCATION NO. RENTABLE VACANT PERCENT RENTAL RATE RENTAL RATE SURVEY DATE BLDGS. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. VACANT $/SF/YR $/SF/YR Periphery of CBD2 Oct.2014 133 3,119,667 498,071 15.97% $15.74 Southb Oct. 2014 15 195,603 48,818 24.96% $18.23 North` Oct. 2014 59 1,041,635 144,014 13.83% $16.42 Valleyd Oct. 2014 136 3,454,396 632,942 18.32% $14.63 West' Oct.2014 10 418,290 48,272 11.54% $15.21 $16.85 N/A $13.23 $17.34 N/A a Bounded by Indiana, Havana, 14th, and Spokane River/Latah Creek b South of 14th ° North of Indiana d East of Havana 9 West of Spokane River/Latah Creek Note: The rental basis for the "average" and "average recent rate" is a mix of full-service, modified and triple net rents as well as rentable and usable areas. The rates are not adjusted to one specific basis and should only be considered as an economic indicator. Source: 10/2014 - Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. (509-747-0999) Copyright 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors 1 Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. Reprinted here with permission. SURVEY OF SUBURBAN RETAIL SPACE IN SPOKANE COUNTY Fall 2014 Survey (Current Geographic Areas, Includes Shopping Centers) (VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS I AUBLE, JOLICOEUR & GENTRY, INC./KIEMLE & HAGOOD/NAI BL ",CK/GOODALE & BARBIERI COMPANY) LOCATION NO. RENTABLE VACANT PERCENT RAVERAGE AGE ENTAL RATE AVERENTAL RATENT SURVEY DATE BLDGS. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. VACANT $/SF/YR $/SF/YR Periphery of CBD Oct. 2014 42 Southb Oct. 2014 30 North` Oct. 2014 130 133 Valley° Oct. 2014 Weste Oct. 2014 6 849,308 68,146 8.02% $12.47 1,142,589 48,211 4.22% $18.70 6,010,321 831,763 13.84% $16.25 5,969,529 493,676 8.27% $12.25 249,269 18,690 7.50% $15.92 $10.10 $19.96 $13.27 $11.71 N/A a Bounded by Indiana, Havana, 14th, and Spokane River/Latah Creek b South of 14th ` North of Indiana d East of Havana e West of Spokane River/Latah Creek Source: 10/2014 - Valbridge Property Advisors I Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. (509-747-0999) Copyright 2014 Valbridge Property Advisors 1 Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry, Inc. Reprinted here with permission. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval Fl Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007: Official Zoning Map amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On March 24, 2015 the City Council agreed to move the amendments forward to an ordinance second reading. BACKGROUND: For the 2015 amendment period, the Community and Economic Development Department received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and corresponding zoning classification amendments. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on January 22, 2015. Following deliberations at the February 12, 2015, meeting, the Commission voted on a motion to recommend the Council approve CPA -2015-0001. The motion resulted in a tie vote, so the motion failed. CPA -2015-0001 is being forwarded without a recommendation. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-006 which also included CPA -2015-0002. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0002. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-007 adopting an update to the Official Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0001. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Ordinance and attached maps 2) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0001 3) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS DESCRIBED IN CPA - 2015 -0001; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City of Spokane Valley (City) repealed and replaced certain titles of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVCM) with SVMC Titles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, which included the "City of Spokane Valley Zoning" map (the Official City Zoning Map), on September 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the SVMC amendments adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015 became effective on October 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the SVMC provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Official City Zoning Map has been amended by Ordinance 07-027, Ordinance No. 08-012, Ordinance No. 09-006, Ordinance No. 09-009, Ordinance No. 09-040, Ordinance No. 10- 008, Ordinance No. 11-002, Ordinance No. 11-008, Ordinance 11-010, Ordinance No. 12-015, Ordinance 12-019; Ordinance 13-009 and Ordinance 14-006; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Official City Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015- 0001 and herein; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklist, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2015, the Commission continued deliberations on CPA -2015-0001. CPA -2015-0001 was forwarded to Council without a recommendation as the Commission vote resulted in a tie; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0001 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0002. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official City Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0001. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Official City Zoning Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Official City Zoning Map. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0001: 1. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 2 of 5 2. On November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the site. 10. On January 6, 2015 the site was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission voted to continue deliberations to the next meeting. 12. On February 12, 2015, the Commission continued deliberations and CPA -2015-0001 was forwarded to Council with no recommendation, as the Commission vote resulted in a tie. 13. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA 2015-0001 concurrently with CPA -2015-0002 to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendments. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 14. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. 15. The proposal meets the desirable size as outlined in the SVMC 19.060.050 and the location's visibility along the I-90 corridor lends itself to regional services and businesses. 16. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA chapter 36.70A RCW, and provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA-compliant Comprehensive Plan. 17. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The site does not appear to be conducive to residential development or office uses as the site has sat vacant. Residential uses in the area appear to be on the decline and other commercial uses located in the area have been successful. 18. The amendment does not correct a mapping error. Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 3 of 5 19. The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 20. Commercial development on the south side of I-90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other businesses located in that corridor. The topography of the site provides a barrier between the multifamily development to the south and the City's development regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. 21. The proposal will promote the most appropriate use of the property. 22. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 23. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Goal LUG -4: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. 24. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 25. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public's general health, safety, and welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (map). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 35A.63.100, the Official City Zoning Map, as adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015 and as subsequently amended, is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning Map amendment is generally described as follows: File No. CPA -2015-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. Applicant: Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC 7607 West Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Amendment Location: Parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146, 45104.9156 and 45104.9157 addressed as 13110, 13120, and 13220 E. Nora Avenue; generally located 1300 feet west of the intersection of Mamer Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 4 of 5 Road and Nora Avenue; further located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 6. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 7. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 Page 5 of 5 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from 0 to C; subsequent zoning change from 0 to C. Zoning Map Indiana 190 CPA -2015-0001 190 Mission CPA -2015-0001 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane ,.alley COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 15, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 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. Project Number: CPA -2015-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific comprehensive plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. Location: Parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146, 45104.9156 & 45104.9157 addressed as 13110, 13120 & 13220 E. Nora Avenue; generally located 1300 feet west of the intersection of Mamer Rd and Nora Avenue; further located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Applicant(s): Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC 7607 W. Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Owner(s): Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC 7607 W. Gratz Drive Boise, ID 83709 Date of Application: October 29, 2014 Date Determined Complete: October 29, 2014 Staff Contact: Christina Janssen, Planner (509) 720-5333 Christina.iansseii spokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Staff Report A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: CPA -2015-0001 Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 3.22 acres in size. The northern most 2/3 of the site is generally flat and covered with natural vegetation. South of this the site slopes upward at approximately 30% is covered with mature evergreen trees and other vegetation. Comprehensive Plan: Office (0) Zoning: Office (0) Existing Land Use: Three parcels are vacant and one parcel is being used for single family residential. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan — Regional Commercial (RC) Zoning — Regional Commercial (RC) Existing Land Uses —Nora Avenue, I-90 and Commercial South Comprehensive Plan — High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning — High Density Multifamily Residential district (MF -2) Existing Land Uses — Multifamily dwelling units East Comprehensive Plan — Office (0) Zoning — Office (0) Existing Land Uses — Commercial and Retail West Comprehensive Plan — Office (0) Zoning — Office (0) Existing Land Uses — Single family residential and professional office. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on December 12, 2014. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria Page 2 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that (analysis is italicized): (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 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. (2)The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. (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. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties iculties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded Page 3 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 (3) areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The integration of commercial development on the south side of Interstate 90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other businesses located in that corridor. The topography provides a natural barrier between a commercial designation and the multi family development located adjacent to the site at a significantly higher elevation. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of the submittal of any building permit applications, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 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. (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. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The amendment will have no impact on population density and does not demand population analysis. (6) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: (5) Page 4 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 The proposed privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification to Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification. The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15 to 17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Community Commercial centers may be designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan amendments or through subarea planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency; As stated in previous analysis, future development of the site will be required to meet the concurrency standards at the time of building permit issuance. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. 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; The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable for the development of the property. 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; 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. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The surrounding land uses include multifamily residential, retail and office uses. The existing land uses are compatible with the proposed land use designation and zoning district. f. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; 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 Page 5 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime freeway exposure. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The community commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. 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. Community Commercial centers may be designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan amendments or through sub -area planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility. In addition, light assembly or other unobtrusive uses not traditionally located in commercial zones may be allowed with appropriate performance standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses or zoning districts. The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment will provide additional development opportunities in an area with good visibility and which has been unable to prosper under the current zoning designation. The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG -4: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan require that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. Page 6 of 7 Staff Report CPA -2015-0001 The amendment is currently served with both public water and sewer. Nora Avenue and Maurer Road, both local access streets, provide roadway access and tie into Mission Avenue to the south and Pines Road to the west. Pines Road is a designated state roadway and Mission Avenue is a minor arterial road according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will provide public transit service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 7 of 7 Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 8, 2015 Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act and public records. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice Chair for the year 2015. Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway and the Old Mission Trailhead. Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road. Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility easements, none would be impacted. Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:29 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STV -2014-0001. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals. Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year extensions afterward. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes. Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Harnois confirmed as correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times when he needed the extra time to finish a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small, but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring. Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days. Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that evening for approval. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Mamer Rd. Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the Study Session began. Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however, the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder. She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for changes in general. Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW. The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of I-90 as a connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining how the ROW, and I-90, is used to reach the approval criteria. Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there. Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd. Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is located on two minor arterials. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at Flora Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area. Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the same. Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions. Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening, there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment, and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety, welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself. Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different way. Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would be attached to the findings as part of the record. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton DN: oHorton, o=CityofSpokane Deanna Horton Valley,y, oo=Comommunity Development, email=dhorton@spokanevalley.org, c=US Date: 2015.02.0411:57:05 -08'00' Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of4 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 22, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Martin Palaniuk, Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and walkable urbanism. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without bias and stayed on the dais. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, ID. Mr. Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not appropriate for residential. Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr. Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr. Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future. Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes. The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of9 stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC 19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office. Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr. Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it was just "office buildings" in the study. Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr. Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant office square footage within office buildings. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there for some time, so they were marketing the property. Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was not aware of other property along the freeway. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testes Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015- 0001 at 6:53 p.m. Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd. Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p. m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission Avenue is also considered a minor arterial. Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr. Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores. Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria before it could be sited. Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr. Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed. Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex. Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being proposed. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner. Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to testes Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject properties, which were located for him. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open- minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr. House would not be able to comments. Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001: Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not be any action necessary. Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use. Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here and the deadline for making requests is November 1 st of each year. He felt the suggestion would qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year. Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001. Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision. He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001. As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion. Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15 meeting. Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information. Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have the opportunity to review new material. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed Discussion for CPA -2015-0002: The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it (Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them (the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road, but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential, would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet. Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in the future. This is where he finds his difficulty. Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr. Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone, it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where there is already that traffic passing by. Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point, except part of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the same person who owns the large parcel in the request. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property. Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property. She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west. As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA. Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell. Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it. Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being proposed. Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV -2014-0001: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact. She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01- 08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right- of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend in their final action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was seven to zero, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of9 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 12, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Micki Harnois, Planner 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 of6 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 I-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 1-90. 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 I-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 of6 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 1-90 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 of6 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 modem 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 not 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 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006a: 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140, and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 24, 2015, the City Council agreed to bring the amendment forward for a second reading. BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1st to October 31st of the following year. Patricia Abraham submitted a timely application for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. To maintain consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and its development regulations, the City Council will also consider zoning classification changes concurrently with the proposed comprehensive plan amendments under proposed Ordinance No. 15-009. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 8, 2015. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on January 22, 2015. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 4-3 to recommend Council approve CPA -2015-0002. This amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-006 which also included CPA -2015-0001. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0001. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-006a adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0002. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0002 2) Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 3) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4) Draft Ordinance 15-006a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-006a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN CPA -2015-0002; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, consisting of the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and related maps (collectively and as subsequently amended, the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A.130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based upon citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 06-010, has been amended by Ordinance No. 07-026, Ordinance No. 08-011, Ordinance No. 09-008, Ordinance No. 09- 039, Ordinance No. 10-007, Ordinance No. 11-001, Ordinance No. 11-007, Ordinance No. 11-009, Ordinance No. 12-014, Ordinance No. 12-018, Ordinance No. 13-008, and Ordinance 14-005; and WHEREAS, an application was submitted by the applicant or owner to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015-0002 and herein; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impact from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing and voted to forward CPA -2015-0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0001. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0002. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002: 1. 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 November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in RCW 43.21C (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 4 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the proposed amendment site. 10. On January 6, 2015 the property subject to the site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward the amendment to Council with a recommendation for approval. 12. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2015-0002. Such findings were presented to Council. 13. The Council adopts the Commission findings as the Council findings for CPA -2015-0002, as set forth in Attachment "B". 14. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA -2015-0002 concurrently with CPA -2015-0001 to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 15. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public general health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The property subject to this Ordinance is described in Attachment "A" (maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (maps). File No. CPA -2015-0002: Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 4 Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to a Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Applicant: Patricia Abraham, 1920 North Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Amendment Location: Parcels 45124.0203 & 45124.0151; addressed as 1603 & 1625 N. Flora Rd; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scriveners errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 Comprehensive Plan Map Nora Baldwin CPA -2015-0002 Mission CPA -2015-0002 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map City of Spokane Valley designation from LDR to MUC; subsequent zoning Community Development Department change from R-3 to MUC. 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 2"d to November 1 st 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 a_ Deanna orton, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane Valley STAFF REPORT TO 'I'HE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 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. Project Number: CPA -2015-0002 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated, site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment seeking 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) designation with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Location: 1603 N Flora Rd, Parcel No. 45124.0203, and 1625 N Flora Rd, Parcel No. 45124.0151; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Applicant(s): Patricia Abraham 1920 N Greenacres Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Owner(s): Donald L Fisher Jayn Courchaine 1603 N Flora Rd 619 N Sargent Rd Spokane Valley , WA 99016 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Date of Application: October 27, 2014 Date Determined Complete November 1, 2014 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Staff Report & Findings A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: CPA -2015-0002 Size and Characteristics: Combined, both parcels equal approximately 3.56 acres. The site is relatively flat with residential landscaping including trees and bushes. A round -about intersection is situated on the southeast corner of the site and is set at an elevation above the site. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (R-3) Existing Land Use: Single-family residential use on both parcels. Mission Avenue runs east/west along the southern boundary and is also set at a higher elevation than the site. Flora Road runs north/south along the west boundary and drops in elevation from the round -about to ground level with the site. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — Single -Family Residential District (R-3) and Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) Existing Land Uses — Single-family residential South Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Existing Land Uses — Currently vacant. East Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residential West Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Existing Land Uses — Greenhouses and high density multi -family apartments B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on December 12, 2014. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site assessment, and public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. Page 2 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation is more appropriate to the transportation facilities located along the boundaries of the site. The new designation will allow uses more consistent with those occurring west and south of the site and with the roadways that intersect at the southeast corner of the site. Mission Avenue and Flora Road intersect in a round -about at the southwest corner of the property. Mission Avenue is identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan as a proposed minor arterial. Flora Road is identified as a proposed minor arterial south of the intersection and as a collector north of the intersection. This is in anticipation of the increased amount of traffic. The Comprehensive plan states the minor arterial street system interconnects with and augments the principal arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate length at a lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials. Minor arterials place more emphasis on land access than the principal arterial. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intra -community continuity, but ideally does not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. Collector Streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. It dimers from the arterial system in that facilities from the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from arterials through the area to their ultimate destinations. Conversely, the collector system collects traffic from the local streets in residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system. Traffic information provided by the Senior Traffic Engineer indicates 4,600 vehicle trips pass through the intersection on a daily basis. Estimates for the year 2040 indicate the traffic volume will roughly triple. Higher densities are encouraged along transit corridors. The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within a development. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along higher density residential uses. The existing minor arterial roadways combined with the high density residential development that has occurred west of the site combine to make the amendment consistent with the long-term objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole. The nearest Spokane Transit Authority (STA) bus route is located approximately 1 mile east, west and south of the site. STA generally considers three metrics for public transit service: Page 3 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 i. Within % mile of a bus stop is near. This is generally a five-minute walk for most people. Studies point to this as the ideal walking distance. ii. Within 1/2 mile of a bus stop is within walking distance. This is nearing the cut-off distance niost people will walk to transit (though some will walk farther). STA Level of Service policy requires that 80% of the urban population should have basic service fxed routes that run all/most days for most hours) within % mile distance. iii. Within 3/4 mile is the federal access area. For persons whose disabilities prevent them using or accessing a bus, STA is required to provide service so long as their origin and destination is within 3/4 mile of an established bus route. STA has identified this location for future bus service within their STA Moving Forward Plan and Connect Spokane, their comprehensive plan. The public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. (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: Significant changes have occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. A 324 -unit apartment complex has been constructed along Indiana Avenue and Mission Avenue less than 1/4 of a mile west of the site. The complex consists of a mix of buildings with either 24 dwelling units or 12 dwelling units and a clubhouse. Single-family and duplex subdivisions that have occurred within a %Z - mile radius of the site since 2005 include the Hidden Valley, Valley Coach Estate, Flora Ridge, Flora Estates, Flora Meadows, Flora Springs, and Centennial Place subdivisions. All together the subdivisions added 273 single-family dwellings to the area. When combined with the multi family development a total of 597 dwelling units have been added to the area since 2005. The increased residential density has contributed to the higher traffic volumes experienced at the Mission/Flora road intersection. The amendment is a reasonable extension of the existing Mixed Use Center designation located adjacent to the west and south of the site based on the changed conditions. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties iculties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. New multifamily development is required to meet a 1:1 height to setback ratio when abutting a single family use or zone and a 10 foot minimum setback. New commercial development must meet 20 foot setbacks when adjacent to a residential use or zone. In addition, Type 1 screening is required for commercial development adjacent to any residential zone. Allowed uses within the MUC zone are considered compatible with the adjacent MUC zoning and will not impose impacts. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment may have significant benefit to the area by creating opportunity for small scale commercial development to serve the neighborhood and the 597 new dwelling units in the area. The site is located at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Minor arterials serve to disperse and collect traffic to and from neighborhoods. Mixed use development would serve the multi family and single-family residential development occurring in the area and would be ideally located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. Low Density Residential land use implemented through the Single-family Residential (R-3) district and the Single-family Residential Urban zoning (R-4) district is located north, east and southeast of the site. The R-3 zoning district permits single-family and duplex dwelling development. The R-4 zoning district permits a variety of residential uses to include single-family, duplex, multi farnily, and townhouse dwelling development. Both zones pernit Manufactured Home Park development. Public, quasi public, and communication uses such as utility facilities and cell towers (5) Page 5 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 are permitted under certain conditions. Commercial development is not permitted or is severely limited in both zones. Mixed Use Center land use implemented through the Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zone is located west and south of the site. As stated previously, 324 dwelling units have been added to the area from multi family residential development west of the site. The nearest commercial centers are the Spokane Valley Mall area and the large regional commercial box stores located across Interstate 90 along Broadway Avenue and Sullivan Road. The MUC zone provides an opportunity for commercial or mixed use development that could serve the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 3.5% of the land in the City is designated for Mixed-use Center. The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within developments under this designation. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and would include employment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The amendment will have marginal impact on population density and does not demand population analysis since the increase in density is isolated to 3.5 acres. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to Mixed-use Center (MUC) designation with a Mixed-use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC 19.110. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency; Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Consolidated Irrigation District #19 is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed. As discussed previously, the site is situated at the corner of two minor arterial roadways and is well served by the transportation system. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; (7) Page 6 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. 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; The recent single-family and multi fancily residential development that has occurred all around the site have changed the character of this area. The improvements made to Mission Avenue west of the site and the construction of the round -about at the intersection of Mission Avenue and Flora Road combine to make the site appropriate for mixed use development. 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; The properties located west and south of the subject property have a Mixed -Use Center land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Mixed -Use Center zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement. f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The site is surrounded by a mix of high density multi family use and higher density single-family uses. A commercial green house is located adjacent to the site along its western boundary. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible, with the application of development regulations at the time of development.- g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; The amendment will allow mixed-use, commercial, or high density residential development of property ideally located at the intersection of two minor arterials. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation provides for mixed use development consistent with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity to develop uses that will serve surrounding residential uses. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Mixed Use Center west and south of the site and single-family residential urban use located north and east of the site. Page 7 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 The amendment is generally consistent with the following Cornprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG -2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Goal LUG -5 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Goal LUG -9 Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. Goal HG -1 Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Goal NG -3 Encourage neighborhood/sub-area planning for commercial, industrial and mixed use properties to enhance the quality, vibrancy and character of existing development. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The amendment is currently served with public water and sewer. Mission Avenue and Flora Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as minor arterials according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will provide public transit service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 8 of 8 Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 8, 2015 Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act and public records. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice Chair for the year 2015. Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway and the Old Mission Trailhead. Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road. Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility easements, none would be impacted. Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of4 asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:29 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STV -2014-0001. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals. Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year extensions afterward. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes. Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Harnois confirmed as correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times when he needed the extra time to finish a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small, but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring. Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days. Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that evening for approval. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Mamer Rd. Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the Study Session began. Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however, the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder. She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for changes in general. Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW. The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of 1-90 as a connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining how the ROW, and I-90, is used to reach the approval criteria. Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there. Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd. Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is located on two minor arterials. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at Flora Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area. Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the same. Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions. Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening, there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment, and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety, welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself. Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different way. Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would be attached to the findings as part of the record. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton DN: cn=Deanna Horton, o=City of Spokane Deanna Horton Valley, ou=Community Development, emaildhorton@spokanevalley.org, c=US Date: 2015.02.0411:57:05 -08'00' Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 22, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Martin Palaniuk, Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and walkable urbanism. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without bias and stayed on the dais. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, ID. Mr. Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not appropriate for residential. Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr. Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr. Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future. Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes. The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC 19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office. Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr. Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it was just "office buildings" in the study. Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr. Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant office square footage within office buildings. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there for some time, so they were marketing the property. Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was not aware of other property along the freeway. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015- 0001 at 6:53 p.m. Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd. Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission Avenue is also considered a minor arterial. Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr. Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores. Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria before it could be sited. Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr. Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed. Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex. Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being proposed. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner. Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at 7.:11 p.m. Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject properties, which were located for him. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open- minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr. House would not be able to comments. Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001: Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not be any action necessary. Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of9 Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use. Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here and the deadline for making requests is November 1St of each year. He felt the suggestion would qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year. Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001. Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision. He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001. As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion. Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15 meeting. Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information. Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have the opportunity to review new material. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed Discussion for CPA -2015-0002: The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it (Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them (the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road, but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential, would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet. Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in the future. This is where he finds his difficulty. Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr. Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone, it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where there is already that traffic passing by. Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point, except part of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the same person who owns the large parcel in the request. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property. Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property. She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west. As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA. Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell. Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it. Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being proposed. Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV -2014-0001: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact. She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01- 08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right- of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend in their final action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was seven to zero, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval Fl Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007a: Official Zoning Map amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On March 24, 2015 the City Council agreed to move the amendments forward to an ordinance second reading. BACKGROUND: For the 2015 amendment period, the Community and Economic Development Department received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and corresponding zoning classification amendments. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on January 22, 2015. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 4-3 to recommend Council approve CPA - 2015 -0002. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-007 which also included CPA -2015-0001. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0001. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-007a adopting an update to the Official Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0002. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Ordinance and attached maps 2) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0002 3) Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations 4) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-007a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS DESCRIBED IN CPA - 2015 -0002; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City of Spokane Valley (City) repealed and replaced certain titles of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVCM) with SVMC Titles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, which included the "City of Spokane Valley Zoning" map (the Official City Zoning Map), on September 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the SVMC amendments adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015 became effective on October 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the SVMC provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Official City Zoning Map has been amended by Ordinance 07-027, Ordinance No. 08-012, Ordinance No. 09-006, Ordinance No. 09-009, Ordinance No. 09-040, Ordinance No. 10- 008, Ordinance No. 11-002, Ordinance No. 11-008, Ordinance 11-010, Ordinance No. 12-015, Ordinance 12-019; Ordinance 13-009 and Ordinance 14-006; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Official City Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015- 0002 and herein; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklist, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing and voted to forward CPA -2015- 0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0001. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official City Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0002. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Official City Zoning Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Official City Zoning Map. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002: 1. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 5 2. On November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the site. 10. On January 6, 2015 the site was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission voted to forward CPA -2015-0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval. 12. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2015-0002. Such findings were presented to Council. 13. The Council adopts the Commission findings as the Council findings for CPA -2015-0002, as set forth in Attachment "B". 14. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA 2015-0002 concurrently with CPA -2015-0001 to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendments. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 15. The proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public general health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 5 Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (map). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 35A.63.100, the Official City Zoning Map, as adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015 and as subsequently amended, is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning Map amendment is generally described as follows: File No. CPA -2015-0002: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to a Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Applicant: Patricia Abraham, 1920 North Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Amendment Location: Parcels 45124.0203 & 45124.0151; addressed as 1603 & 1625 N. Flora Rd; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 6. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 7. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 5 PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 5 of 5 Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002 Mission CPA -2015-0002 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map City of Spokane Valley designation from LDR to MUC; subsequent zoning Community Development Department change from R-3 to MUC. 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 2"d 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(11) — Comprehensive Pian 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 C-t Deanna orlon, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 Spokane _Va11ey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 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. Project Number: CPA -2015-0002 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated, site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment seeking 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) designation with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Location: 1603 N Flora Rd, Parcel No. 45124.0203, and 1625 N Flora Rd, Parcel No. 45124.0151; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 'A of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Applicant(s): Patricia Abraham 1920 N Greenacres Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Owner(s): Donald L Fisher Jayn Courchaine 1603 N Flora Rd 619 N Sargent Rd Spokane Valley , WA 99016 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Date of Application: October 27, 2014 Date Determined Complete November 1, 2014 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, palaniuk(c ispokaneval ley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Staff Report & Findings A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: CPA -2015-0002 Size and Characteristics: Combined, both parcels equal approximately 3.56 acres. The site is relatively flat with residential landscaping including trees and bushes. A round -about intersection is situated on the southeast corner of the site and is set at an elevation above the site. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (R-3) Existing Land Use: Single-family residential use on both parcels. Mission Avenue runs east/west along the southern boundary and is also set at a higher elevation than the site. Flora Road runs north/south along the west boundary and drops in elevation from the round -about to ground level with the site. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — Single -Family Residential District (R-3) and Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) Existing Land Uses — Single-family residential South Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Existing Land Uses — Currently vacant. East Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residential West Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC) Existing Land Uses — Greenhouses and high density multi -family apartments B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on December 12, 2014. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site assessment, and public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. Page 2 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation is more appropriate to the transportation facilities located along the boundaries of the site. The new designation will allow uses more consistent with those occurring west and south of the site and with the roadways that intersect at the southeast corner of the site. Mission Avenue and Flora Road intersect in a round -about at the southwest corner of the property. Mission Avenue is identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan as a proposed minor arterial. Flora Road is identified as a proposed minor arterial south of the intersection and as a collector north of the intersection. This is in anticipation of the increased amount of traffic. The Comprehensive plan states the minor arterial street system interconnects with and augments the principal arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate length at a lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials. Minor arterials place more emphasis on land access than the principal arterial. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intra -community continuity, but ideally does not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. Collector Streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial system in that facilities from the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from arterials through the area to their ultimate destinations. Conversely, the collector system collects traffic from the local streets in residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system. Traffic information provided by the Senior Traffic Engineer indicates 4,600 vehicle trips pass through the intersection on a daily basis. Estimates for the year 2040 indicate the traffic volume will roughly triple. Higher densities are encouraged along transit corridors. The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within a development. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along higher density residential uses. The existing minor arterial roadways combined with the high density residential development that has occurred west of the site combine to make the amendment consistent with the long-terin objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole. The nearest Spokane Transit Authority (STA) bus route is located approximately 1 mile east, west and south of the site. STA generally considers three metrics for public transit service: Page 3 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 i. Within '/ mile of a bus stop is near. This is generally a five-minute walk for most people. Studies point to this as the ideal walking distance. ii. Within 1/2 Haile of a bus stop is within walking distance. This is nearing the cut-off distance most people will walk to transit (though some will walk farther). STA Level of Service policy requires that 80% of the urban population should have basic service (fixed routes that run all/most days for most hours) within'/ mile distance. iii. Within % mile is the federal access area. For persons whose disabilities prevent them using or accessing a bus, STA is required to provide service so long as their origin and destination is within 3/4 mile of an established bus route. STA has identified this location for future bus service within their STA Moving Forward Plan and Connect Spokane, their comprehensive plan. The public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 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: Significant changes have occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. A 324 -unit apartment complex has been constructed along Indiana Avenue and Mission Avenue less than '/ of a Haile west of the site. The complex consists of a mix of buildings with either 24 dwelling units or 12 dwelling units and a clubhouse. Single-family and duplex subdivisions that have occurred within a 1/2 - mile radius of the site since 2005 include the Hidden Valley, Valley Coach Estate, Flora Ridge, Flora Estates, Flora Meadows, Flora Springs, and Centennial Place subdivisions. All together the subdivisions added 273 single-family dwellings to the area. When combined with the multi family development a total of 597 dwelling units have been added to the area since 2005. (3) The increased residential density has contributed to the higher traffic volumes experienced at the Mission/Flora road intersection. The amendment is a reasonable extension of the existing Mixed Use Center designation located adjacent to the west and south of the site based on the changed conditions. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Page 4 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. New multifamily development is required to meet a 1:1 height to setback ratio when abutting a single family use or zone and a 10 foot minimum setback. New commercial development must meet 20 foot setbacks when adjacent to a residential use or zone. In addition, Type 1 screening is required for commercial development adjacent to any residential zone. Allowed uses within the MUC zone are considered compatible with the adjacent MUC zoning and will not impose impacts. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment may have significant benefit to the area by creating opportunity for small scale commercial development to serve the neighborhood and the 597 new dwelling units in the area. The site is located at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Minor arterials serve to disperse and collect traffic to and from neighborhoods. Mixed use development would serve the multi family and single-family residential development occurring in the area and would be ideally located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. Low Density Residential land use implemented through the Single-family Residential (R-3) district and the Single-family Residential Urban zoning (R-4) district is located north, east and southeast of the site. The R-3 zoning district permits single-family and duplex dwelling development. The R-4 zoning district permits a variety of residential uses to include single-family, duplex, multi family, and townhouse dwelling development. Both zones permit Manufactured Home Park development. Public, quasi public, and communication uses such as utility facilities and cell towers (3) (5) Page 5 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 are permitted under certain conditions. Commercial development is not permitted or is severely limited in both zones. Mixed Use Center land use implemented through the Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zone is located west and south of the site. As stated previously, 324 dwelling units have been added to the area from multi family residential development west of the site. The nearest commercial centers are the Spokane Valley Mall area and the large regional commercial box stores located across Interstate 90 along Broadway Avenue and Sullivan Road. The MUC zone provides an opportunity for commercial or mixed use development that could serve the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 3.5% of the land in the City is designated for Mixed-use Center. The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within developments under this designation. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and would include employment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The amendment will have marginal impact on population density and does not demand population analysis since the increase in density is isolated to 3.5 acres. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to Mixed-use Center (MUC) designation with a Mixed-use Center (MUC) zoning classification. Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC 19.110. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency; Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Consolidated Irrigation District #19 is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed. As discussed previously, the site is situated at the corner of two minor arterial roadways and is well served by the transportation system. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; Page 6 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. 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; The recent single-family and multi family residential development that has occurred all around the site have changed the character of this area. The improvements made to Mission Avenue west of the site and the construction of the round -about at the intersection of Mission Avenue and Flora Road combine to make the site appropriate for mixed use development. 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; The properties located west and south of the subject property have a Mixed -Use Center land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Mixed -Use Center zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement. f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The site is surrounded by a mix of high density multi farnily use and higher density single-family uses. A commercial green house is located adjacent to the site along its western boundary. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible, with the application of development regulations at the time of development., g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; The amendment will allow mixed-use, commercial, or high density residential development of property ideally located at the intersection of two minor arterials. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation provides for mixed use development consistent with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity to develop uses that will serve surrounding residential uses. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Mixed Use Center west and south of the site and single-family residential urban use located north and east of the site. Page 7 of 8 Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002 The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG -2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Goal LUG -5 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Goal LUG -9 Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. Goal HG -1 Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Goal NG -3 Encourage neighborhood/sub-area planning for commercial, industrial and mixed use properties to enhance the quality, vibrancy and character of existing development. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The amendment is currently served with public water and sewer. Mission Avenue and Flora Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as minor arterials according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will provide public transit service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 8 of 8 Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 8, 2015 Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act and public records. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice Chair for the year 2015. Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway and the Old Mission Trailhead. Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road. Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility easements, none would be impacted. Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:29 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STV -2014-0001. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals. Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year extensions afterward. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes. Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Harnois confirmed as correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times when he needed the extra time to finish a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small, but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring. Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days. Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that evening for approval. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Mamer Rd. Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the Study Session began. Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however, the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder. She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for changes in general. Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW. The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of I-90 as a connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining how the ROW, and I-90, is used to reach the approval criteria. Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there. Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd. Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is located on two minor arterials. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at Flora Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area. Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the same. Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions. Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening, there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment, and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety, welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself. Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different way. Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would be attached to the findings as part of the record. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton Deanna Horton VII y, ou=ComHorton, o{ityofSpokane nt, Valley, ou=Community Development, email=dhortoneaspokanevalley.org, c=US Date: 2015.02.04 11:57:05 -08'00' Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, January 22, 2015 meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Martin Palaniuk, Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and walkable urbanism. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without bias and stayed on the dais. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, ID. Mr. Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not appropriate for residential. Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr. Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr. Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future. Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes. The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC 19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office. Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr. Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it was just "office buildings" in the study. Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr. Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant office square footage within office buildings. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there for some time, so they were marketing the property. Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was not aware of other property along the freeway. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015- 0001 at 6:53 p.m. Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd. Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission Avenue is also considered a minor arterial. Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr. Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores. Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria before it could be sited. Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr. Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed. Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex. Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being proposed. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner. Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject properties, which were located for him. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open- minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr. House would not be able to comments. Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001: Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not be any action necessary. Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use. Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here and the deadline for making requests is November 1st of each year. He felt the suggestion would qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year. Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001. Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision. He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001. As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion. Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15 meeting. Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information. Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have the opportunity to review new material. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed Discussion for CPA -2015-0002: The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it (Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them (the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road, but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential, would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet. Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in the future. This is where he finds his difficulty. Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr. Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone, it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where there is already that traffic passing by. Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point, except part of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the same person who owns the large parcel in the request. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property. Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property. She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west. As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA. Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell. Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it. Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being proposed. Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV -2014-0001: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact. She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01- 08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right- of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend in their final action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was seven to zero, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 15-008 imposing an additional 1.3% special excise tax on the sale or charge for lodging GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 67.28 and SVMC 3.20. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City imposed a 2% special excise tax on lodging in 2003 pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. Council heard an administrative report on February 10, 2015. Council moved to advance proposed Ordinance No. 15-008 to a second reading during its March 24, 2015 Council meeting. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City imposed a 2% tax on all charges for furnishing lodging at hotels and motels (the "state credit lodging tax") pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. The state credit lodging tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that the total tax a patron pays in retail sales tax and the state credit lodging tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction. State of Washington City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Criminal Justice Spokane PFD Public Safety Juvenile Jail Mental Health Law Enforcement Communications Spokane Transit Authority Hotel / Motel Tax Retailer Hotelier r 6.50% 4.500 0.85% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.85% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.60% 0.00% .00% Total sales tax 8.70% 8.70% The proceeds of the state credit lodging tax may be used for tourism promotion, which includes; a. Tourism marketing. b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals. c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district. d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. Currently, the City Council distributes proceeds from the state credit lodging tax to recipients and in amounts recommended by the lodging tax advisory committee ("LTAC") on an annual basis. 1 Pursuant to RCW 67.28.181, the City is authorized to levy an additional special excise tax in an amount up to either 2% or an amount that, when combined with certain other applicable sales and lodging taxes imposed upon the sale of lodging, equals 12%. The total amount of applicable taxes on lodging within the City currently is 10.7%, as shown in the table below. Regular Sales Tax Lodging Tax As it Currently Exists Potential Addition Maximum Sales tax State of Washington 6.50% 4.50% City of Spokane Valley 0.85% 0.85% Spokane County 0.15% 0.15% Criminal Justice 0.10% 0.10% Spokane PFD 0.10% 0.10% Public Safety 0.10% 0.10% Juvenile Jail 0.10% 0.10% Mental Health 0.10% 0.10% Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% 0.10% Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% 0.60% Total sales tax 8.70% 6.70% 6.70% 4.50% 0.85% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% Lodging tax City of Spokane Valley Spokane PFD Total lodging tax 0.00% x_2.00% _ 1.30% 3.30% 0.00% 2.00% --- 2.00% 0.00% 4.00% 1.30% 5.30% Total tax 8.70% 10.70% 1.30% 12.00% Based on the 12% limit, the City could impose and levy an additional amount of lodging tax up to 1.3%. On February 25, 2015, the LTAC met to discuss various items. At that meeting, based upon a discussion raised by Councilmember Ben Wick, the LTAC moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to request Council to pass an additional 1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests. Based upon the motion approved by the LTAC, the funds would be limited to capital expenditures toward a large sports venue or towards other venues that increase tourism promotion by generating overnight guests. In order to impose an additional tax, RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the municipality provide a 45 - day period for the LTAC to comment on any new tax or tax increase before passing a new tax or imposing a tax increase. Based on the date of the recommendation from the LTAC, if the Council desired to impose an increased lodging tax amount above the already -imposed state credit lodging tax, it could only do so after April 11, 2015. Additionally, based on changes made during the 2013 legislative session, once the tax is increased, any proposal to use such taxes would require the City to apply to the LTAC and receive a recommendation for use of those funds. 2 In 2013, as part of City Council's approval process, the City Council adopted goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues, one of which is to: Utilize funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley (this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). With the proposed limitation recommended by the LTAC, the funds would be set aside as a capital reserve and would not be subject to appropriation by the LTAC and City as part of its annual distribution process until a project or plan for a tourism facility was developed and proposed by the City. Proposed Ordinance No. 15-008 amends SVMC 3.20 to impose the additional special excise tax on the sale or charge made for furnishing of lodging in the amount of 1.3% as allowed pursuant to RCW 67.28.181. Further, SVMC 3.20 is amended to require the amount collected from the additional 1.3% to be placed into a separate fund. The revenues received from the additional 1.3% are limited to acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the lodging tax, as allowed and provided by law. OPTIONS: Move to approve Proposed Ordinance 15-008, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-008, amending SVMC 3.20 to impose an additional special excise tax on the sale of lodging to be used for certain capital expenditures for tourism promotion purposes. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In the 2015 Budget, the City estimated the existing 2% lodging tax will generate $510,000. Based upon this, the imposition of an additional 1.3% tax would generate approximately $331,500 over a full year. Assuming limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds were issued with 2% costs of issuance over 30 years at an annual interest rate of 5%, $331,500 would service debt on a $4,996,000 bond issue. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 15-008 3 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.20 TO LEVY AND IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 1.3% SPECIAL EXCISE TAX ON THE SALE OR CHARGE MADE FOR THE FURNISHING OF LODGING WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PURSUANT TO RCW 67.28.181, TO BE USED FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PURPOSES FOR TOURISM PROMOTION, CREATING A SPECIAL FUND FOR THE TAX, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 67.28.180, in 2003, the City levied a 2% special excise tax on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under chapter 82.08 RCW (the "state -credit lodging tax") within the City of Spokane Valley (the "City") to be used for tourism promotion purposes, acquisition of tourism -related facilities, or operation of a tourism -related facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 67.28.1801, the state -credit lodging tax is credited against the existing Washington State sales tax, resulting in no net increase in the amount of sales taxes imposed upon the furnishing of lodging; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 67.28.181, the City is authorized to levy an additional special excise tax on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under chapter 82.08 RCW ("additional lodging tax") at a rate not to exceed the lesser of two percent or a rate that, when combined with all other taxes imposed upon sales of lodging within the municipality under chapter 67.28 RCW and chapters 36.100, 67.40, 82.08, and 82.14 RCW, equals 12 percent; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 67.28.1817, any municipality that proposes imposition of a tax or an increase in the rate of tax under chapter 67.28 RCW shall submit the proposal to the City's Lodging Tax Advisory Committee ("LTAC") for review and comment and shall not take any final action or pass the proposal until at least 45 days after submission of the proposal to the LTAC; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2015, the LTAC conducted a public meeting, at which meeting the LTAC discussed an increase to the additional lodging tax and moved and approved unanimously to request City Council "to pass an additional 1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests"; and WHEREAS, City Council desires to establish and levy such additional lodging tax in the amount of 1.3% to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests, as provided by law. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 3.20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 3.20.010 Imposition of tax on the furnishing of lodging. A. Imposition. 1. There is levied a special excise tax of two percent on the sale of or charge made for the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under Chapter 82.08 RCW, pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. Ordinance 15-008 Page 1 of 3 1 DRAFT 2. There is levied a separate special excise tax of 1.3 percent on the sale of or charge made for the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under Chapter 82.08 RCW, pursuant to RCW 67.28.181. B. Tax Imposed. The tax imposed under Chapter 82.08 RCW applies to the sale of or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court or trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property, as distinguished from the renting or leasing of real property. It shall be presumed that the occupancy of real property for a continuous period of one month or more constitutes a rental or lease of real property and not a license to temporarily use and enjoy the same. BC. Definitions. The definitions of "selling price," "seller," "buyer," "consumer," and all other definitions as are now contained in RCW 82.08.010, and subsequent amendments thereto, are adopted as the definitions for the taxes levied pursuant to in this Cehapter 3.20 SVMC. CD. Imposition of Tax in Addition to Other Taxes and Fees. The tax levied in this chapter pursuant to SVMC 3.20.010(A)(1) shall be a credit against the amount of sales tax (Chapter 82.08 RCW) due the state of Washington on the sale of lodging as set forth herein. 3.20.020 Creation of tourism -promotion fund. A. There is created a special fund in the treasury of the City of Spokane Valley termed the "hotel/motel tax fund" into which all taxes collected pursuant to under this chapterSVMC 3.20.010(A)(1) shall be placed and used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourist promotion, acquisition of tourism -related facilities, or operation of tourism -related facilities or to pay for any other uses as authorized in Chapter 67.28 RCW, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. B. There is created a special fund in the treasury of the City of Spokane Valley termed the "hotel/motel tax — tourism facilities fund" into which all taxes collected pursuant to SVMC 3.20.010(A)(2) shall be placed and used solely for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.20 SVMC, as allowed and provided by law. 3.20.030 Administration. For the purposes of this cChapter 3.20 SVMC, the tax as levied in this chapter will shall be administered as follows: A. The Department of Revenue is designated as the agent of the City of Spokane Valley for the 1 purposes of collection and administration of the taxes levied pursuant to SVMC 3.20.010(A)(1) and SVMC 3.20.010(A)(2). B. The administrative provisions contained in RCW 82.08.050 through 82.08.060 and in Chapter 82.32 RCW shall apply for administration and collection of the tax by the Department of Revenue. C. All rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Revenue for the administration of Chapter 82.08 RCW are adopted by reference. D. The Department of Revenue is authorized to prescribe and utilize such forms and reporting procedures as the department may deem necessary and appropriate. 3.20.040 Lodging tax advisory committee. Ordinance 15-008 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT The eCity eCouncil shall establish a lodging tax advisory committee consisting of five members. Two members of the committee shall be representatives of businesses required to collect the tax, and at least two members shall be persons involved in activities authorized to be funded pursuant toby this, cChapter 3.20 SVMC. The City shall solicit recommendations from organizations representing businesses that collect the tax and organizations that are authorized to receive funds pursuant thunder this cChapter 3.20 SVMC. The committee shall be comprised equally of members who represent businesses required to collect the tax and members who are involved in funded activities. One member of the committee shall be from the eCity eCouncil. Annually, the membership of the committee shall be reviewed. The (Mayor shall nominate persons and the eCouncil-member for the lodging tax advisory committee with eCouncil confirmation of the nominees. Nominations shall state the term of committee membership. Appointments shall be for either a one or a and two-year terms. 3.20.050 Violation — Penalty. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this cChapter 3.20 SVMC and such violation shall constitute a misdemeanor. Each day of violation shall be considered a separate offense. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 14th of April, 2015. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-008 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact for the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050; SVMC 24.50. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015. City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium on March 24, 2015. BACKGROUND: The City recently began its 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. As part of that process, the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of existing land inventory and all existing and desired land uses. One of those is the industrial zone, which includes gravel mining as an allowed use. There are several existing gravel mining operations in the City, which take up significant acreage and result in large open pits once the mining use is concluded. One of the unique features of mining is the permanent impact on the land where it is sited. Once a mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts can mean that the land may be permanently removed from other future available industrial uses, even after the mine closes. Currently, mining activities are defined in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") as a heavy industrial use. SVMC 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix identifies mining as a permitted use in the 1-2, Heavy Industrial Zone. While the SVMC does not identify a specific "mining permit" governing mining, there are several chapters of the SVMC, such as SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities, which would be applicable to new mining, mineral resource operations, and related mining activities. The City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2007 and has been updated annually. The Comprehensive Plan did not and currently does not specifically discuss or address mining or mineral resources operations. The Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the Tong -term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process will consider the economic and physical impacts of mining on the City's limited supply of available undeveloped industrial land. Appropriate recommendations for development regulations will result from this activity. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. Proposals for new mines and mining operations that are submitted pending the Comprehensive Plan update process will be governed by the rules in effect now and may be permitted on industrial lands, thereby limiting the City's choices on how to plan for industrial uses and mining operations in the future. With that in mind, it is appropriate to maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations while the City undertakes its Comprehensive Plan review to determine if mining is an appropriate use of that land given the unique permanence of mining. Thus, staff believed a moratorium on new mining and mineral manufacturing sites was appropriate while the City processes its Comprehensive Plan update and determines whether open pit mining and mineral manufacturing is compatible with other uses in an urban setting. The moratorium does not impact any existing mining operations. RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium on mining and mining site operations without conducting a public hearing and without utilizing the City's standard approval process through the Planning Commission and multiple readings by City Council. A moratorium preserves the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. After adoption of the moratorium, the City Council must conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days and adopt findings of fact for the moratorium. Additionally, the proposed moratorium includes a work plan and can be effective for up to 365 days from the date of adoption. After adoption of the moratorium, the City will work through the work plan and develop policy and final regulations through its standard process. A moratorium may be extended if the City conducts a public hearing on the ongoing work plan and extension of the moratorium and adopts findings of facts for the extension. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.390, on February 24, 2015, City Council considered and adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, which provided for a declaration of emergency and established a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. The moratorium became effective on the date it was passed (February 24, 2015) so it did not and does not impact existing businesses at this time. Further, Ordinance No. 15-005 set a public hearing for Tuesday, March 24, 2015, established a work plan to develop the Comprehensive Plan Update and subsequently appropriate regulations, adopted preliminary findings of fact, and established an effective period of up to 365 days for the moratorium. Finally, Ordinance No. 15-005 was designated as a public emergency and was effective upon adoption. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 as an emergency was categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-880. Staff has conducted SEPA review and determined the ongoing moratorium to be categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. Pursuant to state law, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining on March 24, 2015. Written public testimony was received from two interested parties and City Council heard verbal testimony from six interested parties at the public hearing. Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 will adopt findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining and related mining site operations as required by law. The City will continue on the work plan in working through the City's Comprehensive Plan update. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 Public hearing portion of the March 24, 2015 Draft Minutes Written testimony received at the March 24, 2015 Public Hearing DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-005 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on February 24, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-005 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Ordinance No. 15-005, on March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching; and WHEREAS, written public testimony was received from two interested parties. City Council heard verbal testimony from six interested parties during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing. Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 1 of 4 DRAFT NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." 2. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. 3. The City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands. 4. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial (I-2) zone. 5. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 6. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes. 7. The City has a fmite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 8. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City has begun the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 9. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 4 DRAFT 10. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. 11. New proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 12. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. 13. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." 14. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 15. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided a public hearing is held within 60 days of the adoption of the moratorium. 16. A moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 17. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005, City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 18. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-005 is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 800(19). Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 3 of 4 DRAFT 19. On March 24, 2015, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. 20. The City Council received written testimony from two interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received. 21. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 22. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15- 005 is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2. Duration. The moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005 shall be and remain in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of Ordinance No. 15-005, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 4 DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember City Staff: Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Christina Janssen, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Prior to the invocation, Mayor Grafos announced that Council would hold an executive session at the end of tonight's meeting. In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Councilmember Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended the Health Board meeting where they continue examining the composition of the board as well as the Board's governing manual; and that he went to a STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting. Councilmember Pace: said he judged a Home School science fair; went to the Greater Valley Support Network meeting, the STA Board meeting, and the State of the County address. Councilmember Higgins: said he went to the Japanese American Citizens League annual get-together; said he and City Attorney Driskell testified in Olympia on the transportation bill, which he said will be explained further later by Mr. Driskell. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the State of the County address; as part of the Chamber of Commerce trip, he went to Olympia where the focus was on transportation projects, and said the Barker Grade Separation and Interchange are in the Senate package now; went to a Spokane Valley Business Association meeting which focused on transportation and said he gave a report on issues being addressed by the legislature. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy Mayor Woodard: as part of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, said concerning the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) applications, they found an additional $68,000 to go toward the sidewalks around Seth Woodard School, and said that recommendation was unanimously forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration. MAYOR'S REPORT: Reported that he attended the State of the County address; and went to the NE Mayor's Conference where they talked about the need for a transportation bill for the State. In that regard, he asked for Council support to submit the following proposed testimony and/or letter of support: "The City of Spokane Valley requests legislative action to address the need for increased transportation funding in the 2015 Legislative Session, including direct funding for local transportation needs. We all recognize that quality transportation infrastructure is an important aspect of economic development. Yet, local revenues simply cannot support the high cost of bridge and road construction projects. The City of Spokane Valley is supportive of the legislature's consideration of the transportation revenue package that includes Barker Road overpass. The Barker/State Route 290 (Trent) overpass would open up 500 acres of industrial property for development with a potential economic output of $2 Billion creating up to 9,800 new jobs in the state. Recognizing that state, county and city government in Washington all face the immense financial challenge of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, we support statewide measures to fund essential projects. The City of Spokane Valley is maximizing their local support for the Barker Overpass and we have committed a $2.9 million City match for this critical project. We are deeply appreciative of the past and present funding support from the State of Washington transportation programs and we offer our support as you consider transportation funding options to address statewide needs." City Manager Jackson said it has been our practice to sign in to support or not to support a bill; and said he recommends extending our support by providing the testimony as stated. There was Council discussion about the suggested testimony versus the actual transportation bill, and/or a letter of support, and it was ultimately determined that Council would support the testimony as stated. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Sandy Pavelich: said she represents residents of the Valley concerned about the Painted Hills Golf Course purchased by the Black Development Company; said she sent Council a notice that Black had sent to residents, and said residents are concerned about the environmental impact resulting from the floodplain and the consequence that might occur with the aquifer and wetlands in the Chester Creek watershed; said they are also concerned with increased traffic; said if there is another fire storm in the area, there is a concern about evacuating people in the area. Bob Race, Spokane Valley: he invited Council to a Kiwanis sponsored "Paint -A -Helmet" event April 25 at the Spokane Fair & Expo Center and he handed the Clerk a flyer advertising the event; on another topic, said he spent more than 40 years in the transportation industry and noticed that the Industrial Park in Spokane is full and there are no opportunities for development unless this Council fully supports the issue so there is an opportunity for funding the Barker Road Interchange; said railroad crossings will be closed in various areas so this is a vital interchange to compensate for that; said the project is supported by the Valley Business Association, Valley Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Club, and others and for those who choose not to support this he thinks there will be a major issue "come election time" with 9,800 jobs that don't happen because this Council has chosen not to support the issue. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave a brief overview of the moratorium, and emphasized that this does not impact existing uses today; that after tonight's hearing and review of comments, this will be placed on a future Council agenda for consideration of approval of the Findings of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Director: said he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, mentioned and then read most of the Commissioners March 24, 2015 letter to Council, which in summary states that the County believes the current moratorium will have unintended consequences of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley, that it will significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction, and that it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley Road area, and they request Council either repeal the ordinance, or repeal it and in its place adopt chapter 14.260 of the Spokane County Code as this City's interim development regulation chapter. Mr. Peterson also included as an attachment to the letter, a copy of the County's Code Chapter 14.620, Mineral Lands. John Shogren, Central Pre -Mix: spoken in opposition to the moratorium; said he realizes this is temporary but it will lead to making it more difficult to run a business; said he noted this was not intended to impact existing businesses but said that is rarely the case as it will lead to more regulations and red tape; said he has over 300 employees and he feels this will financially damage his business; said a gravel pit and land use are not mutually exclusive in the long term. Paul Franz, Local General Manager for Central Pre -Mix: said the ordinance mentions that reclamation renders the land unusable for anything else; said he has picture that shows that is false; said mining is an interim use of a piece of land and it is very common to be reclaimed into useful property; said to say it destroys property permanently in incorrect; said the land doesn't go away and is still valuable and can be re -used; said this moratorium stops changes they were going to make. Juno McDonald, Licensed Professional Engineer: said she is the corporate environmental engineer for Central Pre -Mix; she disagreed that the moratorium does not affect existing operations; said they are often expected and required by the Department of Natural Resources to make updates, and under the moratorium would be in direct conflict with their permitting agency; she asked Council to repeal the moratorium and if not, their attorney will submit comments to hopefully be fully exempt. Stacy Bjordahl: Attorney speaking on behalf of CPM Development Corporation, which she said owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley; she submitted a letter explaining their position, which letter she said was previously submitted to legal counsel; said the Growth Management Act mandates that natural resource lands be preserved and protected, but the City's development regulations currently do not do that; said the City does not have a shortage of industrial land but rather has 80 years' worth of industrial land so the supply is not in jeopardy; said the sites are interim and will be reclaimed and are put to good use; said her letter suggests some amendments to the moratorium; and asks that the moratorium either be repealed or amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted. Lance Senter: said he is a recently retired exploration geologist and said the moratorium will hurt the City's economy as well as the economy of the surrounding area; said he is not a member of Central Pre- mix or any other industry, but speaks for himself as a private citizen; he knows the importance of using natural resources; said the land can be reclaimed; said this City advertises itself as being business friendly, but this seems contrary to that and he would like the moratorium repealed. There were no other public comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: S16kall� �` .00°galley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Date: March 26, 2015 Re: Mining Moratorium The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Spokane County Planning Director John Peterson. Although Councilmembers each received a copy of the letter at the Council meeting, I don't believe the attached seven pages from the County's Zoning Code were included (Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands). SPOKANE COUNT Y OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AL FRENCI I, 3RD DISIRICr March 24, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL mayor councilmembersnspokanevalley.org RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-005 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-005 on March 24, 2015, as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. The purpose of this correspondence is to share with you certain issues and concerns which Spokane County has regarding Ordinance No. 15-005 as well as to encourage the Council to consider revision or repeal of said Ordinance. As you are aware, and by way of background, entities planning under the Growth Management Act have certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations. The City of Spokane Valley is currently in the early stages of a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan and as such is subject to these obligations. With respect to mineral resources which are the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004, several provisions of the Growth Management Act must be followed. They include the following: • RCW 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations. (1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and city shall designate, where appropriate: (c) mineral resources that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals..." • RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and critical areas. 1 116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265 March 24, 2015 Page 2 (1) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands; (b) forest lands; (c) mineral resource lands; and (d) critical areas. The department shall consult with the depat tient of agriculture regarding guidelines for agricultural lands, the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and mineral lands, and the department of ecology regarding critical areas.... • RCW 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development regulations. (1) (a) ...each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations ...such regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the production of food, timber or for the extraction of minerals. A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental issues in conjunction with mining activities. We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the impacts of mineral extraction and associated processing. According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, 20% of the City of Spokane Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light Industrial. The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations are utilizing significant acreage that results in large open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible. With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley designated as Heavy or Light Industrial there appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light Industrial, the City has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current applications for mining activity. To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining and processing activities and to provide a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing, we would strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks, etc. This would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620 (Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an Interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the March 24, 2015 Page 3 environment or surrounding land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.620 will also afford greater protection to the environment, preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, ensure site reclamation consistent with chapter 78.44 RCW as administered by the Department of Natural Resources, and serve as a means to protect the rights of current property owners until the City completes an update of its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In summary, we believe that the current moratorium provided for under Ordinance 15-005 will have the unintended immediate consequence of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley which includes mineral resources having a life value of approximately $5,000,000. It will also significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction impacting the citizens of Spokane County to include the City of Spokane Valley. Finally, it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley road area. The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the above observations and: (1) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005, or (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005 and in its place adopt as interim development regulation chapter 14.620 of the Spokane County Code. Very truly yours, TODD MIELKE, Chair 10 &V • 1 LLY rQ ' it Vice Chair AL F' "' , Commissioner 2014 Printing Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands 14.620.100 Purpose and Intent The Mineral Lands zone is provided to allow for the quarrying, blasting, reduction, processing and mining of minerals or materials in urban, industrial, rural, and resource areas. The Mineral Lands (M) zone is intended to ensure continued development of natural resources through inclusion of deposits of minerals and materials within this zone reserved for their development and production, to assure that the best undeveloped mineral and material resources will not be lost forever by developing of the land for other purposes, to allow for the necessary processing to convert such minerals and materials to marketable products, and to assure that mining activities do not detrimentally impact the environment or surrounding land uses. 14.620.200 Types of Uses The uses for Mineral Lands shall be as permitted in table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix. Accessory uses and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted use shall be allowed. Multiple uses are allowed per lot. Additional use restrictions may apply pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance as amended, chapter 11.20 of the Spokane County Code. The uses are categorized as follows: 1. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "P". These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone. 2. Limited Uses: Limited uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "L". These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone and specific performance standards in section 14.620.220. 3. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". These uses require a public hearing and approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in chapter 14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the conditional uses illustrated in table 620-1 are also subject to specific standards and criteria as required in this chapter under section 14.620.230. 4. Not Permitted: Uses that are not permitted are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "N". 5. Essential Public Facilities (EPF): Facilities that may have statewide or regional/countywide significance are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "EPF". These uses shall be evaluated to determine applicability with the "Essential Public Facility Siting Process", as amended. 6. Use Determinations: It is recognized that all possible uses and variations of uses cannot be reasonably listed in a use matrix. The Director may classify uses not specifically addressed in the matrix consistent with section 14.604.300. Classifications shall be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. 7. Prohibited Uses: Uses not specifically authorized on mineral lands are prohibited, including, but not limited to the following. a. Commercial uses b. Residential uses c. Any use not specifically listed and permitted in this section. Spokane County Page 620 -1 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.210 Mineral Lands Zone Matrix Table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix Uses Mineral Lands Adult entertainment establishment N Adult retail use establishment N Commercial composting storage/processing CU Caretakers residence L Forestry P General agriculture/grazing/crops, not elsewhere classified P Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, on-site L Landfill CU Landfill, inert waste disposal facility CU Public utility transmission facility (EPF) L Quarying, blasting and mining L Reduction and processing of minerals L Sewage sludge land application CU Solid waste recycling/transfer site (EPF) L Stormwater treatment/disposal P Tower L Wireless communication antenna array L Wireless communication support tower CU 14.620.220 Uses with Specific Standards Uses that are categorized with an "L" in table 1, Mineral Lands Matrix, are subject to the corresponding standards of this section. 1. Caretakers residence A caretakers residence may include a dwelling that is used and required by mining or quarrying operations for continuous supervision by a caretaker or superintendent and his immediate family. 2. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities, on-site. a. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with and be subject to the State's siting criteria adopted pursuant to section 70.105.210 RCW, as administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology or any successor agency. b. The hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be limited to wastes produced or used on the site. 3. Public utility transmission facility. a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the proper construction, maintenance, and general safety of properties adjoining the public utility transmission facility. b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. c. The height of the structure above ground shall not exceed 125 feet. 4. Quarrying, blasting and mining Quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including but not limited to, sand and gravel rock, and clay. Spokane County Page 620 -2 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 5. Reduction and processing of minerals The primary reduction and processing of minerals or materials including, but not limited to, concrete batching, asphalt mixing, brick, tile, and concrete products manufacturing plants, and rock crushers and the use of accessory minerals and materials from other sources necessary to convert the minerals or materials to marketable products. 6. Solid waste recycling/transfer site a. The minimum lot area is 2 acres. b. Adequate ingress and egress to and on the site for trucks and/or trailer vehicles shall be provided. c. A paved access route on-site shall be provided. d. The site will either be landscaped (bermed with landscaping to preclude viewing from adjacent properties) and/or fenced with a sight -obscuring fence as determined by the Planning Director. 7. Tower. a. The tower shall be enclosed by a 6 -foot fence with a locking gate. b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet short of the ground. c. The tower collapse or blade impact area, as designed and certified by a registered engineer, shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the applicant has secured and filed an easement. Such easement(s) shall be recorded with the County Auditor with a statement that only the Division of Building and Planning or its successor agency can remove the easement. d. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all applicable requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and any required avigation easements can be satisfied. 8. Wireless communication antenna array. a. The use complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication Facilities. 14.620.230 Conditional Uses with Specific Standards and Criteria Conditional uses are listed in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". Conditional uses require an approved conditional use permit as set forth in chapter 14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the conditional uses identified in table 620-1 are subject to the corresponding specific standards as follows: 1. Commercial composting storage/processing. a. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 2. Landfill. a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres. b. The minimum distance for disposal operations from existing residences shall be 300 feet. This distance may be reduced provided the adjacent resident provides a signed waiver agreeing to the reduction of the minimum distance. c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be rehabilitated consistent with the plan after disposal terminates. d. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the landfill operation is found in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the landfill operation. e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. Spokane County Page 620 -3 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 3. Landfill — Inert Waste Disposal Facility a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres. b. The minimum distance of disposal operations shall be 300 feet from existing residences. This distance may be reduced provided the adjacent property owner signs a waiver agreeing to the reduction in the minimum distance. c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be rehabilitated consistent with the plan consistent after disposal terminates. d. Compliance with the standards of the Spokane Regional Health District and the state criteria for inert landfills adopted pursuant to WAC 173-350-410. e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. f. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the operation is found in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the inert landfill operation. 4. Sewage sludge land application (for agricultural, beneficial purposes). a. The minimum lot area for application is 5 acres. b. The minimum distance from any application area to the nearest existing residence, other than the owner's, shall be 200 feet. c. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 5. Wireless communication support tower, provided that: a. The tower complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication Facilities. b. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 14.620.240 Mining Operations Conditions for the approval of a proposed mining operation include but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. The extraction proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements. 2. The proposed extraction operation is buffered from existing or potential developments within the vicinity of the proposed operation. 3. An applicant shall prepare and provide an acceptable reclamation plan to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to obtaining a reclamation permit. The plan shall be prepared with the standards set forth in RCW 78.44. DNR shall have the sole authority to approve reclamation plans. 4. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without having first obtained a reclamation permit from DNR. The permit holder shall comply with the provisions of the reclamation permit unless waived and explained in writing by DNR. 5. Provide for protection of groundwater and surface water, including wetlands, during and after operation. 6. Mining shall not be allowed to penetrate the elevation 20 feet above the highest known elevation of an aquifer within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. 7. The monitoring and clean up of contaminants should be ongoing. 8. A sand and gravel permit shall be obtained, when applicable, from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 9. A sufficient amount of topsoil or suitable material shall be retained on-site for revegetation/rehabilitation purposes. 10. The operators shall comply with all existing water quality monitoring regulations of the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. Spokane County Page 620 -4 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.250 Environment 1. Sound pressure levels, as measured on properties adjacent to Mineral Lands property, shall conform to the provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-60-040 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels for noise originating in a Class C EDNA. 2. Provisions of Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA) shall be adhered to in the development of Mineral Lands property. Specifically reference SCAPCA Regulation 1, Section 6.04 Odors and Nuisances; Section 6.05, Particulate Matter and Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne; and Section 6.06, Emission of Air Contaminants or Water Vapor, Detriment to Persons or Property. 14.620.260 Reclamation Standards In order to ensure a further use of land used for mining subsequent to the removal of native materials, the following provisions covering land rehabilitation or reclamation shall be conformed to. 1. Mined excavations must be reclaimed consistent with the reclamation plan submitted and approved by DNR under the provisions of RCW 78.44. Reclamation shall proceed simultaneously with surface mining and upon the permanent abandonment of the quarrying, mining or processing operation. 2. Upon the exhaustion of minerals or materials or upon the permanent abandonment of the quarrying, mining or processing operation, all buildings, structures, apparatus or appurtenances accessory to the quarrying or mining operation shall be removed or otherwise dismantled. All demolition must be consistent with chapter 3 of the County Code. A maintenance building may be permitted to remain or be constructed on sites used for storage of road maintenance materials. 3. The legal owner or his agents shall provide the Division with copies of the following documents prior to development or use of the property. a. Permits/approved reclamation plans filed with the Department of Natural Resources. b. Bonds as required by the Department of Natural Resources. 14.620.270 Standards for Mining Within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Area In addition to those provisions listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.260 the following provisions shall apply. 1. Excavation into the aquifer is prohibited within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area as determined by the Division of Utilities. A minimum of 10 feet of undisturbed material shall remain above the highest known level of the aquifer. If excavation into any aquifer outside this area is allowed, the operator shall stockpile a sufficient quantity of fill material to backfill a minimum of 10 feet above the highest known aquifer elevation. 2. The owners of small surface mining sites (as defined in RCW 78.44), in areas of high aquifer susceptibility, shall obtain the required grading permits from Spokane County. 3. A drainage channel shall be constructed around the active gravel pit area to keep surface runoff from outside the pit excavation from entering the pit area. 4. Fuel storage areas and service facilities shall incorporate provisions to prevent lubricants and petroleum products from contaminating either the pit area or drainage channels. 5. No liquid, asphalt, cement, or water used in mixing and truck washing operations shall be disposed of in the bottom of the pit. 6. A protective 8 -foot -high berm or retaining wall shall be required adjacent to property lines where the edge of the pit is within 100 feet of a street or railroad right-of-way. 7. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and critical materials shall not be allowed within 100 feet of an active pit. Spokane County Page 620 -5 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.280 Pit Reclamation and Allowable Land Uses In addition to those standards listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.270 the following standards shall apply. 1. Reclamation plans for mining sites shall include: a. The depth of remaining materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites inside the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. b. The depth of remaining or backfilled materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites outside the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. c. Physical barriers, as required in section 14.620.270 shall remain. d. Provisions shall be made for limitation of access to, and activities within, the rehabilitated site until the use of the land is changed. 2. Subsequent land uses in reclaimed gravel pits within Spokane County may be limited or specifically conditioned. 14.620.290 Development Standards Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this Section shall be provided. 1. Lot Standards: Lot standards are illustrated in table 620-2 as follows: Table 620-2 — Lot Standards for Mineral Lands a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 Permitted uses Minimum lot area 5 Acres Minimum frontage No Requirement (a) Minimum yards For Mining/Quarrying 50 feet — To property lines (b) (c) For Structures/Buildings 100 feet — From residential zone 50 feet — To property line(s) a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 1 or II landscaped area or maintained landscaped berm. Storage of additional junked vehicles shall be within a completely enclosed building with solid walls and doors. Tarps shall not be used to store or screen junked vehicles. Vehicle remnants or parts must be stored inside a vehicle or completely enclosed building, including doors. Fences over 6 feet in height require a building permit and/or a zoning variance. 4. Fencing Six-foot fencing shall be provided and maintained in good condition at all times in the following locations. a. Exterior boundary of any portion of any site on which active operations exist. b. Exterior boundary of any portion of the site which has been mined and not yet rehabilitated. 14.620.300 Resource Activity Notification All subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, zone reclassifications, manufactured home park site plan approvals, variances, conditional use permits, shoreline permits and building permits issued or approved for land on or within 1,000 feet of lands designated as natural resource land (agricultural, forest or mineral lands), pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A.170, shall contain or be accompanied by a notice. The Public Works Department shall maintain maps of designated natural resource lands. The notice shall include the following disclosure: "The subject property is adjacent or in close proximity to designated agricultural, forest or mineral resource land on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development. Potential disturbances or inconveniences may occur 24 hours per day and include but are not limited to: noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery including aircraft, application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and removal of vegetation. Agricultural and forestry -related activities which are performed in accordance with local, state and federal laws shall not be subject to legal action as a public nuisance." In the case of plats, short plats and binding site plans, notice shall also be included in the plat or binding site plan dedication Spokane County Page 620 -7 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 Sj�1"`' ��Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk , !L/ i/ Date: March 26, 2015 Re: Mining Moratorium The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Stacy Bjordahl, of Parsons/Burnett/ Bjordahl/Hume regarding Council's March 24, 2015 Public Hearing on the Mining Moratorium. PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HUMELLP ATTORNEYS Stacy A. Bjordahl sbjordahl@pblaw.biz March 24, 2015 City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Emergency Moratorium on Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing Ordinance No. 15-005 Dear Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's adoption of an Emergency Moratorium prohibiting Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing (Moratorium). This letter is submitted on behalf of CPM Development Corp. (CPM), which through its related entities owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley.1 For the reasons discussed herein, we request that the Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative, be amended to ensure continued uninterrupted operations on each site. First, we have concerns regarding the Moratorium and its impact upon each of the CPM sites for various reasons, as well as an overall concern that the City's adoption of an "anti - mining" ordinance is in direct violation of the Growth Management Act's mandate that cities and counties designate, preserve, and protect natural resource lands, including mineral lands. Second, the City does not have a shortage of industrial land. A moratorium is a drastic measure and does not appear justified given that the City has an abundance of industrial land supply. The City's Land Quantity Analysis prepared in September 2010 for the UGA Update concluded, "[e]ssentially, the City has four times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In conclusion, the City of Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years." See Exhibit "A" (Land Quantity Analysis for the City of Spokane Valley, September 2010.) We respectfully request the City Council to repeal the Moratorium because there is no shortage of industrial land or demonstrated need to preserve industrial lands pending the City's Comprehensive Plan update. 1 These entities are: Central Pre -Mix, Inland Asphalt and Acme. 505 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 500, Spokane WA 9920I • T (509) 252-5066 • F (509) 252-5067 • www.pblaw.biz A Limited Liability Partnership with offices in Spokane and Bellevue City of Spokane Valley City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 Finally, the Moratorium may impact CPM's non -conforming rights. As noted in Exhibit B, CPM has two sites, Sullivan and Park, which are both zoned Heavy Industrial and thus, appear to be conforming sites. The other two sites, Carnahan and 8th and Havana, are both zoned residential which does not allow mining; therefore, both of those sites are non- conforming under Chapter 19.20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). As the holder of legal non -conforming use rights, CPM has the right to continue and conduct mining and mining related activities pursuant to Section 19.20.060 (B) of the SVMC, which provides in pertinent part: B. Continuing Lawful Use of Property. 1. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code, or any amendments thereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall inure to all successive interests in the property. While it appears the Moratorium is not intended to affect mining and mining operations "that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as the effective date" of the Moratorium, there is conflicting language between Sections 2(A) and 2(C). Specifically, Section 2(A) of the Moratorium expressly prohibits the City from processing a modification or approval to an existing permit or license without regard to the permitting agency, and yet Section 2(C) states that the Moratorium does not affect mining and mining operations that were in effect prior to the effective date of the ordinance. In the case of each CPM site, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may require changes to the Reclamation Plan which will require the City's Planning Department to sign DNR Form SM -6. It is our opinion that Form SM -6 would likely constitute either a permit or license under Section 2(A) of the Moratorium and as such, could not be signed by the Planning Department as long as the Moratorium is in effect. If the City is unable to sign Form SM -6, this could potentially cause a site to fall out of compliance with Washington State Surface Mining rules. Based upon the above and the stated purpose and intent of the Moratorium not to impact vested or non -conforming rights, we respectfully request the following amendments be made to Section 2 of the Moratorium. Requested Amendments to the Moratorium. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, process' • :, •• : . - : . • : - . of any permit applications or licenses by or for new mining and/or related mining site City of Spokane Valley City Council March 24, 2015 Page 3 operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. B. [No proposed changes.] C. The moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operations as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Provided further, this moratorium shall not preclude the acceptance. processing and approval of permits or licenses required to maintain and operate any mining or mining site operations in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and respectfully request that the Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative, be amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted or interrupted. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Thank you for your courtesies. Sincerely, PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HU E, LLP Stacy A. Bi Encl. EXHIBIT "A" Urban Growth Area Update Land Quantity Analysis for The City of qpokane Valley September 2010 City of qpokane Valley RESIDENTIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSS The City of Spokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (LQA) report to determine the amount of land available within existing urban areas to support residential and non-residential growth. The Steering Committee of Beefed Officialswill use this quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. County -wide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions to utilize the LQA methodology developed by the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from the guidebook, "Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas". The Steering Committee of Bected Officials adopted this methodology on November 3, 1995. This report analyzes land quantity using the most current data. The analysis incorporates an aerial photography review to verify the accuracy of various sources of land use data. Below is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's application of the adopted methodology: Step 1 Identify land that can accommodate future growth. In determining residential land quantity, these landsfalI under three categories Preliminary and final plats Platted lots that have not been built on are considered as available and calculated at one dwelling unit per lot. Vacant land Vacant lands are any lot or parcel that does not contain a structure or building, as determined from the Assessor's records. Partially used land Partially used land is land that contains existing residential development but is large enough to be further subdivided based on the current zoning classification. Partially used residential land includes properties that can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current zoning dassification. Step 2 Subtract all parcels that your community defines as not developable due to physical limitation. In most cases throughout Spokane Valley, land can be developed with mitigating measures. While recogniangthat most land has development potential, certain properties have physical and/or regulatory constraints, such aswetlands, steep slopes, or regulated shorelines. Some properties may never develop or may develop at densities less than allowed by zoning. City of Spokane Valley Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not included in the residential land supply. These include the following critical areas deduct ions: Critical areas deduction Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are subtracted from land inventory. Rsh and Wildlife Geologically Hazardous Streams and associated riparian area buffers are subtracted from the land inventory. Certain geologic units and slopes over 30%are deducted from available land inventory. The geologic units indude alluvium, mass wasting deposits and the Latah formation. The above deductions amount to a 9.6 % reduction of available land supply. Step 3 Subtract lands that will be needed for other public purposes. Land needed for public purposes is addressed in two different ways. In the first case, land that is necessary for new infrastructure, primarily for road right-of-way, is subtracted from the acreage figures generated in Step 1. A20%reduction is taken from residential land initially identified as vacant or partially -used for these purposes. In the second instance, the Spokane County Assessor's property Bass codes and exemptions are used to identify lands that may appear to be vacant but, in reality, are not available for residential development. These situations involve both public and private properties owned by entities such as utility companies, school districts, or parks departments. Table 6 illustratesthe Assessor property use codes and exemptionsthat are deducted from the vacant land supply. Table 6 - Assessor Exemption Property Use Codes 41 Trans—Railroad 42 Trans— Motor 43 Trans—Aircraft 44 Trans— Marine 45 Trans— Highway 46 Trans— Parking 47 Communication 48 Utilities 49 Trans — Other 67 Service—Governmental 68 Service — Educational 71 Cultural Activity 72 Public Assembly 73 Amusement 74 Recreational 75 Resort- Camping State Levy Exempt Public Stools Exempt 76 Park 77 Churches 79 Other Cultural Cemetery Exempt DoRlnstitutional Exempt Government Property Exempt Operating Property Exempt Qty of Spokane Valley Step 4 Subtract all parcelswhich your community determines are not suitable for development for social and economic reasons. Deduction for parcels with low improvement value Parcels appraised at less than $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the available land supply. Deduction for parcels with high improvement value Sngle family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 times the lot area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are exduded from available land supply. Step 5 Subtract .. that percentage of land...which you assume will not be available for development within your plan's 20 year time -frame. In the adopted Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County, a technical committee of elected officials and technical experts determined that a build -out factor of 70%was an acceptable average countywide, also referred to as a "market factor". Therefore, the City of Spokane Valley assumes that approximately 30%of the total land identified will not be available for development during the 20 -year planning horizon. Step 6 Build a safety factor Building a safety factor is considered a local methodology option to be used if a jurisdiction is not able to monitor land supply and consumption on a regular basis. The City of Spokane Valley has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to GScapabilitiesenabling effective monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Planning Polides in 2008 established a strategy for monitoring population growth and mandating land quantity and population capacity studieswhen certain growth triggers are met. This strategy is intended to ensure that adequate land supply will be monitored and maintained throughout the planning horizon. Sep 7 Determine total capacity. Assumptions Residential zones Low Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 4 dwelling units per acre Medium Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 11 dwelling units per acre High Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre City of Spokane Valley Mixed use, commercial and industrial zones Mixed Use: Within the Mixed Use zone, 25%of available vacant land is counted for residential use at a density of 17 units per acre. Light Industrial: No residential use within Light Industrial zones. Heavy Industrial: No residential use in heavy industrial zones. Commercial: No residential use in commercial zones. Population per dwelling unit Low density residential units are assigned a value of 2.5 residents per household. Medium density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household. High density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household. Mixed use residential units are assigned a value of 1.5 residents per household. Aerial Photography Review Afinal step in the analysis included a review of recent aerial photography to compare the results of the GSanalysis to the existing landscape and identify any major errors or anomalies. The review identified a number of anomalies relating to land determined to be vacant using the Assessor's property use codes. The LQA was modified to exdude the identified areas from lands available for development. 2010 Population Capacity Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the Qty of q)okane Valley using the adopted land quantity methodology and assumptionsasdescribed in this report. Qty of a)okane Valley Vacant and Partially Used Land Net Developable Acres Potential New Dwelling Units Population Capadty Qty of Spokane Valley 3,485.43 1,448.72 7,763.84 17,337.49 Assessor Errors -46.42 -16.71 -109.69 -239.33 Adjusted Total 3,439.01 1,432.01 7,654.15 17,098.16 Qty of a)okane Valley OOM M BRQAL LAND QUANT1TYANALYSIS On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management :leering Committee adopted a methodology for determining commercial land demand. The following is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's commercial land analysis using the adopted methodology. The formula does not take into account current commercial vacancy rates and current developed commercial property that is currently under-utilized. The first step in determining the commercial land demand is to identify a growth factor. The growth factor is calculated by taking the City of Spokane Valley's official population allocation adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCa and dividing it by the current population determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The growth factor is then calculated by the City of Spokane Valley's commercial acres currently in use. Table 8 illustratesthe Assessor property use codes used to identify commercial acres in use. Table 8 —Assessor Commercial Property Use Codes Code Description 16 Hotels and Motels 17 Lodging and daycare 46 Automobile parking 52 Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment 53 Shopping centers 54 Grocery stores, convenient stores, and auto body repair 55 Automobile sales and service 56 Apparel, photography, and Laundromats 57 Furniture and equipment 58 Restaurants, fast food, and taverns 59 Miscellaneous retail trade 61 Financial institutions 62 Pdrsonal services 63 Business services 64 Repair services 65 Professional services Spokane Valley did not apply a land utilization factor. The adjusted commercial acres of demand are then calculated by a market factor of 25%to determine the total demand of commercial acres. The total demand of commercial acres is then subtracted from the commercially zoned acres resulting in the demand for commercial acreage. Using this methodology the City of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate commercial property for the next twenty years of comrnercial growth (see formula below). Qty of Spokane Valley Population Allocation +Current Population / Current Population 08,956.00 Growth Factor 90.21 0.00' = Growth Factor 1.21 Commercial Acres X in Use = Commercial Acres of Demand 1.21 1,133,56 1,369.11 Land Utilization Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor 1,369.11 .00 Adjusted Commercial Acres = of Demand 1,369.11 Adj. Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Total Vacant Commercial Demand - in Use = Acres of Demand 1,369.11 1,133.56 235.56 Vacant Commercial Acres of Demand X Market Factor 235.56 1.25' Total Commercial Acres of = Demand 294.45 Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Total Commercial Acres of Demand + in Use = Demand 294.45 1,133.56 1,428.00 Commercial Acres Additional Comm. Acreage Total Comm. Acres of Demand - Zoned = needed 1,428.00 2,638.53 -1,210.53 Minus indicates surplus INDUSTRIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSIS The industrial employment forecast for 2031 is determined using a ratio method that compares industrial employment to total population. Thisforecast is needed to determine the adequacy of industrial lands to meet the land quantity needs for the 2031 planning horizon. The forecast and needs analysis involves several steps as follows: 1. Establish a ratio of industrial employment to total Population The ratio is established using the 2000 census, which indudesdetailed employment data for industrial employees. The categories considered as industrial indude construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and utilities. In the year 2000, there were 49,344 people employed in these industrial categories. Snce the land quantity analysisfocuseson urban growth area needs, rural industries sudh as agriculture, City of Spokane Valley forestry, and mining are not induded. This number is compared to the total population for 2000 (417,939) to determine a percentage ratio as follows: 10,644 divided by 79,000 = 0.135 or 13.5% 2. Estimate industrial employment for 2010 Estimating industrial employment for 2010 can be achieved by applying the ratio established in step 1 to the 2010 population for 800kane County. The equation is illustrated as follows: 2010 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2010 90,210 x 0.135 =12,178 employees 3. Estimate industrial employment for 2031 The UGA update contemplates land use needs for the year 2031. Estimating industrial employment for 2031 is necessary to determine future industrial employment needs and can be estimated similarly to step 2. The equation is illustrated as follows: 2031 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2031 108,956 x 0.135 =14,709 employees 4. Estimate the increase in industrial employment between 2010 and 2031 To estimate the increase in industrial employment simply subtract the current estimate of industrial employees (2010) from the 2031 estimate for industrial employees 2031 employees- 2010 employees= increase in employment for planning period 14,709-12,178 =2,531 employees 5. Estimate the need for available industrial lands An industrial lands study was done by Spokane County in 2000. The study provided a detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the County. Research within that study established a ratio of 16 employees per net acre of industrial land. This ratio is used to determine the net acres of industrial land needed to meet the employment needs for 2031: (16 employees per acre) / 2,531 employees =158 acres The conclusion isthat 138 acres of available industrial land is needed to maintain the current level of industrial use per capita for the 2031 planning horizon. This conclusion is city-wide and does not indude the industrial land needsfor unincorporated UGAs. City of Spokane Valley In order to evaluate the industrial Iandswithin the Qty, staff used an industrial land study developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representatives from various economic development, business, and real estate organizations. This committee developed a rating system to evaluate the marketability of land designated for industrial use. The rating system utilized Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data to evaluate the industrial land in terms of lot size, availability of infrastructure, and environmental limitations. In this study, industrial land was classified into five categories or "tiers" . Tier one lands were determined to have all the attributes to be immediately available for development. Tier two and three lands were dassified as being usable within a 20 -year timeframe. Ter four and five lands were considered constrained with improvement value, size, or critical area limitations, which essential made them unavailable for development. Using this methodology, it was determined that there is 839 acres of tier one industrial property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. In addition, there is 250 acres of tier one industrial property currently in a public/quasi-public use. There is no tier two or three industrial properties located within the aty of Spokane Valley. The majority of the remaining industrial property was dassified as tier four and five considered as land that is built out" with little opportunity for redevelopment in the near term. Table 9 summarizes the industrial land analysis in the aty of Spokane Valley. Table 9: Industrial Land Analysis Industrial Analysis Acres Tier 1 838.9046 Tier 1 (P/Q-P) 250.4862 Tier 4 2349.5993 Tier 4 (P/ Q -P) 2.6502 Tier 5 54.5821 Tier 5 (P/Q-P) 22.9966 Totals 3,519.22 Based on the analysis, the needed industrial land for the 2031 planning horizon is 158 acres. Currently, the City has839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the City has four times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the City Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years PREVIOUS BOUNOM ICSTUDI ES& ANALYSIS The City of Spokane Valley, as part of the planning process for the Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the Plan. The most recent study performed by Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. in 2007 specifically examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in Spokane Valley. The Gbbs Qty of Spokane Valley study examined three trade area scenarios: 1) Micro Trade Area, 2) Primary Trade Area, and 3) 100 Mile Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below. Micro Trade Area This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The Spokane Valley Mall and downtown q:tokane were excluded from the trade area (supply side) in an effort to create the largest possible retail void. It was expected that this model would yield a strong demand for neighborhood goods and services. However, the Micro Trade Area analysis indicated an over -supply of all retail categories except for specialty foods such as ice cream, bagels, and coffee. Overall, the Micro TradeArea2006 retail sales were reported at $1.29 billion, with a consumer demand of only $738 million. The Micro Trade Area thus had an over- supply of $550 million per year or approximately 2 million square feet. Primary Trade Area The Primary Trade Area included most of the q)okane Valley region where most of the study area's (Spokane Valley Town Center) potential shoppers reside. The Spokane Valley Mall and surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown 8pokanewas exduded from this model. The estimated Primary Trade Area's overall 2006 retail sales (supply) were $2.23 billion with total consumer demand (spending) of only $1.46 billion. This resulted in an over -supply of $805 million per year or almost 3 million square feet surplus retail stores in the Primary Trade Area. 100 Mile Trade Area Due to the relatively remoteness of iokane, Gibbs' opinion was that it is likely that the total Spokane trade area extends 100 miles or beyond. The 100 Mile Trade Area would account for the largest potential demand for retail and restaurants in the greater 4okane region. Within the 100 Mile Trade Area, most categories are over -supplied especially jewelry, sporting goods and books. Asmall demand was indicated for home furnishing, appliances, electronics, and limited service restaurants. The overall 2006 retail sales (existing supply) was estimated at $9.48 billion, while the 2006 overall consumer demand was estimated at $8.17 billion yielding retail over -supply of $1.31 billion. This results in an existing over -supply of up to 4.7 million square feet of retail space in the 43,okane Region. City of 81okane Valley 10 City of Sp, am Palley 2010Re.eend4 Land Quararey a o u.ema NES Partaiennei 43.,r4 W..; City of q)okane Valley EXHIBIT "B" Site Sullivan Acreage Parcel # Current usesfzoning CurrentZoning Comp Pian Histoncal uses Years m operation Moratorium impact Road Spokane County Approx 242 45123.9008 45123.9007 45122.9005 45122.9004 45123.9006 45123.9011 45125.9157 451.35.9007 45124.9012 45121.9016 Mining/Industrial Asphalt Production Concrete Production Shop Facilities Recycling 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining Asphalt Production Concrete Production Shop facilities 35+ Modifications to Reclamation plan to lakude removing the common boundary between CPM and Cou to maximaizethe resources in both mining permits including but not limited to mining the Flora Pit Road and the existing house property. Flora Pit under lease/buy option Park Road Approx. 30 45121.9015 Mining/Industrial Shop Facilities 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining/industrial Shop Facilities 35+ See5uliivan Road Details Above Approx. 108 35134.9095 Mining/Industrial 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining 35+ Not known at this time 35134.9057 Quality Cgntrol Concrete Production 35134.9028 LC' Shop Facilities 35134.9075 Quality Control 35134.9030 351.34.9029 35134.3232 Camahan 35134.9081 Approx. 34 35234.9099 Mining, Recycling MF -1 Medium Density Mining, Recycling 35+ Not known atthis time Residential 8th & Havana Quarry Approx. 50 35233.9191 35233.9192 Mining Asphalt Production R-4 tight Density Mining 35+ CPM just purchased the property in 35233.0709 Recycling Residential Asphalt Production December. DNR Plan is under review and Recycling may require modifications in which the City 35233.0710 would need to sign off. 35233.0604 35233.0605 35233.0606 35233.0607 35233.0608 35233.0609 35233.0505 35233.9176 Broadwa 351330501 -4518'3 .9190 45 12.7. 00i. 4 51 B3191 5 ,5 352E -,233 y173 35224.2 ;0 35233:0711 5.233 0413 35733 0t 10 I41 35233.0704 35233.0705 352., b7C: 1,35233.05 1 3 i •_35233 0 8TH & HAVANA 55233.0707 35233!IDE, -7 SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 24, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. NAME PLEASE PRINT Your City of Residence 0 1i _ec, p/ -,40K\ 6Ki2__ i 4o //'-)accti il?a�; 1 -E ,, CP ___, PI,,. 1r-3 C -1-abt/ R �� (cam ,, \J0.fl e Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing information ❑ admin. report ❑pending legislation ❑executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-010; amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150 Animal Raising and Keeping. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, RCW 58.17, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 17, 2015 the Council agreed to proceed to an ordinance first reading. BACKGROUND: CTA -2015-0001 is a City -initiated Code text amendment adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on February 12, 2015 and a public hearing on February 26, 2015. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 15-010 adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance B. Staff Report to Planning Commission C. Planning Commission Findings of Fact D. Planning Commission Minutes from February 12, 2015, study session; and February 26, 2015 public hearing and deliberations DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 19.40.150, ANIMAL RAISING AND KEEPING BY ADDING BEEKEEPING REQUIREMENTS, CLARIFYING VARIOUS TERMINOLOGY, AND PROHIBITING THE KEEPING OF NUTRIA; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19, pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on January 30 and February 6, 2015, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2015, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, SVMC 19.40.150, as amended, bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 19.40.150 by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the amendments and Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 1 of 5 DRAFT recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. 1. Land Use Policy LUP-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. 2. Land Use Policy -13.1: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. 3. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. 4. 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. 5. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. 6. Neighborhood Goal NG -2: Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. 7. Neighborhood Policy -NP -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. 8. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.4: Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. 9. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.6: Encourage community gardens in residential areas. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). 3. The GMA requires that the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 2 of 5 DRAFT Section 3. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 19.40.150 is hereby amended as follows: 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. Minimum Lot Requirements. 1. In residential zones, the lot or tract shall must _exceed 40,000 square feet in area, except as set forth in SVMC 19.40.150(G) and (I), below; 2. In mixed-use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet. B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; DC. 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 ; ED. 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; EE. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or 3. Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.40.150subscction (E)(1) and (E)(2), above -e€ this section; F. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including duck, turkey, goose or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, , nutria, 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; 1 I G. 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; Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 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 contained within the subject property. L.H. Structures, pens, yards, enclosures, pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. I. In residential areas, beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area. 4-2. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof, that is parallel to the side or rear property line(s) and 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. -4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the hives. 45. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Chapters 19.140 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of April, 2015. Dean Grafos, Mayor ATTEST: Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 5 of 5 Spokane lhal ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN. City Council 1st Ordinance Reading April 14, 2015 CTA -2015-0001 (Hobby Beekeeping) Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.40.150(C) Spokane talk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Spokane Valley Current and Proposed Beekeeping Regulations Maximum # of hives Minimum lot area Flyaway Barrier Source of Water Beekeeper Certification 25 No 40,000 square feet 1 hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area No No Side & Rear yard --minimum 5' Front & Flanking yard—minimum 20' Yes No Yes No Yes Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 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 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA -2015-0001 March 12, 2015 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. CTA -2015-0001 is a city initiated text amendment 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. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on February 26, 2015. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval as modified to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy LUP-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. ii Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. iii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. iv. 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. v. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. vi. Neighborhood Goal G-2 Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. vii. 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. viii. Neighborhood Policy- 2.4 Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. ix. Neighborhood Policy -2.6 Encourage community gardens in residential areas. b. The proposed city -initiated amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 Finding(s): The Planning Commission recommended the following revision to section 19.40.150(I)(4) and the additional beekeeping requirement be added to the amendment as SVMC 19.40.150 (I)(5) to insure beekeepers are knowledgeable regarding appropriate conditions to maintain the bees in a safe and responsible environment. 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the hives. 5.The beekeeper shall have certification from the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city - initiated code text amendments to SVMC 19.40.150, Animal Raising and Keeping as attached. Approved this 12th day of March, 2015 Joe Stoy, Chairman ATTEST Deaiuna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Chairman Stoy called pledge of allegiance. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 12, 2015 the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: John Hohman, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Micki Harnois, Planner 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 Philips 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 I-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 I-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 justify 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 not 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 defmition 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 Philips, 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 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Chairman Stoy called the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Kevin Anderson Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 26, 2015 meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Micki Harnois, Planner Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 26, 2015 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the February 12, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Anderson noted on page four of six, second paragraph, "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." The word 'not' needs to be inserted between `could' and `support'. Having no other discussion, the chair called for the vote to approve the minutes as amended. The vote was seven to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Graham and Scott reported they attended the Planning Short Course which was presented by the WA Dept. of Commerce and hosted by the City. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow thanked the Commissioners who attended the Planning Short Course and reported the City would be working on providing additional training for the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners of the Comprehensive Plan Update `Report Back' meeting would be March 4, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. at CenterPlace. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing for CTA -2015-0001 A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150 (C) Animal raising and keeping Chair Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois reported the proposed amendment to SVMC 19.4.150(C) Animal raising and keeping is to clean up some language making it consistent with other parts of the code (ex: shall instead of must), to remove nutria as an animal which is allowed to be kept and changing the regulations for hobby beekeeping. 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 this needed to be struck from the City's code. Ms. Harnois stated currently the SVMC allows a maximum of 25 hives only on lots 40,000 square feet or larger. The proposed language would allow one hive per 4,356 square feet of gross lot area. Beehives would need to be located a minimum of five feet from side and rear property lines and twenty feet from front or flanking street property lines. Additionally a six-foot high flyaway barrier, which would force the bees to fly up and away from the neighbor's property would need to be located next to the hives and an adequate supply of water shall be located close by the hives. 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 Commissioner Anderson questioned if the word `adequate' was the correct word to use for the water supply. It was determined it was not necessary to have a continuous or constant running supply of water but just water all the time in the same place close by for the bees to be able to get to so they don't go looking for it on other people's property. Commissioner Graham asked about the state certification. It was discussed when there are state requirements, it is generally felt putting those same requirements in the SVMC is redundant. The City only has one code enforcement officer and trying to enforce a state requirement would be burdensome on the workload. Commissioner Wood asked if dense vegetation suggested as a flyaway barrier would be good enough, and how dense it would need to be. It was discussed that bees do not fly through things, such as vegetation or fences. Joan Nolan, 1422 S. Bowdish: Ms. Nolan said she has lived at this address for 46 years and for 40 of those years there have hives of bees on the property. She asked if the Commissioners had any information regarding the certification of bee keepers. Inland Empire Beekeepers Association (IEBA) does put on classes. The students have an opportunity to be certified. This means, along with the registration fee they paid for the class, the Washington State Bee Keepers Association (WSBA) test for becoming a certified apprentice. There are three levels of bee keeping, apprentice, journeyman and master beekeeping. In the Spokane City ordinance it is required a beekeeper be certified. It means they have taken the test, provided to the IEBA by the WSBA, they have taken the test, passed it and received a certificate. It means the beekeeper has taken a class and learned how to be a responsible beekeeper, so they are not an annoyance to their neighbor. Years ago when she took her first class, which Micki had used, 'out of sight, out of mind.' Her instructor said 'keep your bees out of sight, out of mind.' Because too often people didn't know or have information about honey bees. Anything with a pair of wings that was a nuisance, it was the unfortunate beekeeper who took the blame for it, so we kept them out of sight. Now, what I would like to suggest is the advantage of being certified is from a beekeeper's perspective it is protection for us, because then if there is a frivolous complaint about yellow jackets, horse flies or whatever, we can say `no it is not the honey bee, I am responsible and I have certificate. She said it may be an over simplification but it is a valid reason for having the bee keepers under this ordinance be certified as part of the requirement. Commissioner Stoy asked her if the levels of certification were based on the number of hives a person had. Ms. Nolan said the level of certification had nothing to do with the number of hives a beekeeper had. The degree of knowledge, the expertise and experience the beekeeper has, not the number of hives. The level of study, the number of years they have been a beekeeper and the requirements to meet each level. Which includes teaching beekeeping in the schools and so on. Commissioner Anderson asked if IEBA, had a membership fee, she clarified dues., which are $5.00 per year. Mr. Anderson asked if the IEBA was administering a test for the WSBA and how much the test was. Ms. Nolan answered the test was $15.00. He confirmed there were three separate tests, one for each level. He also confirmed the city of Spokane requires `this' (certified beekeepers). Mr. Anderson asked if she was aware of any other cities which required certification of beekeepers, she offered the city of Colville also requires certification. Ms. Barlow interjected in the research Ms. Harnois had performed it was not uncommon for certification to be required but it was not always required. Ms. Nolan said rather than looking at it from catching people from wrong doing or always looking for someone who is not doing it correctly, look at it from the perspective of the beekeeper. They want to be certified, they want to be good neighbors and have bees. She thinks people are more and more aware of the value of a honey bee with their garden and crops. As they are other people are becoming protective of the honey bee as well. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. Nolan if she could identify, from the picture offered (which was from a presentation at the last Planning Commission meeting), that the 'box' was one hive, a colony, one family lives in this, Ms. Nolan said. The number is determined by the time of the year, the strength if the hive, the top boxes are where the honey supers are put, as the honey flow is on more boxes are added so bees can store honey. Wintertime that is taken down to two boxes. Commissioner Stoy asked how many bees are in a typical hive, he did know there was one queen. Ms. Nolan turned to the audience for guidance, and a voice started to 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 comment but it was explained to him he would not be able to do that. 70-90,000 are the average in a year. Mr. Stoy asked if the bees died off. Ms. Nolan said yes, they work themselves to death. The workers make trips back and forth between the nectar source and the hive and live maybe 3-4 weeks. In the mean time the queen is laying the eggs, raising the brood, to replace those workers. In the fall, the bees don't have the nectar source, they depend on the stores of honey the beekeeper has left them, typically 80-90 pounds of honey to get them through the winter. The queen diminishes the laying of eggs, the numbers go down. The bees don't hibernate, they form a cluster., eating their food and form a cluster to maintain warmth. They circle from the inside bees to the out keeping the queen in the center, the center of the cluster maintains about 90 degrees through the winter, regardless of the temperatures outside. Commissioner Wood clarified Ms. Nolan was supporting the beekeepers be certified as part of the code. She said `they' were a self governing organization. She said they were all about the good of the bee. If you have beekeepers, who are not doing right by their bees, by supplying water or treating them for diseases, it affects us all. She said, there are no fences around the bees, they can travel, mix and mingle, and carry diseases. Mr. Wood asked her what position she held in the IEBA. She said she did not hold an position in the IEBA, but she was a master gardener. She said she was a liaison between the WSU extension and the IEBA. Commissioner Stoy asked about African bees and could it affect the local honey bee. She said in this area, no. The reason for that is because, it was that was a mistake, it was someone being irresponsible, where the bloodline of that bee was released and bred with other local bees in the south. From her understanding the Africanized bee does not know how to form a cluster. So we are somewhat protected in the north area by our cold weather. She knows they have them in Texas and the warmer climates even in southern California, they have had them there. There are some breeding issues. Here as she mentioned at about 50 degrees, and these days are perfect for seeing that. The honey bees are out in doing cleansing flights, that means they won't defecate in the hive, they are now looking for water, which I have out, all responsible beekeepers do. Come about 4-5:00 those bees take a nose dive into that hive, 50 degrees and lower and they are right back in that cluster to maintain that warmth. Africanized bees have not learned to do that, they don't have that trait built into their system, they can't survive the cold temperatures. Commissioner Scott asked how long the flyaway barrier needed to be. Ms. Nolan said it just needed to be right by the hive, right by the entrance, just so it deflects them going up. Ms. Scott confirmed there would be no need to specify a length of the flyaway barrier. Ms. Nolan said one thing she would like to clarify and it had something to do with water being necessary for pollination, water is also used for a cooling system. They will put water in the hive and fan their wings to keep the air flow in the hive, and water is very important for that. Commissioner Wood asked how she maintains the water for her bees. She said she carries the water. She said she does have chickens so she is carrying water to them everyday. She said every beekeeper has a different method of watering, her favorite birdbaths or pans with lava rock in it. She makes sure to add water to them. She said they teach their students that bees are creatures of habit. Once they find a water source, they will return to that source, they are difficult to retrain. Mr. Wood asked if the water needed to be fed continually by some source. She said it did not need to be a leaky faucet, it just needed to be filled regularly. She said you have to be careful of evaporation, she said she has about seven sources for her bees. Daren Mumau, 10916 E Connor Rd., Valleyford, WA: Mr. Mumau said he was a member of the IEBA, he happened to be president this year. He would touch a bit on what Joan has mentioned, she had covered quite a bit of it for the Commission. He is in favor of having registration, because they do teach to the state specifications, or the book which they receive from the state. It is one of the things they like to do and promote, (something could not hear) have taught the steps to them and they take the tests and pass them. Then if there is an issue, whoever has the issue, or the investigating party, can say 'are you registered with the state.' Then if they at least have the apprenticeship they have at least a knowledge of beekeeping. Couple of the things Joan mentioned was the flyaway, or the bush or fence. If you get bees to come out and they will orient themselves to their hive, they will 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 come out a few inches in front of that hives, they will orient to that hive, (something could not hear) they will turn around and fly away from the hive, if you have something that is in the air that they have to fly over, they will fly over, six feet, that will put them up in the air and they will continue that way until they get there . (something could not hear) Then they will move down into their flowers and gather their nectar and pollen. Africanized honey bees, not too likely in this area, because of the cold, won't go anymore into that. The Commissioners asked about a bush and dense vegetation, they will fly up and over, they don't like to fly through, in and out. You have heard of the preverbal beeline, that is what it is. Again, we follow the state regulations as far as our little booklet that the WSBA puts out, that is what we teach to. Also, there are other people who teach these classes, (something could not hear) other organizations, people in Spokane County and around the immediate area and they follow those guidelines also. A question was brought up about hives,(referring to the picture shown earlier) normally it starts out with one box and a hive stand, you can continue adding boxes as they grow. You will end up with roughly 60,000 bees in a normal two hive setup, or two box set up. After that it grows as the nectar comes in the honey flow comes in. In a good year, lots of rain, we will have lots of nectar, you could see that would have 3-4-5 boxes on top of a standard hive. But the (something could not hear) as your honey flow stops. Commissioner Graham asked if as the boxes and as they grow, did the bees stay down at the bottom. She said she was wondering about the flyaway barrier needing to go up or down depending on the level of boxes. Mr. Mumau said there is an entrance which is always at the bottom, and you have a top entrance but they would come out the entrance they would still be at height and it would not be a problem. Ms. Graham said she had a question about swarming is it predictable, is it avoidable and what do you do if you have a swarm. Mr. Mumau said yes, yes, and call me. He said it is predictable. He said there are things that we teach that you look for in a hive that as they build up, if they are getting too crowded, for instance they will make a queen cell. They will think this, they are running out of room, so ok we will make a queen cell, we will swarm roughly fifty percent of that hive, at the swarm level, and go off into a tree or a bush and hopefully a beekeeper is called then to pick those up and free bees. You watch for this as a trained beekeeper, you would observe, you would know what to observe. (something could not hear). He said one of the things we teach, our philosophy of the IEBA is we give one day of intense classroom. It is eight hours of nothing but bees. We have four field days after that, where we bring hives in, and the students manipulate and work our hives. They see what the association hives are doing then they in turn can go back and(something could not hear) look at their hives. We have a mentor list, they can compare the association hive to what their hives are doing. They can call the mentor and work close with them. It is a hands on teaching class we give. It is 10 tests of 10 questions per, and pass them to be able to obtain the certification. That way we know, they know and you would know if they have passed that. Commissioner Anderson asked if the recommendation for the flyaway barrier was in front of the hive instead of a six-foot fence around the yard as a flyaway barrier. Mr. Mumau said it would be better if the flyaway barrier was close but honestly they are going to leave the hive and if they have to go 60 feet and go up six feet, they are going to go up. Mr. Anderson said he was looking for a simple definition. Commissioner Stoy asked if a cyclone fence would work as a cyclone fence, or would a bee go through it. Mr. Mumau said he did not have an answer for that. There was an answer from the audience which said never seen bees don't go chain link fence, have them right by (something could not hear), always fly over. Commissioner Kelley said he was going to ask a couple of basic questions. He wanted to know if honey bees stung. Mr. Mumau said they do. Mr. Kelly then asked were attracted to things that are sweet like gum or if someone is drinking a soda pop, Mr. Mumau said yes they were. Commissioner Kelley also asked Mr. Mumau as a beekeeper, in your opinion, what do you feel the responsibilities are of the owner of the beehive to the bees and the neighbors to able to enjoy their back yard. Mr. Kelley clarified responsibilities and liabilities. Mr. Mumau said the responsibility is for them to keep (the bees) alive(something could not hear) but also when you become, (something could not hear) when you keep bees, it is something very special. There are people who do commercial beekeeping that do beekeeping in a different way than we do, and they are not in this type of situation. We are talking 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 about home owners and individuals and stuff like this. I will put it to you this way. You can have the worst day at work, have your hives behind your garage, walk out there, and we teach wearing(something could not hear) and the first thing you do is set your lunch bucket down and you go back out, you open the top of the hive and everything is good, possibility. That being said depending on the weather, they could be mean, they could be ornery and they could sting you. You asked if they sting, yes they do but they will leave a stinger in you. All honey bees die upon stinging, or shortly thereafter. So, when someone calls up and says I just got stung by a honeybee, one of the first things we ask is where is the stinger in relationship to the sting. If they say, there was no stinger or I stepped on it, and there was no stinger. It wasn't a honeybee that stung them, it was a yellow jacket, wasp or a hornet or something to that effect. Honey bee stings one time and dies, yellow jacket stings numerous times and acts like a sewing machine. It will sting, it will sting, it will sting. Then it will fly away and sting you again. Ms. Barlow asked Mr. Mumau a follow up question regarding swarming, if a beekeeper were aware that a colony were growing and getting ready to establish another queen and another location, she assumed that would be the responsible part a beekeeper would be observing and then creating another location for the bees. Mr. Mumau said if a beekeeper thought the colony (something could not hear) going to swarm what they would do is to manipulate the frames to make the hive smaller. Put it into another box, another hive, let it (something could not hear) own queen and stop the swarming that way. Commissioner Scott asked if they needed water in the winter time. Usually in the summer time, when they are flying, they need the water source. If we orient them to a water source in front of their hives or around their hives they will go to those constantly. If not and they find water someplace else, the neighbor's birdbath or dog dish, if they can eliminate that for a few days or a week. The beekeeper, if he is notified, can make sure his water is up to par and constant and continuous. He said they are trainable. Jerry Tate, 8900 E Maringo Dr.: Mr. Tate stated his dad started Tate's Honey Farm in 1970. He said we have been doing bees there forever. He said just before he came here he checked his packaged bee list he is bringing in April 4th and 11th he is bringing in approximately 900 packages of bees. This is three pounds of bees, or approximately 10,000 bees in a wire cage and a new queen. He thinks about 100 of them are going into the City. He said that is why we are really interested that there is an ordinance for it. Mr. Tate said bootleg beekeeping is a big deal. The people who are doing this, when we testified before the city (Spokane), it was a big deal for them. When we showed them how many beekeepers they actually had in the city they were appalled. They never had any idea that there were that many. Urban beekeeping is becoming a big deal. Mr. Tate said he was a past president of the WSBA for five years. He also serves on the honey commission and helps to allocate the money collected through the registrations fees. He also said he was a past president of the IEBA. Under his tenure at the state they revised all fo the training materials which are being discussed here today to be more compliant with current beekeeping practices and needs. You can count on that people are going to be learning up to date information. Beekeeping is an extremely expensive hobby, it isn't cheap. A package of bees costs about $125.00. A double brood set up, cost a beekeeper about $169.00 to set that up just by itself, and beekeeping equipment will run bee suit could run them another $150.00. You can see, (something could not hear) wants to be able to keep their bees and they want to be keep them alive and they want to take care of them. They put a lot of money into it and a lot fo time into learning how to do it. He said one of the things which was asked earlier and he wanted to clarify and it got kind of skewed bees don't go into pop cans, food or anything like that. If a kid says he swallowed something from a pop can, it was a yellow jacket or a hornet or something like that. Bees do not drink pop. They will go to, an example, if you have an orchard and fruit falls on the ground, bees might be sniffing round fruit sometimes. It is not their preferred thing they will not bother if there is a nectar source somewhere else. Last year our largest honey production came fromfrom urban beekeepers. He said we have a lady on the south hill who has four colonies and she did over 125 pounds per colony. If you go to Deer Park, they average 15 pounds per colony. You can see that the urban beekeepers are a big deal. There are a lot of pollination of flowers going on. 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 He said he will get calls every week asking what kinds of flowers to plant in order to encourage the bees population. He said in Spokane County there is a large population of Blue Orchard bees, which are pretty common in this area. It is a small, solitary bee. There are a lot of people who are starting to raise those also. They just tack a small block of wood to the side of the barn with a couple holes in it, pretty soon they show up. They are not a large pollinator and they collect no honey. He said the state guidelines had a major revision a few years ago and the new guidelines help to train beekeepers to be better beekeepers. He said there are not a lot of feral hives in Spokane County or in the city. He said old buildings and old trees tend to attract hives from all over. Last year was probably the largest swarming year he had ever seen, in the last 15 years. He said since the advent of the mites, swarming became a really small thing to worry about. Mr. Tate said swarming bees are the most docile bees you could run into. He said it is kind of spooky to see 35,000 bee swarming around your head, they will land on you but they have no intention of stinging you, they have loaded up their honey sacks and they need to make it to the new location. That is what is going to feed them for the next three or four days. They have a self-preservation thing going on with them. He said you could go up to a swarm of bees like that and stick your hand in it and pull it out and they would never sting you. He said I do it all the time, show little kids that and they are just flabbergasted, they are extremely gentle. He said there is a demarcation line across the United States which is monitored by the USDA which watches where the African bee shows up and it is about half way up the California coast it just stops. There are no African honey bees because of the weather conditions for the winter. They are notorious for bootlegging on a semi and riding somewhere and getting out. They are usually pretty docile the first year, it is the next year that they become hostile if they become scared. But up here we have very little chance of Africanized honey bees. All the bees which are imported into Spokane come from Northern California, not Southern California where the African honey bees are. He said he expects in the month of April there will be about 2,500 new colonies established from bees being brought into Spokane area this year, it is a big thing and people are putting a lot of money out for it. Hopefully they are being good beekeepers. He said if someone calls his shop and complains about somebody's bees, someone from the IEBA will go out and talk to the beekeeper. We try to self - police ourselves. He said in the `city' we have hardly had any complaints since our new ordinance went into effect there. Haven't had a problem in Colville. Sometimes there is an issue of water Spokane County, the bees like to go to someone's horse trough. We can reorient bees to it. He said one time his bees found an above ground pool four houses down and his bees found it within twelve hours. The only way he could stop it was to go tarp the pool and within four hours they were back to getting water where they belonged. They love chlorinated water but they can be retrained. Commissioner Graham said she had read honeybees were declining, would certification and registration help to monitor the health of the hives. Mr. Tate answered originally the state maintained a list of people who had honey bees so spray applicators were obligated notify the owners when spraying would be occurring. However that no longer happens, so the money now is used for education and honey bee research purposes. Recently $30,000 was allocated to WSU for cold storage to mites in commercial operations. The Honey Commission allocates the money for education and research. WSU has a lab which will test bees if a beekeeper has a concern and will test them for free for diseases or sickness to try and protect the bees. We even send in bees from Northern Idaho because it affects us here. Commissioner Stoy asked Mr. Tate if he was a commercial beekeeper. Mr. Tate said he is a commercial beekeeper and does produce honey as well as commercial pollination. He said he does all the pollination for Greenbluff. Darrell Dirstine, 10806 E Mission: Mr. Dirstine said since beekeeping was about honey, he brought some of some and some spoons. Commissioner Graham noted for the record she was allergic to honey but did not feel it would impact her decisions on approving this ordinance. Mr. Dirstine said if you taste local honey it tastes different. He said he has been keeping bees for about 35 years. He said he had a tree he thought was a flowering plum tree because it never had any plums. The first year he 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 had bees, it was loaded with plums. The bees provide a very beneficial service. Jerry mentioned about the cost, and it is expensive.. It is recommended you have two colonies in case something goes wrong with one you can restart it with the other one. If a beekeeper is starting out he is going to spend $770-$800 and he has even got an extractor to spin his honey out yet. Those can be hundreds of dollars. There is a benefit to the neighbors for their gardens. He is sure it one of the problems you are trying to elevate, if you have problems with neighbors. He said he had a lot which is 325 x 60, it is long and skinny. He said the old code was not really very practical, because it said you had to have them 25 feet from any fence. He said he had a shop in the back and the neighbor in the back loved having the bees. He said to have them 10 feet from the back fence, and the back of his shop was the best place for them, but according to the code, he had to put them in a different spot, near his garden. This was closer to a neighbor who did not appreciate the bees. He said sometimes it is not a one size fits all where you place your bees. . He said one of the things the bees are breed to be gentleness. He said it is not recommended you don't wear protective gear, and when he first had them, he would go out every day. He said he hates putting on a bee suit, it is hot. Normally he just uses a hat and a smoker and he might get stung once a year. If it is a nice warm day he will, but if it isn't nice he won't go out unless he has to, they are not interested in him. They are going about their business and doing what they do. He said he felt it should be a reasonable bee code. What he has felt for a lone time was not reasonable was the 40,000 square foot requirement because that basically that eliminated 90% of the people, because how many people have an acre. How many people who have an acre, want to have bees. He aid he does not have them at home anymore because it is not legal to do that. He said the biggest problem with bees, is yellow jackets. If you are out in the garden and you see a honey bee and you try and touch it, it will just move over. They will not retaliate and try to come back and sting you, they are not like a yellow jacket. He said as a practical example, he has one neighbor who does not appreciate the bees, and they have a beautiful yard, and he does not understand it. But at the time you had to have a six foot fence all around your yard, and he had to move his bees. One of them had a swimming pool with young kids, and he asked them if the bees were bothering his pool. The neighbor said no, because if they had been he would have moved them no problem. He said that neighbors kids would come up and watch the hives sometimes. The neighbor in the back liked the bees, but his wife was allergic the bees, and he offered to move them immediately. The neighbor said no, they liked them for the garden. The neighbor said his wife new how to deal with the allergies. He said one person should not be able to dictate for the whole neighborhood. He would encourage the Commissioners to go over when Mr. Tate gets his bees and observe, He said they are all interested in their own thing. He said he was not a member of the bee club (IEBA) Commissioner Wood asked if Mr. Dirstine thought registration was a good thing. . Mr. Dirstine answered he would not have a problem taking the test, he has been doing it for a long time. He said he did not know if it should be a requirement. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a reason he did not join the association. He responded that it seemed he was always to busy, and the association has changed, it used to be a little bit different, there is more education being done now along with it. He said most beekeepers want to be educated. He said if you have eight beekeepers you will have ten opinions. He wanted to comment on the flyaway barrier or fences. He said it would be an extreme detriment if you had to put a six foot fence within so many feet of your colony. If it changes so he can have them back at home, he would have them in the garden and when you want to rototill your garden If you have a fence they will go over it. He has observed them and how the bees come out of the hive and will fly up but then they circle around and then fly in many different directions depending on where the nectar sources are. The bees don't all go in one direction. Commissioner Anderson asked, so you are not certified or registered according the program which was explained to us, but you are also a very experienced beekeeper, but would he would recommend beginners should join and take the test to be certified. Mr. Dirstine answered he would recommend it because most new people have so many questions, are so interested in gaining knowledge and finding supplies. Commissioner Anderson said you use the term most, that leaves the possibility that some won't and at least if it was a requirement, at least we were sure all of them would take the test. This 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 is what he was thinking about. Commissioner Kelley asked, to the best of his knowledge in the time you have been in beekeeping and in the beekeeping industry, do you carry liability insurance or does anyone he knows. Mr. Dirstine answered not that he know of. Mr. Kelley asked if he would be opposed to a requirement to carry liability insurance in case someone got stung and they went into anaphylactic shock. Mr. Dirstine said one of the issues, and he is not an attorney, and those in the club have probably researched it more, but it is pretty hard to tell who's bee it is. He doesn't have bees at his home any longer, and when his locust tress come on, they are loaded with bees. Mr. Kelley what kind of liability the beekeeper felt they had if a neighbor who might be allergic got stung and had medical issues. Mr. Distrine said he is not aware that anyone around his bees has gotten stung. He said it is kind of eminent domain. He said he can remember the first time he got stung, he was about five years old and he stepped on a clover and it had a honey bee on it. Just because you have a colony with a lot of bees doesn't mean there are not yellow jackets there. Because the yellow jackets will be trying to get into the colony too. They try and get in and get a bite of brood for the protein. He said sometimes you have other peoples bees trying to get to get into your bees. Maybe they don't have any honey at home and they looking to see what they can find and take some of it. Mr. Driskell stated he did not know if that was something which should be in the consideration of the Planning Commission or the City. Who's bees they are and were they there because of the hive, or because someone planted flowers. Because if someone planted a lot of flowers they would attract bees. Mr. Kelley said he was not trying to infer that the Commission should put that in `there' but he was trying to get at what their liabilities are for the beekeeper in reference to their neighbors. If the neighbors get stung and or if their swarm comes over there, do they feel there is any liability on their part, and that is what I wanted to hear. Mr. Driskell asked Mr. Kelley if he was asking if there was legal liability or if there was a sense of liability. Commissioner Graham asked Mr. Mumau as president of the IEBA, regarding the certifications, do the tests have to be taken through the association. Mr. Mumau said there are three levels of certification, and a person could to the state website, get a booklet, get the test, take it and send it in and get certified that way. State registration is based on how many hives a person has, 1-5 hives is $5.00, 6-10 hives is $10.00 and so on. Commissioner Graham confirmed with Mr. Driskell that it was not necessary to add language to the code it was a requirement to register with the state because it was already a state requirement. Ms. Barlow said she wanted to clarify the flyaway barrier as it is related to the intent of the code. The rational for adding in a flyaway barrier to the proposed code was not to manipulate the bees for the beekeeper but for the protection of neighbors and to cause the bees to fly up and across the neighbors yards. Commissioner Anderson said it made more sense reading it from that view point. Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Graham moved to approve CTA -2015-0001(C) as presented. Commissioner Anderson would like to change the wording from adequate water supply to continuous water supply. Commissioner Phillips said the bees don't need water in the winter. He said continuous leads it to mean running water all the time. Commissioner Anderson said adequate allows for interpretation and he would like to remove that option. Commissioner Wood comments that continuous would mean to him the water supply would need to be fed by a faucet or a hose. Ms. Barlow suggested the word constant. Commissioner Stoy commented a constant water supply would not be necessary in the winter either. He suggested to strike the work adequate and leave it at that. Commissioner Wood said he did not have a problem with the word adequate. Commissioner Graham asked what the City of Spokane's code used. Ms. Harnois said they used adequate water supply. There was consensus to leave the language as it was proposed. Commissioner Kelley raised his concerns regarding how he did not feel the beekeepers were taking any personal liability if a neighbor who was allergic was stung by a bee. Commissioner Graham said 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 she felt the beekeepers had taken responsibility for their bees. Commissioner Anderson said in his research he found a bee can fly up to five miles from the hive in search of pollen so it would be difficult to determine the ownership of a bee. Commissioner Stoy commented his son is allergic to bees and his family has an EpiPen with them at all times in the case of an emergency, but he does understand there is a possibility a person would not know if someone was allergic. He said he felt both parties needed to be a little bit responsible. Ms. Barlow stated beekeeping is allowed currently, and the City is aware beekeeping is happening in conditions which do not meet our standards. We are now trying to put in place the most reasonable set of standards which will protect everyone's interests, this is the best you can do. In order to try and protect the neighbors we try and put in reasonable, enforceable standards which will protect both the beekeepers and the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Kelley offered we are now taking beekeeping and moving it from the countryside, or an acre of land, and putting it in regular neighborhoods. He did not feel this was in the best interest of a lot of people. Commissioner Kelley said if you were allergic to bees and someone moves in next door and gets a hive, you should not have to deal with the extra opportunities to get stung. Commissioner Stoy asked Mr. Driskell if there was any liability in regard to bees at the state level. Mr. Driskell stated he was not aware of anything at the state level and bees are everywhere. It would not be like they were coming from one place. Having a hive would create a greater concentration then would otherwise have been next door but he did not feel it created a liability situation for someone who was keeping them. From a legal stand point it would not be something the City would address. Commissioner Kelley still felt the acre standards were good, since he didn't feel anyone should have to have bees move in next to them if they didn't want them. Commissioner Anderson said he would support adding a requirement for the beekeeper to be certified. Commissioner Wood agreed. He liked the fact the beekeeper would be getting education and taking the responsibility seriously. Commissioner Scott liked the idea of having a certified beekeeper next door. She asked if the code enforcement officer would be able to contact the IEBA to assist with enforcement. Ms. Barlow answered if the City received a complaint the code enforcement officer would ask to see evidence of the certification. Mr. Driskell stated all compliance actions he has been aware of, none of them have been about bees. There was consensus from the Commission to require certification of the beekeepers and staff will return with language which would be appropriate. The vote on the motion to approve CTA -2015-0001 as presented, was zero in favor, seven against, motion failed. Commissioner Wood moved to approve CTA -2015-0001 as proposed but adding language which requires beekeepers to be certified. The vote on this motion was six in favor, one against, motion passed, Commissioner Kelley dissenting. Discussion: Spokane Transit Authority, Comprehensive Plan discussion regarding bus benches: Spokane Transit Authority Planner Kathleen Weinland gave a presentation to the Commission regarding their update to their comprehensive plan and their policy framework regarding bus benches. She said she was doing stakeholder outreach to get input regarding bus stops and bus benches. She discussed the requirements for benches and shelters at a stop and what the challenges are to providing those. Commissioner Anderson asked who makes the decision about where the bus sign goes, sometimes it is not the only sign on the pole and it can get confusing. Commissioner Phillips commented it would be easier at times if the bus stop was in the middle of the block instead of at a crosswalk because at times he cannot tell if the person is waiting to cross the street or wait for the bus. Commissioner Wood said it would be easier as a vehicle following a bus if they pulled out of traffic to make a pick up. Commissioner Anderson wondered if the bus benches with the seats in them might not fit everyone. 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Anderson moved to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passed. Planning Commission Finding of Fact for CPA -2015-0001 and CPA -2015-0002 — Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Ms. Barlow said the findings for CPA -2015-0001, are for an amendment located along Nora Ave. Since Commissioner Kelly had recused himself from this amendment, he left the room while this item was being discussed. Ms. Barlow stated the document reflected no findings based on the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioner Scott asked why there were no findings. Mr. Driskell stated since three of the Commissioners had voted the amendment met the SVMC, and three of the Commissioners voted it had not met the code, then the only findings which could be produced is what had been done procedurally. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Findings for CPA -2015- 0001 as presented. The vote on this motion was six to zero, motion passed and Commissioner Kelly returned to the room. Ms. Barlow presented the findings for CPA -2015-0002, an amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd. Ms. Barlow shared since the close of the public hearing staff received a letter signed by 25 surrounding property owners asking for the proposal to be denied. This information cannot be part of the record because the record is closed, but would be forwarded to the Council for an ordinance first reading. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the Findings for CPA -2015-0002 as presented. The vote on this motion is seven in favor, zero against, motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Graham asked to clarify some things from the Planning Short Course she attended. She said it was mentioned the Planning Commission members could join APA. Ms. Barlow explained APA was the American Planning Association. Ms. Horton said the City does have a membership to the APA for the Planning Commissioners, it was be updated to reflect the new members and she would be receiving information before too long. She said one of the speakers mentioned a minority report when there is a division. Ms. Barlow said our Planning Commission does not do this. She said when our Planning Commission makes a decision and it is then forwarded to the Council, it goes as the one decision. She said although our minutes are not verbatim, they are very thorough and do reflect the discussion of what happened to arrive at their decision. Mr. Driskell commented a minority report suggests dissention among the Commission which there usually isn't, and he also thought this subject was covered in the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Graham said the last subject was regarding a comment a speaker made about regular meetings with the City Council. Mr. Driskell said this isn't a practice of the City either. He explained if the City Council and the Planning Commission met regularly and talked about subjects, it would give the impression the Commission was just doing whatever the Council wanted them to do and they were not judging items on their own ideas. This was not an impression we would want to give the public so it isn't something we do. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, Commissioner Graham moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. This motion was passed unanimously. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 02-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational memorandum on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement, March 24, 2015; Administrative report on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement, March 31, 2015. BACKGROUND: Planning for the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) began in 1998 and led to the development of an interlocal agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Spokane County, Spokane Transit Authority (STA), City of Spokane, and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). The original intent of the SRTMC was to provide a multi -jurisdictional control facility for the partnering agencies to enhance and support advanced transportation management capabilities. The SRTMC was to serve as a hub for regional transportation communications and to provide a seamless coordination of intelligent transportation system (ITS) devices, including traffic signals, across agency boundary lines. As of today, the City of Spokane Valley has 44 traffic signals, 10 cameras, and one dynamic message sign on the ITS network. All of our equipment first communicates with the SRTMC and is then relayed to City Hall for use by City Traffic Engineering staff. The City installed fiber optic lines and hardware in City Hall in 2014, which connect to the City's fiber backbone in Sprague. This will be utilized to develop the City's Transportation Operations Center schedule in 2015. Currently the SRTMC provides a website that is open to the general public. The website contains information about specific corridors and has real-time video feeds from cameras throughout the Spokane region. The SRTMC has an Operating Board that consists of technical members from each of the partner agencies. The Operating Board is responsible for reviewing and approving SRTMC activities and has monthly board meetings. These board meetings are generally technical in nature and involve discussion of future ITS planning and implementation projects and strategies as well as the reviewing of previous monthly activities, invoices, and billings. The center operates 24/7 for 365 days a year, and has done so since 2003. The SRTMC relies on federal grant funding, yearly member contributions, and WSDOT directed funds. The City's contribution is $15,000 per year. The federal grants and member contributions fund the SRTMC Manager, the IT Manager, two operators, software maintenance contracts, operation of the website, and daily hardware maintenance and functions for the center. Several developments in the region have occurred since 1998. The SRTC has opted to no longer be the lead agency as of January 2015, primarily due to the SRTMC performing operating duties versus planning duties. Another development that occurred was the incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley, which created a new entity not originally contemplated in the original interlocal. Therefore, an amendment to the original agreement is required. In light of the recent changes made, and after many discussions and board meetings, it was agreed to set a trial period with the changes in the WSDOT SRTMC management and board member of one (1) year. Member contributions are not being collected during this trial period, therefore there is no cost to the City in 2015. The trial period that ends December 31, 2015 is established to ascertain if the SRTMC and the SRTMC Operating Board will function as intended beyond the trial period. Therefore, an amendment to the original interlocal is proposed, which essentially adds the City of Spokane Valley as an official partner of the SRTMC and identifies WSDOT as the lead agency. There is also a sunset clause in the amendment that limits this to a one-year term, ending on December 31, 2015. At that time the City will decide whether or not to continue participation in the SRTMC. The legal department has reviewed the amendment and provided comments, which have already been incorporated. OPTIONS: Approve the SRTMC interlocal agreement amendment with or without further amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to finalize and execute the SRTMC interlocal agreement Amendment No. 1 as presented. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No change to 2015 budget. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Original SRTMC Interlocal (1998), SRTMC Interlocal Amendment (Agreement No. GCA 1450, Amendment No. 1) AGREEMENT NO. GCA 1450, AMENDMENT NO. 1 This Amendment No. 1 to agreement No. GCA 1450 is made and entered into among the Washington State Department of Transportation, hereafter the "WSDOT," Spokane County , the City of Spokane, WA , the Spokane Transit Authority ("STA"), City of Spokane Valley ("COSV"), and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council("SRTC"), collectively referred to as the "Parties" and individually referred to as the "Party". WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into agreement, GCA 1450 ("the agreement") on October 1, 1998, which created the Spokane Regional Transportation Systems Center Operating Board ("Operating Board"), and WHEREAS, SRTC was not a signatory to the agreement and has requested to be added as an ex officio party to the agreement, and WHEREAS, COSV was incorporated on March 31, 2003 and was not a Party to the agreement, but is now being added as a Party, and WHEREAS, the Parties agree to add COSV as a Party and further desire to change the name of the Spokane Regional Transportation Systems Center Operating Board to the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) Operating Board, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the agreement to add the COSV and to change the name of the Operating Board to SRTMC Operating Board, and WHEREAS, SRTC wishes to eliminate its administrative duties under the agreement, and WHEREAS, a trial period is deemed necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW, the above recitals are incorporated herein as if set forth below, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Agreement GCA 1450 ("the agreement"), pursuant to Section 11, is hereby amended as follows: 1. If not otherwise addressed, any references to a regional transportation systems center will be changed to Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center. Any reference to TEA21 will be changed to MAP21. 2. The City of Spokane Valley ("COSV") is hereby made a Party to the agreement. COSV agrees to be bound by and shall comply with all of the terms contained in the agreement, including this Amendment No. 1 with the exception that member funds will not be collected through the term of this Amendment No 1. Page 1 of 6 3. Section 1 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following: A voluntary association and joint board, comprised of professional representatives of the SRTC (ex officio, non-voting member), Spokane County, the City of Spokane, COSV, WSDOT, and STA, is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) Operating Board. All references to the Operating Board shall be a reference to SRTMC Operating Board. 4. Section 2 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following: Recognizing that coordinated system management of transportation facilities of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, COSV, WSDOT and STA, are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by a coordinated and cooperative transportation system, the SRTMC Operating Board is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and to provide for continuing area wide transportation system management and traffic surveillance. The SRTMC Operating Board is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the SRTC, Spokane County, City of Spokane, COSV, WSDOT, STA, or future members, if any, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of federal transportation legislation requiring the development of an integrated congestion management system to manage existing traffic congestion and help to prevent new congestion from occurring. 5. Section 4 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: The SRTMC Operating Board's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County Washington and may include contiguous areas across the county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate by the SRTMC Operating Board, and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation Legislation. WSDOT may further utilize the SRTMC for traffic operations management through the entire Eastern Region and will coordinate with other TMC's which may have operational areas extending outside the SRTMC jurisdictional area. This work will be funded solely by WSDOT and not through use of member funds or grants associated with the SRTMC. 6. Section 5 reference to Transportation Manager will be changed to Executive Director. 7. Section 7 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following: The staff as necessary to conduct work programs of the SRTMC consistent with this agreement shall be arranged for by the SRTMC Operating Board in coordination with the member jurisdictions. The jointly funded staff shall serve under the direction of the SRTMC Operating Board, and shall be responsible for conducting activities necessary to carry out the work program as directed by the SRTMC Operating Board. Staff performing work duties outside the SRTMC jurisdictional area for WSDOT will be funded solely by WSDOT. Page 2 of 6 The SRTMC Operating Board will consider and approve as appropriate application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the SRTMC Operating Board such that timely SRTMC Operating Board approval cannot be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with approval of the chair and vice -chair of the SRTMC Operating Board. Employees assigned to the SRTMC shall be hired and discharged by their respective agencies. The SRTMC support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, computer processing, and others as deemed necessary will be provided by WSDOT. Legal counsel will be contracted out as agreed by the SRTMC Operating Board. Insurance will be provided for employees by their respective agencies. 8. Section 8, paragraphs 2 and 3, are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: The work program shall be approved by November 1 of the preceding year. The work program and budget of the SRTMC may be amended by a majority vote of the SRTMC Operating Board, provided such amendment is within the funding authorized for use of the SRTMC. The SRTMC Operating Board, in conjunction with the SRTMC Manager, will develop detailed work and financial plans with measurable milestones. Both the performance of the SRTMC Operating Board and the SRTMC Manager will be evaluated against the milestones. With consideration of the performance review, the Operating Board will vote on continuing the agreement during the October 2015 Operations Board meeting and may direct the SRTMC Manager to begin preparation of the 2016 Financial Plan, Work Program, and Budget. The 2016 Financial Plan, Work Program, and Budget shall be submitted by the SRTMC Manager to the Operating Board by November 1, 2015. WSDOT shall accept the remaining member funds from the SRTC to be expended at the direction of the SRTMC Operating Board through the term of this Amendment No. 1. Member funds not utilized during the term of Amendment No. lshall be returned by WSDOT to each member agency equally. No additional member funds will be collected through the term of Amendment No. 1. WSDOT shall report on member funds regularly to the SRTMC Operating Board. 9. Section 9, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the SRTMC Operating Board will involve benefits to its members. No costs shall be divided amongst the members through the term of this Amendment No. 1 unless unanimous approval is granted by the SRTMC Operating Board; provided SRTC shall not be required to make any financial contribution to the SRTMC Operating Board. Any additional agency joining the SRTMC Operating Board as a member through the term of Amendment No. 1 shall not be required to make a financial contribution to the SRTMC. Page 3 of 6 WSDOT may make expenditures in accordance with the approved SRTMC budget and work plan as approved by the SRTMC Operating Board, shall maintain records of expenditures, and shall report regularly to the SRTMC Operating Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be approved monthly by the SRTMC Operating Board. Such claims, with proper declarations required by law, shall then be certified for payment by WSDOT. 10. Section 10, paragraph 2 is deleted in its entirety. 11. Section 12 is amended as follows: The SRTC, City of Spokane, Spokane County, COSV, WSDOT, or STA, may terminate membership in the SRTMC by giving written notice to the SRTMC Board Chair. A trial period that ends December 31, 2015 is established to ascertain if the SRTMC and the SRTMC Operating Board will function as intended beyond the trial period. This agreement will terminate on December 31, 2015. Depending on the outcome of the Operations Board vote referenced in section 8 above, an Amendment No. 2 would have to be completed by November 1, 2015. This Amendment No. 2 would allow the SRTMC and SRTMC Operating Board to continue operating, or instead set a timeline and direction to dissolve the agreement and to logically dismantle the current structure. If the agreement ends, WSDOT will expend the following grant funds as deemed appropriate by the SRTMC Operating Board: 1) All grants that were obligated prior to January 1, 2015; 2) If the SRTMC agreement discontinues, the 2017-2019 STP Non -Roadway grant titled SRTMC Operations and Maintenance ($1,267,900) will be returned to SRTC. Following completion of items 1 and 2 above, WSDOT would notify SRTC that any unspent grant funds held by WSDOT will be returned to SRTC. There is nothing restricting any agency from forming a new agreement for similar purposes as the SRTMC. 12. Section 15 Legal Relations is added: Individually, each Party shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless each other Party, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgment, and/or awards of damages resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of its officers, officials, employees, and agents acting within the scope of their employment and arising out of or in connection with the performance of this agreement. In the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of more than one Party, their, officers, officials, employees, and agents, an individual Party's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent Page 4 of 6 of that Party's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes a Party's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purpose of this indemnification provision. This limited waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 13. All other terms and conditions of agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by this Amendment No. 1. 14. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered to the other Parties, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the Party's date last signed below. STATE OF WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of , 2015. By: By: Keith A. Metcalf, P.E. Todd Mielke, Chair Eastern Region, Regional Administrator By: Date: Shelly O'Quinn, Vice -Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Al French, Commissioner By: Frank Hruban, Assistant Attorney General ATTEST: Date: By: Clerk of the Board Date: Page 5of6 CITY OF SPOKANE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: By: Date: Date: ATTEST: ATTEST: By: By: City Clerk City Clerk Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney Date: Date: SPOKANE REGIONAL SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL By: By: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: SRTC Attorney Spokane Transit Authority Attorney Date: Date: Page 6 of 6 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TO FORM A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYTEMS CENTER OPERATING BOARD, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY, AND ESTABLISH A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER JURISDICTIONAL AREA. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1 5I -day of 0 &o bey-- , 1998, among the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), a public entity created by interlocal agreement, Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Spokane Transit Authority (STA). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate between each other to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 1998, the President of the United States signed the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 215` Century (TEA2I), which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation; and enunciated a policy statement "[t]o develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, federal transportation legislation requires the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Nanning Organization (MPO), which organization in cooperation with the State of Washington shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws and Federal Transportation legislation, the above referenced entities are desirous of establishing a regional transportation systems center to carry out responsibilities provided for in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Transportation Systems Center Operating Board. NOW, THEREFORE, it is specifically agreed among the entitities hereto as follows: Section 1: NAME GCA1450 \19 A governing body, comprised of professional representatives of the SRTC, Spokane County, the City of Spokane, WSDOT, and STA, is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Systems Center Operating Board, referred to hereinafter as the "Operating Board". Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated system management of transportation facilities of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, WSDOT, and STA, are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by a coordinated and cooperative transportation system, this Operating Board is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation system management and surveillance. The Operating Board is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the SRTC, County, City, WSDOT, STA, or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of Federal Transportation legislation requiring the development of an integrated congestion management system to manage existing traffic congestion and help to prevent new congestion from occurring. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Operating Board shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of the Transportation Systems Center for the metropolitan area, including those functions set forth in the TEA21 legislation of 1998 and the Federal Register as it presently exists, or as it may be hereinafter modified implementing TEA21; as well as those functions which may be required hereinafter by Federal Transportation legislation. (b) To prepare and update a Comprehensive Regional Transportation System Operating Plan and Regional Transportation Incident Management Program. (c) To administer regional transportation projects and programs that facilitate operations of the Transportation Systems Center considering only those projects which have been approved by the SRTC Board and which are consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan. (d) To participate in the collection and maintenance of transportation related data bases and transportation related information. (e) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. 2 GCA1450 (f) To perform such other transportation systems management related functions as the Operating Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Transportation Systems Center. The SRTC, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts for the purpose of this Agreement. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Operating Board's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across the county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate, and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation Iegislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body of the Operating Board shall consist of one representative from each of the Member agency/jurisdiction and an ex -officio representative from SRTC staff. Each representative shall hold a position that has authority to make decisions related to traffic operations for their respective agency/jurisdiction. The SRTC representative shall be appointed by the Transportation Manager. Alternate Operating Board representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative has similar authority to act on behalf of the appointing Member's parent agency. All alternate Operating Board representatives must serve in the same or higher capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove. Officers of the Operating Board shall include a chair and vice -chair, who shall be elected by majority vote of the Operating Board. Officers shall serve a one year term. The chair shall alternate among representatives of the Operating Board. Section 6: MEETINGS The Operating Board shall hold regular meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Operating Board. The Operating Board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe, among other matters, the place of meetings and the methods of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof. Such rules 3 GCA 1450 shall be adopted and may be amended by a majority vote (75% ratification of the Member bodies) of the total Operating Board, or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. All meetings of the Operating Board shall be open to the public as required by Chapter 42.30 RCW. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist, at a minimum, of three Operating Board members. All recommendations, motions or other actions of the Operating Board shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. All Operating Board representatives including officers shall be entitled to one vote. Section 7: STAFF' AND SUPPORT The staff as necessary to conduct the work programs of the Operating Board consistent with this Agreement shall be provided by SRTC in addition to staff provided at the discretion of the member jurisdictions. The staff shall serve under the direction of the Operating Board, and shall be responsible for conducting activities necessary to carry out the work program and purpose of the Operating Board. The Operating Board will submit to the SRTC Board for approval, application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Operating Board so that timely Operating Board approval cannot be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with approval of the chair and vice -chair of the Operating Board. Employees assigned to the Transportation Systems Center shall be hired and discharged by their respective agencies. The Operating Board support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary will be provided by the SRTC. Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Operating Board shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken as part of the Transportation Systems Center. The Operating Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the SRTC Board by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be provided to the Operating Board by November 1 of each year. The annual budget and/or work program of the Operating Board may be amended by vote of the SRTC Board, provided such amendment does not require additional budget 4 GCA 1450 appropriation, or by the joint approval of the Operating Board and Members where such amendment does require additional budget appropriation. After approval of the Operating Board Budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, AND EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Operating Board will involve benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budgeted expenditures shall be divided among the Members as determined by the Operating Board and as agreed to by the Members and SRTC Board. Any additional agency joining the Operating Board as a Member, shall contribute as determined by the Operating Board and approved by the Members and SRTC Board. Additional contributions to the Operating Board budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member approving the proposed Operating Board budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year which it has approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited with the SRTC; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The SRTC may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Operating Board budget and work plan and shall maintain records of expenditures and report regularly to the Operating Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the SRTC Transportation Manager and approved monthly by the SRTC Board. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City or as arranged by the SRTC. Section 10: INTER -RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPERATING BOARD, AND MEMBER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS Member traffic engineering departments shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of traffic control plans, to which the Regional Transportation Systems Center plans shall be coordinated. The Region Transportation Systems Center and may administer or implement such plans as may be agreed by the Member agency and the Operating Board. The successful execution of Transportation Systems Center duties and responsibilities in preparing a Regional Transportation Congestion Management System, in coordination with local plans, requires comprehensive transportation management plans be prepared and remain up to date by the City and County of Spokane, WSDOT and STA for their respective jurisdictions. 5 GCA 1450 Section 11: AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Members. Section 12: TERMINATION The City of Spokane, Spokane County, WSDOT, or STA, may terminate membership in the Operating Board by giving written notice to the Operating Board prior to August l of any year for the following year. Section 13: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede any prior agreements establishing a jointly developed transportation system center. Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this Agreement shall be October 1, 1998. Provided, however, upon execution by the Members, the governing body of the Operating Board may meet for the purpose of taking action(s), such action(s) to be effective January 1, 1999. 6 GCA1450 IN WITNESS Agreement on the d ATTTEST: B OF, rth the Members hereto have entered into this herein above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Deputy Clerk ATTEST: By City Clerk WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT • ON G East Region A Wa • f ngton State fnistrator '•r partmen of Transportation APPROVED AS TO FORM P(i . -7 /A( Date: By: As? an ttorney General 7 CITY OF SPOKANE Mayor Approved: City Manager Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Chair GCA 1450 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year set forth herein above. ATTTEST: By Deputy Clerk ATTEST: By City CIerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE or roved: City Manager Approved as to form: Assistant City ttorney WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF TRANSPORTATION Eastern Region Administrator for Chair Washington State Department of Transportation APPROVED AS TO FORM Date: By: A ist. t A Corney General 7 GCA 1450 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year set forth herein above. At i EST: By Deputy Clerk ATTEST: By City Clerk WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR - ' ON 1 Region A gton Sta strator '•r epartment of Transportation APPROVED AS TO FORM Date: )-7 By: 4,1/10-' As• Attorney General BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON 7 CITY OF SPOKANE Mayor Approved: City Manager Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Gktitig Executive Director GCA1450 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration; 2015 SRTC CMAQ/TA Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Adopted the 2015-2020 Six Year TIP on June 24, 2014, Resolution #14-006, Council received an Info Memo outlining the CMAQ/TA grant program on March 3, 2015 and staff Admin Reports on March 10 and March 24, 2015. BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) issued a 2015 Call for Projects on March 1st, 2015 for the allocation of federal transportation funding for both the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives (TA) programs for the years 2018-2020. The purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or programs that improve air quality and ultimately contribute to the maintenance of the national air quality standards in the Spokane region. CMAQ funding can be used for projects that reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and course particulate matter (PM10) emissions. This table summarizes the 2018-2020 CMAQ and TA programs for Eastern Washington: CMAQ/TA Proposed Projects 2018-2020 CMAQ Call for Projects Travel Demand Management (TDM) Traffic Flow Improvements (TFI) Particulate Matter (PMio) Reductions Transportation Alternatives (TA) % of $ Amount Available 65% 25% 10% 100% $ Total Amount over 3 years $7.5 M $2.9 M $1.1 M $2 M Eligible Project Types Bicycle & Pedestrian Intelligent Transportation Systems Street Sweepers Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Transit Paving Dirt Roads Safe Routes to School Projects Carpool & Vanpool Programs Intersection or Corridor Improvements Acquisition & Conversion of Abandoned Railway Corridors for Trails Diesel- Engine Retrofits or Fleet Upgrades Travel Demand Management Programs Turn outs, Overlooks, and Viewing Areas Possible CMAQ and TA Projects: Staff has been evaluating the proposed CMAQ and TA grant criteria to identify potential city projects to review with council. Information used to help develop this draft list of projects includes the City Council's Goals and Priorities, 2015-2020 Six Year TIP, City of Spokane Valley ITS Plan City Comprehensive Plan - Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and the final drafts of the University Overpass and Sullivan Road Corridor studies. City Staff met with SRTC on March 19, 2015 to obtain their initial evaluation of the City's proposed grant application projects. Since that meeting it has been determined that the Argonne Road Bridge Widening project is not eligible for CMAQ funding. The addition of a new lane on the bridge over 1-90 is considered a capacity improvement, which is not eligible for CMAQ funding. Also, based on information from SRTC staff and further analysis of the potential air quality benefits of the Pines Road Underpass project staff believes this project would not score well. The high project cost far outweighs the air quality benefits provided by the grade separation. Therefore, staff recommends removing this project from the list of CMAQ grant applications to be submitted. CMAQJTAP Proposed Projects Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Traffic Flow Improvements (TFI) PM -10 Reductions Transportation Alternatives (TA) Total Estimated Project Cost ($) $ Amount over 3 years $7.475 M $2.875 M $1.15 M $1.68 M Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan $1.5 M ($202 k) $1.5 M ($202 k) Appleway Trail - University to Balfour $620 k (CN) ($84 k) $80 k (PE ONLY) ($11 k) $700 k ($95 k) Opportunity Elem. Sidewalks (Safe Routes To Schools) $520 ($70 k) $520 ($70 k) Evergreen & Broadway ITS $830 M ($112 k) $830 k ($112 k) Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection Improvement $800 k ($108 k) $800 k ($108 k) The table above summarizes the revised proposed grant application project list with a rough estimate of their costs (Dollars in parenthesis are the estimated City match): More information about each project is provided in the attached Project Summary Sheets. SRTC allows a maximum of 6 applications per agency for the CMAQ category and a maximum of 2 applications for the TA category. OPTIONS: Move to authorize the City Manager to apply for CMAQ and TA grants for all, some or none of the projects listed above. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to apply for CMAQ/TA grants for the following projects: (1) Appleway Trail, Evergreen to Sullivan; (2) Appleway Trail, University to Balfour; (3) Opportunity Elementary Sidewalks; (4) Evergreen and Broadway ITS; and (5) Sullivan and Wellesley Intersection Improvement. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for each project. The city's match is 13.5% of the total project cost. A review of the projected REET funds through 2020 indicates sufficient funds to provide the city's match for the recommended projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric P. Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Sheets Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan (DRAFT) Spokane Valley _• _APPLEWAY TRAIL ,err r HEE _ Orr 31111 Project Description: The City of Spokane Valley has identified the Appleway Trail as a key pedestrian and bicycle corridor in its Comprehensive Plan. The length of the trail when its completed will be 6.2 miles long. Of that, the City has built or has funded about 3.3 miles. This grant request will seek to continue the trail further east. Grant Funding Request: This grant request pursues funds to continue the design and construction of the Appleway Trail from Ever- green to Sullivan Roads. The trail will be a 12' curvilinear paved shared -use path that will continue further east on the Old Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. Currently there are no Master Plans or Preliminary Designs for the portion of the trail. Benefits of Project: The City's goal is to complete the Appleway Trail across the City from Balfour Park east to Liberty Lake. The corridor will transform an underutilized former rail corridor into a shared -use path enlivened by plazas, pub- lic art, perennial gardens, community gardens, plantings, trails and play spaces thanks to creative investment partnerships. The space will be a boundless community asset and a critical linkage in the Spokane region's extensive active transportation network. Meandering along the corridor, the Appleway Trail forms the backbone of the space that allows cyclists and pedestrians access between schools, stores, senior living communities, transit hubs and residential neighbor- hoods. Along the way, cyclists and pedestrians pass friends, family and neighbors. The trail is not just trans- portation infrastructure; it is community infrastructure. Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan (DRAFT) Shared -Use Path Characteristics and Geometry: 12' Curvilinear Shared -Use Path Landscaping Lighting Park Benches Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) - $225,000 Construction (CN) - $1,275,000 Total grant request - $1,500,000 - $217,000 (City match) = $1,283,000 Appleway Trail - University to Balfour Park (DRAFT) Possible site for Spokane Valley Branch Library Vhf co i 1 Y Project Description: Spokane Valley began construction of the Appleway Trail from University to Pines (SR -27) along the Old Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way last year. Funding has been secured to construct the trail further east from Pines (SR -27) to Ever- green in 2018. Now, the City plans to extend the trail to Balfour Park along Appleway to Dartmouth, and from Dartmouth to Sprague Avenue. This is an integral piece of the trail because it would connect University City Mall, Balfour Park, and the City's future City Hall to the Appleway Trailhead at University. In addition, if the voters pass a Spokane Library District bond, the County plans to build a 30,000 square foot Spokane Valley branch across from the University City Mall on the north side of Sprague fronting Harold. Also, the Appleway Trail will terminate on its east end across the street from the STA Valley Transit Center. This facility provides regional transportation access to Liberty Lake, Spokane, and Cheney. Grant Funding Request: This grant request pursues funds to continue the design and construction of the Appleway Trail from Sprague to Uni- versity. The trail will be a 12' curvilinear paved shared -use path that will reside on the north side of Appleway Blvd and then turn north and be placed on the east side of Dartmouth. It will terminate at the intersection of Dartmouth and Sprague, the proposed location for the City of Spokane Valley's new City Hall. Appleway Trail - University to Balfour Park (DRAFT) Benefits of the Project: This project is probably one of the most important components of the entire Appleway Trail project in that it connects walkers and bikers to shopping, a park, municipal government, and possibly a County/City library. Also, this portion of the trail would connect people to the Spokane Transit Authority's Transit Center, giving people the option to use the bus to work, shop, play, and conduct their business here in Spokane Valley. Shared -Use Path Characteristics and Geometry: 12' Curvilinear Shared -Use Path (width may vary depending on right-of-way space) Landscaping Lighting (if needed) Park Benches Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) - $80,000 Construction (CN) - $620,000 Total grant request - $700,000 - $100,000 (City match) = $600,000 Evergreen & Broadway ITS (DRAFT) E Wellesley Ave e ,sund Ave F rich A. Fez EVCbq Are Spokane Business & Industrial Park z Mirabeau pkwy. ,Gree Ave L Grace Ave Spokane Felts r ield E Mission Ave E lndhl' S�p6kane+ PO eValleyM.:1 Valley ITS. Barker. Sprague to Mission t.orthrtt s, E Broadway Ave.a tl EBraadway Aver= E Sprague Aveh E Sprague Ave 1-90 to surrivan E 0.ingve E 3rd Ave .ry no E 4th Ave ITS, Evergreert, E 6th Ave Sprague to 16th E hth nue :Mt Ave EBthAve o F rtah nvc 1 Dishes Pie[ural Area 4.Et2th nEklsh Aw E. rth Aur N El. E l Esh Ave 3 th gt 16th Ave g R E 24th Ave E e lhlh 42e F 79111 Ave v,�llrrwnv Avr f•4 VFA7ly(YAP. E E tag.. Ave F 4th Ave ITS, Sullivan. Sprague to 24th Project Description: Improving traffic flow and reducing congestion on the City of Spokane Valley's roadway network is a major facet of the Comprehensive Plan, and can be implemented through use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Connecting traffic signals along roadway corridors can ensure that traffic signal timing remains "in step", and will aid in positive traffic pro- gression along corridors. This project proposes to install ITS equipment to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and reduce emissions on several City corridors, including: • Evergreen Road, Sprague Avenue to 16th Avenue (improve traffic flow and coordination on Evergreen Road) • Broadway Avenue, Pines Road (SR 27) to Evergreen Road (improve coordination of both north -south and east - west travel) Benefits of the Project: The installation of conduit and fiber optic lines to connect traffic signal controllers at signalized intersections along a roadway corridor benefits the City, the region, and the traveling public by: • Reducing travel time and stops along corridors • Reducing emissions along corridors • Increasing economic development by reducing delays to freight travel • Reduce costs to the general public (fuel and maintenance) • Reduce operational costs for management of traffic signal timings • Improved monitoring of the traffic signal system to enhance efficiency (emergency situations, operations, etc.) Sullivan ITS, Sprague to 24th (DRAFT) ITS System Communications and Equipment: This project includes the installation of conduit and fiber optic lines, as well as supporting ITS equipment (junction boxes, switches, etc.) to interconnect traffic signals along roadway corridors. The project also includes the installation of a camera on Broadway Avenue at Evergreen Road, and additional radio equipment to connect the traffic signals at Mission Avenue. Grant Funding Request: This grant request is for Preliminary Engineering and Construction funding. Project Cost Estimate Preliminary Engineering (Grant Request) = $150,000 Right of Way & Construction = $1,050,000 Total grant request = $1,200,000 - $162,000(City match) = $1,038,000 Opportunity Elementary—SRTS Sidewalk Project (DRAFT) PPORTUNr�'Y ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Project Description: This project is a Safe Routes to Schoo/project that will provide new sidewalks to the Opportunity Elementary School. New sidewalks will be installed along the east side of Bowdish Road beginning at 8th Avenue and ending at 12th. At llth Avenue, new sidewalks will be installed on the south side of the street from Bowdish Road east to Wilbur Road. The project will include new curbing, a minimum 5' wide sidewalk, new ADA curb ramps at street corners, some road- way paving where new curbs will be beyond the existing edge of road, some right-of-way acquisition, curb walls and stormwater facilities. Grant Funding Request: This grant funding request would be to perform the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Opportunity Elementary—SRTS Sidewalk Project. Benefits of the Project: 1) Less traffic and a safer route to school. 2) Sidewalks build a sense of neighborhood. 3) Fewer cars & fewer emissions. 4) More active & healthier children and parents. 5) New sidewalks help students & parents reach the national goal of 60 minutes of physical activity every day. Opportunity Elementary—SRTS Sidewalk Project (DRAFT) , .. k Y Roadway Characteristics & Geometry: Traffic Volumes on Bowdish = 5,200 vehicles per day Existing (Bowdish): Right-of-way = 50 feet Existing (11th Ave) Pavement width = 22 feet Gravel Shldr/No Curbing = 8 feet Sidewalks, none Proposed (Bowdish): Right-of-way = 50 feet Proposed (11th Ave) Pavement width = 36 feet Curbing, Paved Shoulder & 6' Sidewalk on east side ADA Curb ramps at intersections Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering = $90,000 Right of Way & Construction = $430,000 Total grant request = $520,000 - $70,200 (City match) = $449,800 0 Right-of-way = 50 feet Pavement width = 40 feet Curbing/No Shldr Sidewalks, none Right-of-way = 50 feet Pavement width = 40 feet 6' Sidewalk on south side ADA Curb Ramps @ Wilbur Sullivan—Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project (DRAFT) flY1 FN Valley SULLIVAN WELLESLEY LNTSECTICN IMPi4OVEM ENT PROJECT • -',acs ne n 7 � S PGKA.NE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Project Description: Currently, during certain times of the day, traffic volumes at the Sullivan -Wellesley intersection exceed the capacity of the all -way stop -controlled intersection. Spokane County is moving forward with its Bigelow Gulch Road project which is scheduled to connect to Wellesley at Sullivan in 2019. When that occurs, the Sullivan Road intersection will not be able to accommodate the added traffic and motorists will experience excessive delay and congestion. To increase the capacity of the intersection, a new dedicated left turn lane would need to be provided at each of the intersection legs in all directions. A traffic signal or a multilane roundabout is needed at the intersection in order to provide safe and efficient traffic movement. Grant Funding Request: This grant funding request would be to perform the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project. The grant funds would be used to investigate the cost - benefit of both a traffic signal and a multilane roundabout to determine which intersection treatment would be the most cost effective. These grant funds would complete the design and build the project. Benefits of the Project: 1) Reduces delay and efficiently moves traffic along the Sullivan & Wellesley corridors 2) Reduces serious, high speed crashes 3) Allows for the added traffic volumes expected with the future connection of Bigelow Gulch Road Sullivan—Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project (DRAFT) Thk IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 tIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Roadway Characteristics & Geometry: Traffic Volumes = 11, 300 vehicles per day Sullivan Road north of Trent is classified as a T-3 Truck Route (300 to 4,000 million tons per year) today, but it is ex- pected to become a more significant T-2 Truck Route (4,000 to 10,000 million tons per year) once the Bigelow Gulch Road connects to Wellesley and Sullivan in 2019. Bus Route #96 operates on 30 & 60 minute cycles 7 days a week. Existing: Wellesley, West Leg: 44' Wellesley, East Leg: 44' Sullivan, South Leg: 44' Sullivan, North Leg: 22' Proposed: Wellesley, West & East Leg: 44' Sullivan, South & North Leg: 60' 12' Shared -Use Path on the West side of Sullivan, 6' Sidewalk on the East side of Sullivan 6' Sidewalk on both sides of Wellesley Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering = $90,000 Right of Way & Construction = $710,000 Total grant request = $800,000 - $108,000(City match) = $692,000 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Gambling Tax. X GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.25 and RCW Chapter 9.46. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This was a topic of discussion at the February 27, 2015 Council Workshop. No action was taken. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City of Spokane Valley adopted an ordinance which authorized certain gaming/gambling activities and imposed related taxes, the proceeds of which are used to partially offset law enforcement costs. Since that time a number of businesses that offer gambling as a form of entertainment have opened and closed and revenues have fluctuated from year to year with an overall downward trend, which is conceivably due to a combination of competition from both regional and on-line gaming establishments There are currently thirty businesses in Spokane Valley that offer gaming. Gambling tax revenues for the period 2010 through 2014 as well as the 2015 Budget projection are as follows: Actual Revenues Type of Gambling Activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Budget Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 71,778 64,310 64,771 70,504 64,585 71,000 Bingo & Raffles 825 1,260 1,802 638 1,227 1,200 Amusement Games 10,063 10,882 10,125 10,799 11,063 10,800 Card Games 563,477 447,778 541,696 446,497 429,376 446,000 Total 646,143 524,230 618,394 528,438 506,251 529,000 Inc. (Dec.) from previous yr. $ (80,861.18) $(121,913.00) $ 94,164.00 $ (89,956.00) $ (22,187.00) -11.12% -18.87% 17.96% -14.55% -4.20% At the September 23, 2014 meeting, Council heard public comment from a business owner who operates a local gaming establishment. He stated that the gambling taxes on social card playing in the City of Spokane Valley are a significant expense to his business and that he believes these taxes have been a factor in why other gaming establishments within the City have closed over the last several years. He requested that Council consider either eliminating or reducing gambling tax rates and noted that the City of Spokane was at that time considering reducing their own social card game tax rate. On November 3, 2014, the City of Spokane did in fact approve an ordinance reducing rates effective in both 2015 and 2016. At the February 27, 2015 Winter Workshop, Council was presented with an information report and had an opportunity to discuss the issue. At a March 30, 2015 Finance Committee meeting this topic was discussed and consensus was reached to bring this forward to Council with a recommendation that the City of Spokane Valley reduce its rate on card games from 10% to 6%. 1 Listed below is gambling tax rate information which includes the maximum allowed by State law, the current rates in Spokane Valley, and rates in the City of Spokane: Type of Gambling Activity Gambling Tax Rates Maximum Allowed by State of Washingtor City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane (3) Through Effective Effective 12/31/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 Punch Boards & Pull Tabs (1) Bingo & Raffles (1) Amusement Games (1) (2) Card Games 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 8.0% (1) Rates are applicable to gross receipts, less amounts awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) Rates are applicable to gross revenue. (3) City of Spokane rates were changed via the adoption of their Ordinance C35153 on 11/3/2014. 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% OPTIONS: Options range from changing the tax rate on card games from the existing 10% to as much as 20% or as little as 0%. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time but staff is seeking consensus from Council on how to proceed with this matter. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 Budget includes a revenue estimate of $529,000 in gambling taxes including: • $ 71,000 Punch Boards and Pull Tabs • $ 1,200 Bingo and Raffles • $ 10,800 Amusement Games • $446,000 Card Games Given that a 10% tax on card games is estimated to generate $446,000 in 2015: • Each 1% reduction in the tax rate would cause General Fund revenues to decrease by $44,600. • If the City were to reduce the tax rate on card games from 10% to 6% this would result in revenues of $267,600 which is $178,400 less than included in the adopted 2015 Budget. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: • None. 2 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of April 8, 2015; 9:20 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Prosecuting Attorney Services Proposed Amended Interlocal -John 2. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz, Karen Kendall 3. Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell 4. Fatbeam Telecommunications Franchise — Cary Driskell 5. Advance Agenda [due Mon, April 13] Pietro, Morgan Koudelka (30 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] Friday, April 24, 2015: Special Meeting: Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m. to noon, Conference Facility located in Expo Complex, 404 NHavana Street. Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners April 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 15-009 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings 3. Second Reading Ordinance 15-010, Beekeeping — Micki Harnois 4. First Reading Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell 5. First Reading Fatbeam Telecommunications Franchise — Cary Driskell 6. Admin Report: Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 8. Info Only: (a) Proposed 2016-2021 TIP; (b) 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP (c) May 5, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 2. Admin Report: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth 3. Advance Agenda [due Mon, April 20] (5 minutes) — Erik Lamb (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) Dept Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] [due Mon, April 27] (25 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Mav 12, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year Tip — Steve Worley 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell 4. Second Reading Fatbeam Telecommunications Franchise — Cary Driskell 5. First Reading Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda May 19, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due Mon, May 4] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] May 26, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 4. Motion Consideration: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 4/8/2015 4:45:15 PM [due Mon, May 11] (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 18] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 1 of 2 6. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] June 2, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda June 9, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda June 16, 2015, Special Meeting: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers No evening meeting June 16, 2015 June 23, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports July 7, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 14, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda July 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Admissions Tax Bus Shelters Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Governance Manual LID (Local Improvement District) Marijuana, Minor in Consumption Nat'l League of Cities (Nashville, Nov 4-7) Outside Agency Presentations (Sept 1) Public Safety Quarterly Costs Setback Requirements Sidewalks and Developments TPA (Tourism Promotion Area) [May, 2015] [due Mon, May 25] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 1] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 8] [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, June 29] (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 6] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 4/8/2015 4:45:15 PM Page 2 of 2