The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/23/2008 SCITYpo ne hey Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda k Council Cha hers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 23, 2008 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING -AMENDMENT CTA-04-08 SECTION 19.110.030 AIRPORT HAZARD OVERLAY, PUBLIC HEARING-STV-02-08 STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF 5TH AVE. NEAR PROGRESS RD. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF IAN ROBERTSON, CHAIR KATHY MCCLUNG, CD DIRECTOR FRED BEAULAC,VICE-CHAIR GREG MCCORMICK, PLANNING MGR,AICP JOHN G. CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA, LONG RANGE PLANNER,AICP CRAIG EGGLESTON MIKE BASINGER, SENIOR PLANNER,AICP GAIL KOGLE CARY DRISKELL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH,ADMIN ART SHARPE WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 23, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: • ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ®public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation . AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public hearing to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Reference file number CTA-04-08. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70., 14 CFR 77 and SVMC 19.110.030 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation the City adopted the ,Spokane County airport overlay regulations on an interim basis. The City adopted their own airport hazard overlay regulations to protect Felts Field by Ordinance 06-002 on February 28, 2006. The regulations were carried forward in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.110.030 with the adoption of the new zoning regulations (uniform development code) adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28th, 2007. Concerns have been voiced by citizens and agencies regarding the density limitations of Zone 6 within the airport hazard overlay zone. Staff was directed by the City Council to review this issue and propose possible alternatives to change the density limitation. The Planning Commission held a study session on this item on October 9, 2008. Felts Field was originally a park with a portion set aside in 1920 as an airport. In 1926 the Civil Aeronautics Board recognized Felts Field as an airport. 1940 Spokane County Commissioners purchased Sunset Field, now know as Spokane International Airport (SIA)for development of an air carrier as a replacement to Felts Field. In 1980 the operations were 122,720 compared to 75,399 in 2000. In 1997 operations hit a low of 62,883 and have been rising since then. Between 1997 and 1998 operations increased by approximately 9,000. Since 1999.airport operations have consistently increased approximately one (1) percent per year. The airport is currently operating with 80,000 to 85,000 aircrafts per year. Operations are defined as takeoffs and landings preformed by an aircraft. See attached exhibit with a graph showing historical operations and existing forecasts. SEPA: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on October 3, 2008. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. October 23,2008 Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 NOTICING: Following the issuance of the notice of public hearing mailed and published on October 3, 2007, the City has not received any public comment. Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures of Title 17 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). ANALYSIS: The four (4) options below have been formulated by staff as alternatives to change density limitation of one (1) dwelling unit per two and one half (2'/2) acres within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay. Each option is being reviewed to determine if the approval criteria established in Section 17.80.150(F) of the SVMC can be met. At the study session on October 9, 2008 an additional option was requested by staff to be evaluated and referenced as option 5. 1. Option 1: No change to current density limitation in table 19-110-1 a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The current regulations are in direct conformance with Goal TG-13 and policies TP-13.1 and TP-13.2 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The current regulations provide the highest level of protection from incompatible and inconsistent densities in relation to Felts Field. 2. Option 2: Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. There are a handful of parcels that are at least double in size that could be developed under the R-2 zone that are directly adjacent to the designated airport boundary and runway that would be in direct conflict with policy TP-13.2. The majority of the land area within Zone 6 is fully built out with residential uses. The number of potential parcels that could be developed between the R-2 and R-4 zones is 388 parcels located throughout the 6,000 foot radius of Zone 6. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots would be located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. There are approximately 1,154 existing parcels in the R-2 zone with 152 parcels that could potentially be further developed. The R-4 zone has 155 existing parcels and 76 have the potential being further divided. The total number between the R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potential to be further divided is 388. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific Page 2 of 5 October 23,2008 Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. The increase in density does not bear a substantial relation to the protection of Felts Field with the creation of man-made hazards and encroachments that could pose a safety hazard for aircraft or create an increase in exposure to noise from aircraft. 3. Option 3: Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. The R-2 zone has 152 parcels that could potentially be further developed. The R-4 zone has 23 parcels 20,000 square feet or greater with the potential of being further divided under the R-2 development standards. The total number between the R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potential to be further divided is 175. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health,safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. 4. Option 4: Allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) property Page 3 of 5 October 23,2008 Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 sizes for proposed development; and (c) More than one residence is e a_ n rt., excluding any residence on© time for a UCcJk�¢HH.�'�bU SIA a property, '�6ii>ia5's:iiuuej 'uvo-7nmaQr:iGi�:: used at dependent relative, may develop property c•nsistent with underlining zone to make conforming. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. The proposed option of allowing development with exceptions would provide those properties that have had the intent of further land division to proceed. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. 5. Option 5: Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. This option was proposed by the Planning Commission at the study session held on October 9, 2008. This option, if considered would need to be further defined to determine which amount of density is allowed in each section (north and south). a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards. If determined to be divided at current zoning standards the proposed north section of Zone 6 (north of Trent Avenue) then R-2 has 148 parcels and R-4 has 71 parcels with the potential to be divided. The proposed south section of zone 6 (south of Trent Avenue) has 4 parcels in R-2 and 5 parcels in R-4 that have the potential of being divided at with current zoning standards. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendments) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Page 4 of 5 October 23,2008 Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. OPTIONS: 1. No change to current density limitation in table 19.110-1 2. Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. 3. Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. 4. Allow development within Zone 6 with exception to density and number of parcels; a. The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial Airport Hazard Overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or b. Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or equal to underlying zone; or c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. 5. Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Option 4 as previously described which amends Zone 6 density limitations to allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following criteria; (a) The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28- 06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or equal to underlying zone; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. Staff recommends,this proposed change be forwarded on to the City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Vicinity map of Zone 6 within City of Spokane Valley limits (2) Graph of historical operations and existing forecasts from Felts Field Airport Master Plan (3) Map(s) of analysis for Options 2-5 above. (4) Amended Table 19-110-1 Page 5 of 5 Vicinity Map CTA-04-08 mum /0 / / / / 1 /:// /////'>:///,, /- , / ", 'y /c7-n/e/ -20,'f'"L',,,,id; :111111111..Hill , i L .. , ovvin///./7///7//,(/„-tr',/,/;.-/,,,/////,//,(__//:/,//r_4 , /// /',/, ;///,///////)//' / /// ;- /It__ _-1411 , litivisuis mi--miri: iiá:' //,'i/%%;i, ./ L�[ � !IA"sllwood 112113§1100. BOirag „,,,,,,,„.. =MI d61.1 ��RVAI � 1�®moi. /.ftgairlia=11.2.1 // ')116110 / /// / / 7 / 1 r f, 1101 re, ==....62,1.,E,,, ,/, //60•01/ / 77\ / / / -- No MIN 416 is,=agsa ,, • , ..,„ - „,,-,, ".4t4 / • ---II 1 / 1.11:34:el 17/4111A- "Igli .i . 111 FpnwrA___wago r v..1- -se IPMEMMIE r. City of ,. %'i� /...,/, i` ;r ' .'"'gym10 cg giggling f;, Spokane ,/.� /700/0„,e111, 56,1661 � NNN ,:�+ %f� a{"v7 Ast City of Spokane Valley , 111 7 --// VY, ma 1 ! 1,;viz Warr / l.r/ /A, / ,' ''''- 4` VAI-c-111111011° ilii ,<;`f //.� ,��//may/ 7 V, 0 11� 0.44 / //// �� Zone 6 within City of �� 2"/ / / m� m .-- Spokane Valley III II 1/%1/ 10,01M gum'/ /' 'r ' Airport Overlay Zone NI NI /5'/n :17.7)) (./Z13 .1 Historical Operations and Existing Forecasts 140,000 = 120,000 _ `\ 1994 MP „. "1 WSASP r- v, 100;000 .. — �, � _ � lI .a__ o , \ i-, _ s FAATAF L 80,000 \ I_y._. Q. ___,,,x____ // T Y 60,000 L v R 40,000 - - - 20,000 -- - - - - - —...---. ___ I 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 =Actual Operations -, - 1994 Master Plan =-,_-WSASP --FAA TAF Felts Field Airport Master Plan Update—May 2005 pg. 3-11 [- -��'�] [ | 7/ \___1 | 17- ) - > - [ -- . 1--`\ : -| / / ' \ \ -- i- L_ _/ - - K��/' y Sponeneo ..:, Department of CommunityDevelopment : ..-..z.-- .. ,��lalley _ Planning Division :y r;'' 3 2 at. Legend Option 2 G r:1 I -......... , M E 4 --- Ei ray `t�R '�'-4--- :5:.-=-t ...`.� \ _ G.�- Jr• - a I��j y ��0� -ray• / �i -M. •.- ..' L' -�� y�,�`�Q1`➢3 '•ter • ` f/J� ' i� � 1 7_1 ..., :!'„d S .r EMI Oir. _r 'j'[�%/�� Q�i� �,��III © _ r r y _ „„a3:::,.,..„..:,____,v '�f2E1,.1 ,•,,,•.,,s, �.�.. I§ It - - - km- -� _ ,.... - IIIlII1I ' — t r - �...G - E.r. - 2. 2Fa I 11101 1111111111111110111111 ;.... :./Z ''.ii'':..:',q,, ^� X c, a 1i:Iq,r - s� 1 a.4 v.12Y:. j. q . : Will ' 11!4-', s ee ;,1 drrtr .'\� F'y:-..:G'•Z. Spskan`ems` Department of Community Development ••'- Al. � ,,,: „�. . ' .000Vall Planning Division - „ K r Option 3 r L. � t / 'il r _ :� ; il .„.....„,,,r,----„1.;._-, ,... „i ,, _.__-- IT il_IIIIl y;, =11 1 _1 •1 r_'- P"_I, i a* r”. =1----' .•—•'''' / ...... ; , 1 1 1:' f r....„- } , ''s . I ..•:".,7,1//ow..• 1 1 X 1 _1 I i Parcels highlighted in pink are 20k or greater in the R-2 zone. .. Department of Community Development Spokane �' .000Valley _._ '' . 1 1 , a 1 �.� :. _may. r . . __.._ .,�"''„'. 3 2 a Option 3 ._ t _ ._ r _ ; , ://f .4 \ C r 5. + + �� . ``\ Y_� f %/ ••••••••... % • t1 i ! a f ,`� .- Parcels highlighted in pink are 20k or greater in the R-4 zone. . . SiZeDepar-`,-.,.--.nent of Community Development , - . .. • .. l\'`ane ..,••• Valley . ._. . Planning Division . ., s ,,—__ Optiin 4 1 G ,,.7",''- ------ 2-:-'-----A .7._., .....„,„ ......., ...... ,„...... ..... ///7" _ P N.\. 'I ' —-‘ .... . ; ! d /‘ \A .... 5 f ••••• ' .... 11\1 . . 0.0 . / ... f •-77 11 '-'• : 3 . \\ 4 • il 1 V ,,k .......... orrnr, 0.... Vr••••• . fr .......• 0 .1,1 - r { ,.• ....! . ...t:1 .7.7. F. 0 •I -.. . 1 ..... ....... --:, '- ',:`., . . ... 2 . . i 3 ..-.,., '.-- zY 1 i:.•• . . 1 '''''"--------_•-..--...-- ....,------"-----'''''''''' i : 1 . .. ..- .- . _ 4 . _ 4 - .. - , . .. , - -.- --- 1 . ... . ... ! - I • ,.— I , — -t---- . ,s.,' • ___:-.---.L_ ..— -- ,..._ • f L i-r-7n .1i,-,•1 LI=I-74pki ,,r". ...,..,. ,- •Of' ,-..— ' '1--1-: ''' '-' ";.:;41111111111111111F1111111 • • • - . Department of Community Development - °` • S'"o`kane Uall yw Planning Division ....44....,' 3 2 x Legend Option 56 ,:1 I -,-- ! ��' :;,.. p.--0:-: B _ E"-?r- . t • - : •.�� -= AV+�_ r\\v g5�4 1 r� _--sr r - : t'_, A r. F2tl9 .. _ 4 _ 1 _ - r• 1 M,, .... I _ A .. .rte 7 s 'w.v 3 C .9 1, � - �� _ Zone 6 - Si �= _ L -- - 3 / _________--_•-,, - -� _ ` W ? r� F.;.4 1.21"r. �\\� - 1 j 17D) J / ,\ 1 . iD) ci-7-1 _1 --- I _ • -ii Amended Table 9-110-1 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Table 19410-1 Airport Land Use Compatibility Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 Single-family Residential • I • • e 1 du/2.5 acrc 1 du/5 1 du/ 2.5 Underlying Maximum Density** n/a n/a acres acre n/a zone(i) Manufactured Housing Parks 0 e o • 0 • Multi-family Residential o I o o I 0 0 0 Schools o l e e o • • Parks&Playgrounds a _1 o o e 0 0 Hospitals 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nursing Homes o 0 0 0 o I o Daycare o o 0 o o I o Churches o o o o 0 0 Hazardous Material Storage 0 1 ° 0 0 0 Flammable Materials 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Incinerators 0 0 1 o 0 o 0 Overhead utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 High Intensity Uses f 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 Prohibited Uses ** a Density limited 11' Must comply lvith a minimum of one (1)of the following criteria; a The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2- 28-06 by Ordinance 05-002; or h. Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or equal to underlying zone; or c More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 23,2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business ®new business ®public hearing ❑information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing. STV-02-08—Request to vacate approximately 290' of unimproved 5th Avenue beginning approximately 250' east of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Progress Road. PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-021 on September 23,2008, setting the date for a public hearing. 1,]5]1 <4]tz]n sn1assl e4nn552 1.1233 4411.1]17 C7]I1]10 541."[52]1.0]2 portion of 5th Ave. i4]1.151] �"' requested to be vacated i lia <411.Uu / sll.t 0: II IIx5311.1� 05211.14] e4nrz 'In'\'' I4_, ]1.151'0 11 ,� [-7]1.1513 <5211.ISR [52]1.3]] 42112--]] C2]I✓33 ® 4231 Isla I 111 S231.1 C41101n [5"-114I.17 11 :otmI MEal1=1 0 1 BACKGROUND: On July 11,2008,Brent Elliott,on behalf of himself,David and Lisa Bowers,Larry Heller,and Emily Poffenberger, applied for a street vacation. The applicant requests the vacation of approximately 390' in length of 5th Avenue located approximately 250' east of the intersection of 5`h Avenue and Progress Road. The street section is located south of 4th Avenue, north of 6th Avenue, and east of Progress Road. That portion of 5th Avenue is unimproved and abuts properties owned by the persons listed above. Please reference map above. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.104.030 the Planning Commission must make findings on the following as part of their recommendation to City Council: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public; 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access; 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public; 4. Whether conditions may change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists;and 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public. OPTIONS: Recommend approval,approve with conditions,or deny the request. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow—Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Findings and recommendations to the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Exhibit 3: Vicinity map and 2007 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Street vacation application,written narrative and letters from utilities purveyors Exhibit 5: Proposed map of street vacation Exhibit 6: Comments from Staff,Agencies and public Warne STAFF REPORT PROPOSED VACATION OF 290' of 5th Avenue located approximately 250' east of the intersection of Progress Road and 5ch Avenue Prepared by: Lori Barlow—Associate Planner Date: October 9,2008 BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2008, Brent Elliott, on behalf of himself, David and Lisa Bowers,Larry Heller, and Emily Poffenberger, applied for a street vacation. The applicant requests the vacation of approximately 390' in length of 5th Avenue located approximately 250' east of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Progress Road. The street section is located south of 4th Avenue, north of 6th Avenue, and east of Progress Road. That portion of 5th Avenue is unimproved and abuts the properties owned by the applicants listed above. Findings: 1. The change of use or vacation of the street would not better serve the public because the street is needed to provide access for the full development of the property. 2. The street is necessary for public use and public access because development is underway to improve approximately 250' of 5th Avenue east of the 5th Avenue and Progress Road intersection to provide access to a residential lot. 3. A substitution of a new and different public way would not be more useful to the public because residential development is underway that utilizes 5th Avenue for access, and 5th Avenue should be continued to provide access for infill development. 4. Conditions may change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists because infill development of the large lots adjacent to the right of way is anticipated and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 5. No objections to the proposed vacation have been received from property owners, general public or agencies with jurisdiction, with the exception of the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has objected to the vacation based on plans to improve the west portion of 5th Avenue, extending from Progress Road to the west boundary of parcel number 45231.1508. 6. Abutting Property No. 1: Brent Elliott, applicant, owns property that abuts the right-of-way on the north and south and includes Assessor Parcels #45231.1510, 45231.1512, and 45231.1511. Abutting Property No.2:Emily and Duane Poffenberger,applicant,own parcel#45231.1523 which abuts the right-of-way on the north. Abutting Property No. 3: Lawrence and Sharon Heller, applicant, own parcel# 45231.1524 which abuts the right-of-way on the north. Abutting Property No. 4: Kay Clover owns parcel # 45231.1404 which abuts the right-of- way on the east. Abutting Property No. 5: James and Nedrak Hunt own parcel #45231.4501 which abuts the right-of-way on the east. Abutting Property No. 6: David and Lisa Bowers, applicant, own parcel#45231.1519 which abuts the right-of-way on the south. 7. Utilities: a. Sewer: Spokane County Utilities has no objections and does not require an easement per letter dated August 14,2008. b. Water: Vera Water and Power has no facilities located in the right-of-way per email dated September 7,2008. c. Telephone/Fiber Optics: Qwest has no utilities located in the right-of-way,and has no objections per letters dated July 30,2008 and October 2,2008. d. Gas and Electricity: Avista has no objection to the vacation per letter dated August 14,2008. e. Cable Television: Comcast has no objection per letter dated August 18,2008. All of the utility providers have been contacted by the applicant and their correspondence is attached. The specific location of easements is a requirement of the record of survey. 8. Stormwater drainage facilities: No drainage facilities are located in the unimproved right- of-way. 9. Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1: No objections per letter dated October 2, 2008. However, future development will be required to meet access road, addressing, street names, and hydrant standards. 10. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan: Surrounding properties are zoned R-3, Single Family Residential/Low Density Residential 11. Land Use: Currently the right-of-way is being utilized by the adjacent property owners as part of their residential lots. In some cases the property owners have fenced up to the centerline of the right-of-way incorporating the area into their lot. 12. City's Public Works needs assessment and traffic circulation: The Public works Department finds that the right of way may be needed for access to serve future infill development of the abutting parcels, and that plans to improve 5th Avenue extending east from Progress are already underway to provide access to short plat on parcel # 45231.1508. Public Works would consider the vacation of a portion of 5th Avenue if St. Charles Road were extended northerly to connect 6th Avenue to 4th Avenue, with 5th Avenue providing the east- west connection to the street. Without the extension of St. Charles, Public works is opposed to the vacation. 13. Condition of street: Unimproved 14. Assignment of vacated portions of right-of-way: Pursuant to Section 22.140.0404.0 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) one-half of vacated street shall go to each abutting property owner. Conclusions: The criteria set forth in Section 22.140.030 of the SVMC has not been met based upon the findings set forth. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 23,2008 The following fmdings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommendation to deny the request. Background: 1. A completed application for vacation was filed on September 12,2008. 2. City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-021 on September 23,2008,setting the date for a public hearing. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23,2008. 4. Following a hearing,the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of the applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 22.140.020 have been met. 5. None of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and Findings: 1. The change of use or vacation of the street would not better serve the public because the street is needed to provide access for the full development of the property. 2. The street is necessary for public use and public access because development is underway to improve approximately 250' of 5th Avenue east of the 5th Avenue and Progress Road intersection to provide access to a residential lot. 3. A substitution of a new and different public way would not be more useful to the public because residential development is underway that utilizes 5th Avenue for access, and 5th Avenue should be continued to provide access for infill development. 4. Conditions may change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists because infill development of the large lots adjacent to the right of way is anticipated and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 5. No objections to the proposed vacation have been received from property owners, general public or agencies with jurisdiction, with the exception of the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has objected to the vacation based on plans to improve the west portion of 5th Avenue, extending from Progress Road to the west boundary of parcel number 45231.1508 . 6. Abutting Property No. 1: Brent Elliott,applicant,owns property that abuts the right-of-way on the north and south and includes Assessor Parcels#45231.1510,45231.1512,and 45231.1511. Abutting Property No.2:Emily and Duane Poffenberger own parcel#45231.1523 which abuts the right-of-way on the north. Abutting Property No.3: Lawrence and Sharon Heller own parcel#45231.1524 which abuts the right-of-way on the north. Abutting Property No.4: Kay Clover owns parcel#45231.1404 which abuts the right-of- way on the east. Abutting Property No. 5: James and Nedrak Hunt own parcel#45231.4501 which abuts the right-of-way on the east. Abutting Property No.6: David and Lisa Bowers own parcel#45231.1519 which abuts the right-of-way on the south. 7. Utilities: a. Sewer: Spokane County Utilities has no objections and does not require an easement per letter dated August 14,2008. b. Water:Vera Water and Power has no facilities located in the right-of-way per email dated September 7,2008. c. Telephone/Fiber Optics: Qwest has no utilities located in the right-of-way,and has no objections per letters dated July 30,2008 and October 2,2008. d. Gas and Electricity: Avista has no objection to the vacation per letter dated August 14,2008. e. Cable Television: Comcast has no objection per letter dated August 18,2008. All of the utility providers have been contacted by the applicant and their correspondence is attached. The specific location of easements is a requirement of the record of survey. 8. Stormwater drainage facilities: No drainage facilities are located in the unimproved right- of-way. 9. Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1: No objections per letter dated October 2,2008. However,future development will be required to meet access road,addressing,street names, and hydrant standards. 10. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan: Surrounding properties are zoned R-3, Single Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan designations is Low Density Residential. 11. Land Use: Currently the right-of-way is being utilized by the adjacent property owners as part of their residential lots. In some cases the property owners have fenced up to the centerline of the right-of-way incorporating the area into their lot. 12. City's Public Works needs assessment and traffic circulation: The Public Works Department finds that the right of way is needed for access to serve future infill development of the abutting parcels, and that plans to improve 5th Avenue extending east from Progress are already underway to provide access to a short plat on parcel#45231.1508. Public Works has recommended that St. Charles Road be extended northerly to connect 6th Avenue to 4th Avenue,with 5th Avenue providing the east-west connection up to St. Charles. Public works is opposed to the vacation. 13. Condition of street: Unimproved 14. Assignment of vacated portions of right-of-way: Pursuant to Section 22.140.0404.0 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)one-half of vacated street shall go to each abutting property owner. Conclusions: The criteria set forth in Section 22.140.030 of the SVMC has not been met based upon the findings set forth. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends denial to the City Council of the vacation of approximately 390' in length of 5th Avenue located approximately 250' east of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Progress Road. Approved this 23rd day of October,2008 Ian Robertson,Chairman ATTEST Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant Vicinity Map L—L Ng I I S 1 tat ommua~ -:....: ■■ - 1 11 ill 1 iitic ra ii 111:111116111W • Y•7 e WII11iIIII1I! W requested to be vacated Is ral ; �11 -2Q, ni� m located between . c "' MI brillimi � N these parcels. L. '�I� — �4. 111 E .. ■iii i�� z 'a SNI 111 2 agg wiirifol. 46.. iii .1 _42:qui i„,,_ 1 pikr07.-- '-''''' P ' -I a I • ims* - I-sigDmi.miha.-- --al olin- Ilium Jo i we r own willillis al 6 Al eel IPL.1# I' "'iii iiii■ II "' ■ e �4 ! regiejwal•gnu "211112 II :� � �� / IN n®nnlmi n®19911 Street Vacation Application # STV 02-08 Request: Vacate approximately 390 feet of Applicant: Brent Elliott dedicated unimproved right-of-way for 5th Avenue. IL 11 _ ___ JL{K ....1_____,ta___Z] 4 ..-.7+ ...4, 5: '� t 'f i{'�I t I c' .F ";y i,_'>' ••• " r .t. .�trrl IV '-� - `j I .� ! �• t • J ir. ` .I .' fi r� ke I ^4 • ,Sny ii� � t ,. •.,,,' '' r �'�`r r• �R 8 L i i t r Cs1iG . "1 ^ +, i em-. S rS' .:• .,, •► •. _ �r I A' '' .C.�'•y c1: . +`1 r r..". ;.y k'� wow.-14,1: I, r! I,I • ��y� ,df!"4<J1TQr Y •ttt, �a Q. 1....L:''' .Al,�.l - ', I�wlPllll,lei7f i(;yU✓?V. ... - '''' <�' K. II •i, '-f 1. • f i 1 1L�U,tl6 "�'1f'I�,IU� 'I�C oil f( Ilhkr� «+�ts?r'4. r. ,. ` •'. , �• of tj ' ' ILI,-111 .1...! .,r-14- I- 'a . M1F S. ` } { + -' - I :sir •- 1 1 Afliti `_..+ �� "�r. 1 I I CrIS _.C,ymnal.�llgv J I 1 %.s1 I, i .� d • _ �. ti r:� j .I du r t I I ! r. T { L S 1,1 .., __ -r1 1-i -}- I I I I ;i�r 1 f i.II_ �l j y�l �: ii. r 1 i'11411.„ P..-:----' . 0. _ .... .7. 14 il...-.14...,..., r," •,..,.... ......,.. .„. , i 1 •, • \tTIL-- i\ - ,- i? I - • I ; :L.. ',It f,'''', 1:0' Y y 1 I' II�III L;,.:711. r♦ 1 I \--r, ii. -i \ ,, ''. .,. I 0 ' �� - ! �••;1 C I I r l r ft ••.' T! I IN " •.. • • 1 4. i + I +slims : , i` ,,\- Poe- •....,:,.. t 1 I ',lir - .. ,,,••;.".,,l, i ai, ...'z 6 lirmiK--- '• Y7' i `I r .: '. . .:.:i .-;t:[::'• "." ' \e E " Ty. . 44 "Mr r • ;� , , .''• _" _ '_a .r:-- r- Lt R' `1 ae�12nIli% 6 • , ' l�)��Rtt { `-_ . 4 Aerial Mapy Project # STV 02-08 — 5tl Avenue Street Vacation Source: Spokane County PRISM- 2007Imagery Applicant: Brent L Elliot crnoe CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Permit Center (For Staff Use Only) ' (' ®�RE 0000 Valley 11703 East Si Jue Avenue, Suite B-3 DATE SUBMI. J: 7//1/1/G7 CEIVED EY:1113 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 FILE NO./NAME: Tel: (509) 688-0197 Fax: (509) 688-0037 f5W2` 69' planning spokanevallev.orq / CURRENT PLANNING FEE: RECEIVED ENGINEERING FEE: LI5231 , (5)0 JUL 1 1 26 STREET VACATION APPLICATION (SVMC 22.140) SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PART I-APPLICATION INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION: -? �, Name of Public Street Proposed for Vacation: � 'n\� O t ) ct- Section/Township/Range of Public Street Proposed for Vacation: cre-C"ITn ! - ; f. 2s//, /2, 2/'/ Area(Square Feet)of Public Street to be Vacated: S� re a .'tom-) j`n Dimensions of Public Street to be Vacated: 3 wide F6 -.S 2 / deep Street Address/Tax Parcel No of Abutting Property#1: �'�.l'c,e 11,-,S-2,' 31 /6-7 9•, t l - -- - .�cii1'i� ' C t to—,t: 144,4- , Street Address/ /Tax Parcel No of Abutting Property#2: P ce,l ',�—2. I.,_:L f i Z 1 `'17'' /_f V� l t�� ?O i i,Le . Oki(7,- E4/4, Zoning Designation nation of Abutting Property#1: LSGJ Zoning Designation of Abutting Property#2: 'eSi 4i�i Previous Land Use Action,If Applicable(state Project File No. &Name: None— APPLICANT/OWNER / ne-APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION*: Please note: Submit on a separate sheet of paper the required applicant/owner information specified below if there are more than two (2,) applicants submitting for the Street Vacation. Applicants must be the same as property owners specified on the current Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel records. • ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NO.1: APPLICANT NAME: l kin MAILING ADDRESS: G) \i+ 11 f"4 c-e Ave_/ `ti P CITY: S��)kTc ,' STATE: to/7 ZIP: 992-0-3 PHONE:(HOME/WO; J�`t-342,--23- (FAX) Ere' ,Se -sC r (CELL) '362- 2+20 Please Circles *PLEASE NOTE: Per RCW 35.79.040(Title to Vacated Street or Alley),the property within a public street or allpy vacated by the City Council shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half(1/2)to each. Therefore, if there is more than one (1) property owner abutting the public street or alley proposed for vacation, each property owner shall be required to sign the street vacation application. Effective October 28,2007 Page 2 of 5 P:\Community Development\Forms\Current Planning Application forms\Strt Vac App Submittal Chidist eff 10-28-07.doc i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Slioliai°1e\'' PLANNING DIVISION Valley STREET VACATION .•. SUBMITTAL C$'II;CKLIST THE PLANNING .INISION WILL BE UNABLE TO ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IE YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ALL THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED MATERIAL. ❑ APPLICATION FORM Submit completed application on the attached form with all required information specified and all signature blocks completed. ❑ CURRENT APPLICATION FEE 1 ❑ ASSESSOR'S SECTION MAP Al ' • Map Needed: 1:200 scale map.of: / 1/2; section i`3 ;township Qs 6-;range `t Li . Submit one (1) copy of the above Spokane County Assessor map(s), which show your proposed subdivision property. Identify your property and those requiring public notice by following the instructions provided in the Notice of Application packet. ❑ Vicinity map showing the general area of the proposed vacation. El,, Copy of the record of survey, if available, for the subject street and alley proposed for vacation, and �' abutting properties,streets and alleys within 100 feet on all sides of the proposed vacation. ❑ Written evidence of any and all easements or allowances or reservations, public or private, pertaining to the street or alley proposed for vacation. ❑ Written narrative describing the reasons for the proposed street vacation, the physical limits of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. Effective October 28,2007 Page 1 of 5 P:\Community Development\Forms\Current Planning Application forms\Strt Vac App Submittal Chklist eff 10-28-07.doc ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER N0.2: APPLICANT NAME: Dh,L`cr MAILING ADDRESS: - S, Sc,. �`1e-S si CITY: tre-adSTATE: - ZIP: 97 0.. 4- PHONE:eWORIC) �24- - !(FAX) (CELL) ircle PART II-EVALUATION CRITERIA The following is criteria evaluated by the Planning Commission in formulating a recommendation to the City Council. On a separate sheet of paper the following questions shall be answered in a detailed manner. • 1. •How does a change of use or vacation of the street/alley improve service to the public? 2. Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access? Explain. 3. Would substitution of a new and/or different public right-of-way better serve the public? Explain. 4. How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions? Explain. 5. Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities? The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies.(Specify)? 6. Petitioner(s)contacted the following,utilities/agencies with this proposal for their concurrence. (Attach correspondence) _Telephone _Cable _Electric _Other(Specify) —Water District _Fire District _Gas Utility Sewer Utility 7. Does the right-of-way include stormwater drainage facilities(Specify)? • NOTE: ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE STREET VACATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST SHALL BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED. Effective October 28,2007 Page 3 of 5 P:\Community Development\Forms\Current Planning Application forms\Strt Vac App Submittal Clilclist eff 10-28-07,doc PART H-LEGAL OWNER SIGNATURE Please note:-Submit on a separate sheet of paper the required Iegal owner signature specified below if there are more than two(2)property owners submitting for the Street Vacation. ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NO.1: • • I, ,' (`en , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: 73 C' 1:. Lt,, Igrt✓l-ue Are-n.4 PHONE: S-67— 362-Z--?-yo tS41>kb, i:C__ tJ,, ZIP: 1920' (City ' (State) l(Sipa e i (Date) NOTARY (For Part II above) STALE,OF WASHINGTON ) ss: - COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I � day of `ta-. ,20___ NOTARY SEAL / NOTARY SIGNATURE LFp ........ • on F c4 Notary Public in and for the State Washington 1,� �?o� ;: . Q.' .ofA quo �! ;v 'm'. Residing at: NOTARY `".: k ` I PUBLIC C I vie LO V.49 �,`�.=',O 0 My appointment expires: ?, to 2 / b/. o �• tos;2°.�c� �WASo'`� ��.eemiltl�� • Effective October 28,2007 Page 4 of 5 P:\Community Development\Forms\Current Planning Application forms\Strt Vac App Submittal Chklist eff 10-28-07,doc ( • ( ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NO..2: I, 4 �-ry 4 fie C'r , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: /cam %( E / PHONE: Pa?-(V—/ten S?o kii)c 47..../4/e. 1 ZIP: 2'703; (City) (State) A .--2� — ,r-. o ' (Signature) • (Date) NOTARY (For Part IL above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ` _ day of '3 vim- ,20 QF-- NOTARY SEAL --- NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: 5-l& ^ My appointment expires: k. 3 _ LQ I ;,. • 4.=DEARTH .,:.::,;.•1 •..LTAl .OF V"A51'.1NGTON ` . f ARY-,,I•F-PUBLIC .114Y ttONjNIISSION EXPIRE01.03-1L' Effective October 28,2007 Page 4 of 5 ' S:\DWG\0786\0786 Street Vac App.doc I 1 (r ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NO. _ name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE I, awl c, � FJW � (print ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. ADDRESS: /C-2-2-1 tr. L ili PHONE: Z1"— 1-N `1- / (50 - 01� f. � ‘ ZIP: 9903 (State) 111,4:2,247/57„-------------- 6/g/°8 (Signature) (Date) NOTARY (For Part U above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4 day of 3-in-°-- ,200 & NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington \` S?0�t�s� Residing at: My appointment expires: ` I G fit.:'' „,. S.TAl FWAdHtf+g,pohi a: AUSL C `�,` -+,-. - _ F-5 ” •t Effective Ocer 28,2007 Page f 5 S:\DWG\0786\078 Street Vac App.doc ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NO : I, I a- �p��ev 4 , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE REONSES ARE MADE'TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. • ADDRESS: /5 Z/V C 4u< PHONE: U1 (44, ZLP: ' 03 City) 1 (State) (Signature) 0 (Date) NOTARY (For Part II above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: • COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I dry" day of ,20 0 • NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: ,5\ 1"--- My appointment expires: k\-✓ (It.,v • • ,C.'xly.'V1 • Tart i ... J $tAlt;OF WA H1*1cGtON • • = tipTARY MY CONI 11E$IO.N EXPIRES 01-)3-10 Effective October 28,2007 Page 5 of 5 P:\Community Development\Forms\Current Planning Application forms\Strt Vac App Submittal Chklist eff 10-28-07.doc 1.How does a change of use or vacation of the street/alley improve service to the public? The proposed vacation is for a street that does not exist.It is only a right of way. .I am proposing a small development with the installation of a road from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue.This will allow for connectivity. Fourth Avenue and Sixth Avenue provide access already,that are paved. Fourth Avenue is an Arterial street and collector.By adding a public road down the middle of parcels 45231.1510/ 1512 and 45231.1511 Fourth Avenue will then be connected to Sixth Avenue thus allowing access to these interior lots for safety, etc. 2.Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access?Explain The street does not exist.It is bare land and being used by abutting homeowners.If you vacate this land I will install a public road from 4th to 6th for connectivity and safety issues.It is no longer of use anyway due to the homes constructed on the east portion,near Newer Street.These homes sit in this right of way.There is currently another home being built right on this right of way. Connectivity from Progress to Newer is not practical nor is it even possible. All neighbors signed statements for this vacation. To try and impose Fifth Avenue construction will be difficult to accomplish without huge protest from existing home owners on this east portion of this right of way. 3.Would substitution of a new and/or different public right-of-way better serve the public? Explain Yes.I will install a public road from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue.This will allow connectivity and allow for safety issues.Existing homeowners will be left alone and will give existing home owners more land,which will be more taxable land.This is a low impact proposition to all neighbors . 4.How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions?Explain Without this right-of-way it will benefit everyone.Connecting Fourth Avenue to Sixth Avenue is a more practical proposition for accessing these interior lots.Fifth avenue,at my points of interest serve no purpose for existing neighbors.No homeowners will be troubled, connectivity will be met with a public road from 4th to 6th Avenue,and the extra land given to abutting homeowners will have more taxable land. 5.Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities?The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies.(Specify)? All easements will be retained in this development.This would include Vera Water&Power and any other companies with utilities in this described area. 6.See original form 7.Does the right of way include storm water drainage facilities(Specify)? Fifth Avenue does not exist so this is unknown. J ) i‘l i6 4/'4.-6 11-2-1 P.Aiere5s 511.= firco)resS • , . • . . . . . , • . . • • . , • • ,A f; • '412, • Brent L.Elliott 3306 W.Bruce Avenue Spokane, WA.99207 509-362-2790 ph 509-326-1051 fax brentrph@msn.com June 30,2008 Spokane Valley Planning Division Dear Friend, The reason for request of street vacation(5th Avenue)is to accommodate the development of a nice community of homes for housing on parcel#s 45231.1510;45231.1511;and 45231.1512. At present no street exists for this right of way described as 5th Avenue, which would otherwise provide connectivity from Progress to Newer Street. The proposed limits would be to vacate the street from the west portion of parcel#45231.1510& 1512,through parcel#45231.1511, and through parcels 45231.1523, 1524,and 1519. This is approximately 386.52 lineal feet of right-of-way,in which is just bare land. The public benefit would be three fold. First the current residents would not have to deal with the frustration and headache of a street being built next to there homes sitting immediately on the east portion of proposed vacation. This would be of low impact to all neighbors. Currently,homes have been built and are currently being built immediately on or within this right of way. These homeowners currently use this land as part of their day to day living. They would in turn possess more property ownership,which is taxable land. Secondly is the concern for access or practicality and connectivity,namely for public safety,which is being met by my development of a public road connecting 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue,between my parcels of 45231.1510/1512 and 45231.1511. Fire trucks,medical, - police,etc will have access to these interior lots with the new road installed in my development. Currently 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue are paved and accommodate access to all other lots. Third benefit has to do with 5th Avenue and the reality of it connecting Progress to Newer Street. It will be virtually impossible for the installation of 5th Avenue due to eastern side of parcel#45231.1523, 1524, 1519 . There is a large home now constructed which completely blocks any road from continuing through.These homeowners/builders have deliberately done this to prevent this road from going in. Another home is being built as well.Only at the expense of large amounts of money,time,resistance by home owners,and frustration to the Spokane Valley,would this 5th Avenue be constructed as indicated for this portion of this right of way. As you can see this proposal benefits everyone. It makes perfect sense to allow this because it satisfies what is important for public safety and allows for a very nice development with added access to interior lots and connectivity from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue. Not only does this generate taxable monies but will provide homes for people in an ideal location. Sincerel Brent L.Elliott Owner/Developer • 904 N.Columbus Spokane,WA 99202 • Qwest. Spirit of Service° October 2, 2008 City of Spokane Valley Department of Building and Planning 11707 E. Sprague Ave. , Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Lori Barlow Re: STV-02-08 Dear Lori: • Qwest approves the street vacation. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me on (509) 455-2580 . Sincerely, 4/4,44. ei64 462 Dave Clark Sr. Design Engineer RECEIVED ocs 13 no SPOKANE VALLEY - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT soia1e4.000 , Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106•Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 4 Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Lori Barlow,Associate Planner From: Inga Note,Senior Traffic Engineer CC: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Date: 10/3108 Re: STV-02-08 The Public Works Department submits the following comments for the Public Hearing. These comments are based on the criteria for street vacation listed in Chapter 22.140.030 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public; No. The vacation will not better serve the public. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or access; The 5th Avenue right-of-way appears to be unused at this time. However,the right- of-way will likely be needed for access in order to develop the abutting parcels to their maximum density. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public; No. There is no need for a new and different public way. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists; According to Development Engineering,there are already plans for paving the western portion of the right-of-way to provide access for SHP-17-08 on parcel number 45231.1508. The applicant for this vacation states that he intends to connect a public road from 4th to 6th concurrent with the development of several parcels. During preliminary discussion with this applicant,city staff had recommended extending St. Charles northward from 6th to 4 as a public street,then using 5th Avenue as an east-west connection from the St. Charles extension to Progress Road. Since there are plans to improve the western portion of 5th Avenue already,the east end of the right-of-way must either be provided with a cul-de-sac or connect into another public street. 1 RECEIVED 10/02/2008 15:31 5096880037 SV PERMIT CENTERFR Oct. 2. 2006 3:34PM No. 0054 P. 1 (ONE VAtz j)O og.0 CEo, CY FIRE Y l AYjY DEPARTMENT 10319 EAST SPRAGUE AVE.*SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99208-3627 a(509)928-1780•FAX(509)892-4125 www.spokanevalleyfire.corn Mike Thompson Chief October 2,2008 Lori Barlow City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave.Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: STV-0208 15200 E.4th Dear Ms. Barlow: The Spokane Valley Fire Department has the following requirements for STV-02-08: 1. Access road must meet grading requirements. (No grades greater than 10%.) 2. Addressing and street names need to be consistent with area streets and addresses. 3. At a minimum, one new fire hydrant shall be installed at 6th and proposed road. 4. Provide water plan showing location of required hydrant and size of water main. a. Hydrants shall stand plumb. The traffic breakaway flange is to be set at the finished curblgrade elevation with the lowest outlet of the hydrant no less than 18 inches above the curbrade. There shall be a clear area around the hydrant of not less than 36 inches as measured from outside edge of the barrel or outlet ports,whichever is greater,for clearance of a hydrant wrench on both outlets and the control valve. b. All fire hydrants shall have a minimum of three outlets, one 4-112 inch inside diameter pumper outlet and two 2-1/2 inch inside diameter outlets. Threads on all outlets shall be National Standard Thread (NST). G. The pumper port shall face the street. Where the street cannot be clearly defined or recognized, the port shall face the most likely route of approach and location of the fire apparatus while pumping, as determined by the local fire protection authority. Sincerely, e ,.� Bill Clifford : • Fire Inspector BCfpla 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public. Development Engineering objected to proposed vacation in their pre-application comments for PRE-87-07. This memorandum is attached. Recommendation: Public Works recommends denial of this vacation. Public Works comments on STV-01-07 2 • • rkliane Development Engineering VaHey 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦cityhall®spokanevaltey.org Memorandum • To: Tavis Schmidt—Assistant Planner From: Joe Gilbert—Development Engineering Technician Date: December 14,2007 Re: PRE-87-07: 16 Lot Sub-Division Pre-Application Comments • Development Engineering has reviewed the preliminary site plan submitted for the above referenced project. We will not recommend vacation of 5th Avenue and can thus proceed no further with review of the plan as currently drawn. Please provide an updated site plan with all necessary requirements. We will be happy to review it then. 43-- -3/17570 1523// / 2/ 113-1.3f' jS"/Z SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: October 7,2008 TO: Lori Barlow,Associate Planner, City of Spokane Valley Dept. of Community Development FROM: Donald Copley,EHS II-EHD, SRHD SUBJECT: STV-02-08 Elliott The Spokane Regional Health District has no comment on this Request to Vacate Row. Memo/STV-02-08 Elliott/lh _ Page 1 of 1 Lori Barlow From: Mary Kate Martin Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:56 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: STV-02-08 Attachments: Mary Kate Martin.vcf There are no building code issues that I can see from the aerials. Mary Kate Martin Building Official, Spokane Valley 11703 E. Sprague Ave., Suite B-3 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 e-mail: mmartin@spokanevalley_org phone: 509-688-0024 10/2/2008 • .I�ur1_®S7Am October 8, 2008 RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2008 Ms. Lori Barlow,Assistant Planner City of Spokane Valley SPOKANE VALLEY 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Suite 106 DEPARTMENT LOPMENT Spokane,Valley,WA 99206 • Re: STV-02-08 5th and Progress Dear Ms. Barlow: Avista has reviewed the site and the materials on the proposed street vacation and there are no issues. Please send us a copy of the Ordinance after one has been issued. If you have any questions or comments please, contact me at(509)495-8536. Thank you, Sherry Miller Real Estate Assistant cc: Claude Kaler,Avista 509.489.0500 800.727.9170 1411 East Mission Avenue Facsimile 509.495.8734 PO Box 3727 MSC-25 Spokane, Washington 99220-3727 www.avistautilities.com St®(jomca1717E Buckeye Aye. Spokane,WA 99207 RECEIVED August 18,2008 AUG 2 5 2008 SPOKANE VALLEY Brent Elliott and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Spokane Valley RE:Vacation of approximately 390 feet in length of dedicated unimproved right of way for 5th Ave.,located approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of 5th and Progress for development of parcels by Brent Elliott. Comcast Cable of Spokane has no objection to the above mentioned vacation and has no need for an easement in the indicated area. Sincerely, Rich Barnes Construction Technician Comcast Cable,Spokane 509 755-4718 it i ® K A N E '"`' p'y` S P ` . r O":_ C O Li N -r me- UTILITIES UTILITIES DIVISION A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT N.Bruce Rawls,P.E.,Utilities Director RECEIVED August 14, 2008 AUG 1 6 TM Greg McCormick,Planning ManagerreFila vaLL�� City of Spokane Valley ��ar o��®PR7v®�VEl.��9'�� 11707 E.Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: Vacation of 5th Avenue Proponent; Brent Elliott The Proponent listed above has contacted the Spokane County Division of Utilities regarding the request to vacate 5th Avenue. The vacation request is for the portion of 5th Avenue from the west property line of tax parcels 45231.1510 and 45231.1512 easterly to the existing Right-of-Way terminus point at the west property lines of parcels 45231.1404 and 45231.4501. This Office has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the vacation of this portion of 5th Avenue Right-of-Way. No sanitary sewer easement is required as a part of this action. Sincerely Kevin C oke, Sewer Planning&Design Manager. Spokane County Division of Utilities 1026 W. Broadway 0 Spokane, WA 99260-0430 (509) 477-3604 0 FAX: (509) 477-4715 0 TDD: (509) 477-7133 Lori Barlow From: brent elliott[brentrph@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 5:51 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: FW: 5th avenue right of way vacating Attachments: Sullivan Develop. map.jpg Sullivan Develop. map.jpg(198... Email from Vera Water and Power > Subject: FW: 5th avenue right of way vacating > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:03:48 -0700 > From: brian@verawaterandpower.com > To: brentrph@msn.com > CC: THenry@verawaterandpower.com; kevin@verawaterandpower.com > Brent, I've looked at our facilities that are within the boundary you > refer to in the email below. Vera does not have any facilities in the > unimproved 5th Avenue ROW. Vera Water and Power will look at the plat > proposal and request the required easement during the platting process. > t; > > In order for Vera Water and Power to relinquish any right to install > utilities in this existing ROW and keep it as an easement; we will II > need a formal request "in writing" from the City of Spokane Valley. > 1 > If you have any questions, please call or send me an email. > r > I > Regards, > > > Brian K. Dilts , \ > District Engineer > Vera Water and Power > P.O. Box 630 > Spokane Valley, WA 99216 > Phone 509-924-3800 > Fax: 509-922-3929 > cell phone: 509-475-5130 > email: brian@verawaterandpower.com > Original Message > From: Todd Henry > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:53 AM > To: Brian Dilts > Subject: FW: 5th avenue right of way vacating > Lets discuss this, Ineed your input to respond to him. > Todd Henry > Director of Operations > Vera Water & Power > Office: (509)924-3800 > Cell: (509)475-5127 > thenry@verawaterandpower.com 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 23,2008 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommendation to deny the request. Background: 1. A completed application for vacation was filed on September 12,2008. 2. City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-021 on September 23,2008, setting the date for a public hearing. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2008. 4. Following a hearing,the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of the applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 22.140.020 have been met. 5. None of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and Findings: 1. The Planning Commission action resulted in a split vote on the motion to deny the request,and thus did not make a decision. No findings are provided. Conclusions: The Commission did not determine whether or not the criteria set forth in Section 22.140.030 of the SVMC was met and therefore did not make findings in support of a decision. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission makes no recommendation to the City Council on the request to vacate approximately 390' in length of 5t' Avenue located approximately 250' east of the intersection of 5th Avenue and Progress Road. Approved this 23rd day of October,2008 • i�-- ' .I ' "1 Ian Robertson,Chairman A TEST ` _ aro, Deanna Griffith,Adminis 1 W ssistant kF. . _ c CCC SCC Carr IC 7 210 9_ C C p SCITYOkane v I n ,n 2[1c C E� Sheth, Valley • 5 log ..-----,..EL:..-----,..EL: (O/72 DATE: NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS WISH TO SUBJECT E-MAIL SPEAK? oi on ,&a w r 21/0 4 c ,,^''1 yY vOic,fir- N 97 / A/ th&J Lame. 2( ,,/,„ _ � 5 e r,70.-- frizevl 6-c-'20V4.",;d64- •vt. /4 4a - sS ls,A 7 L. . (- Vk� Se r W`. � y � 5 .\ I - v P ce,\\5 1 k (lf(t .i _ 1kctve vec, ,cGw, ri S It -- A/litt c‘,; 3�((0 GO (4C p� — , c: 1 , , ,,,, .) A, Avo -y2 , e...tort : -,,,/ CITY OT -� [ LTi] z :i� Commission Spokane msign In Sheet Va11ey 7o -a3 - Off' DATE: NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS WISH TO SUBJECT E-MAIL SPEAK? CjL1Cb t✓RyT t E, JAM c t, ,11me.,ctle,2-f- C74 04-off 1 SNEFh/A:c,�Spoierl+vE4ikecigT / Z7 ..7>c)c S. 416,3 Q. (0 4-0S-L, Fri--vF 1 ,- l t << . cc.✓4.Y-e__(- eeL....f((r 6 ,,,,,,,- // -4"1fezx/yvir f r4 7? /`f6 ger ix C- c14//.1>, p, v'T cyr fr Au 5 o,J Ce!-teS-7 ,vt.,y+P!,r,-)n,/NJ '-- 7 (.)L/ /7.2"—� Sttat_.l Lc= 1/ 1/ tiW„Mor LvSc-Jv/. ‘NJ AVc."° ,Pt \z,‘ ---C-'46k,1-51X (26(6 '-R > 6),k ,,,Fik TK ( f /5C .4-t' 1.✓icy S> .5- 1J,A-t c.s-1 &di 9 9 z= / `Lc v/>w, c TA- 04-06. ,(S'c.4-K-<<' S .,I E- /.1J, c,_,,..... Thick X I ei."4 9 l 7 ,W4i,<1., `19,1 i _If__ A-11-r4_ toe,1-,iw,- -2-5 1( S. &_/ i- a /90 31 ' � 1Nr Vete.c420 _.__ ri,l9/e At. 0,56:49So,c.) 5`/ 9 d rc-1‹ i'`i2r L "he, C/iyri zr.,E',u,r C 7`/1 oy, From: Josh Nerren [mailto:josh@uturnsm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:17 PM To: Greg McCormick Cc: Lori Barlow; Mike Basinger; Micki Harnois; Christina Janssen; Scott Kuhta; Martin Palaniuk; Tavis Schmidt Subject: regarding Thursdays meeting - file# CTA-04-08 Greg & associates, I am writing because I will be unable to attend the public hearing this Thursday night regarding the airport overlay zone. I will try to make this brief so as not to take up too much of your time. I have been visiting the Spokane Valley zoning and permitting office for years regarding this issue. I bought my house at 8204 E. Jackson Ave (99212) in the Spokane Valley over 7 years ago. My property extends through the block from Jackson to Carlisle Ave. I originally purchased the property for the investment of someday splitting the lot into two. I was told by the city at that time that I could not subdivide my back lot until the sewer was brought in to the area because the city did not want any more septic tanks installed. My wife and I waited patiently until the sewer was put in. They put the sewer in and even installed a stub onto the back portion of my lot which is accessed on Carlisle Ave for future building. I then went down to the permit office to find out what my next step would be in subdividing and selling that lot so that someone could build a house on that vacant piece of property. It was at that time explained to me that because of 9-11, there was an airport overlay restriction placed on that property. I was never notified of any meetings or decisions about the ordinance. They told me that nothing could be done and that I could not divide the lot. So now I'm stuck with a huge useless piece of land that does no one any good, and I'm unable to get a return on my investment. On Carlisle, it is the only empty piece of land along that block and it just grows weeds and gives teenagers a place to do donuts in their cars. I am very disappointed especially since I feel that we are so far from any landing or take off path of Felts Field. I hope that the city of Spokane Valley will consider lifting the ordinance, or at least moving the boundaries to reflect a more common sense area of possible impact in the event of an airplane crash. If an airplane crashes in my back yard, I would conclude that the pilot wasn't even aiming for the airstrip. Just look at the map, it doesn't make sense. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Josh Nerren Spokane Valley resident 8204 E. Jackson Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99212 (509)939-9517 Page 1 of L Deanna Griffith From: Greg McCormick Sent: Tuesday,October 21,2008 4:14 PM To: Deanna Griffith Subject:FW:regarding Thursdays meeting-file#CTA-04-08 D,we should get Mr.Nerren's written testimony to the PC on Thursday night. Gregory J. McCormick, AICP Planning Division Manager City of Spokane Valley (509)6880023 gmccorrnick@spokanevalley.org From:Josh Nerren[mailto:josh@utumsm.com] Sent:Tuesday,October 21,2008 4:17 PM To:Greg McCormick Cc:Lori Barlow;Mike Basinger;Micki Hamois;Christina Janssen;Scott Kuhta;Martin Palaniuk;Tavis Schmidt Subject:regarding Thursdays meeting-file#CTA-04-08 Greg&associates, I am writing because I will be unable to attend the public hearing this Thursday night regarding the airport overlay zone.I will try to make this brief so as not to take up too much of your time. I have been visiting the Spokane Valley zoning and permitting office for years regarding this issue.I bought my house at 8204 E.Jackson Ave(99212)in the Spokane Valley over 7 years ago.My property extends through the block from Jackson to Carlisle Ave. ee` #Iw+ror.. E Jas` • on l - , y 1 --....^-1 ^. 3 > i . tisk;s' .. } .,w, y. !F rF. Carlisle Ave r , ;aa I originally purchased the property for the investment of someday splitting the lot into two.I was told by the city at that time that I could not subdivide my in and even back lot until the sewer was brought in to the area because the city on of my lot which is accessed not want any more on Carlisle Ave for fic tanks or future(nstalled.building.I thenlfe and I went down to the patiently office to finuntil the d out what my r was put in.n They step would beut the rin subdividing and installed a stub onto lot so P that someone could build a house on that vacant piece of property.It was at that time explained to me that because of 9-11,there was an airport overlay restriction placed on that property. was be done and that I could not a never esd of any ny good,or decisions about the unable to get aordinance.They told me that nothing return on my investment.On Carlisle,could the only empty piece of and along ethe lot.So that block and it just grows weedsI'm stuck with a uand gives piece of land thatdoes one any g teenagers a place to do donuts in their cars.I am very disappointed especially since I feel that we are so far from any landing or take off path of Felts Field.I hope that the city of Spokane Valley will consider lifting the ordinance,or at least moving the boundaries to reflect a more commonsense area of possible impact in the event of en airplane crash.If an airplane crashes in my back yard,I would conclude that the pilot wasn't even aiming for the airstrip.Just look at the map, it doesn't make sense. 10/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 - ,-, • 3r- „, _ .A:t' • r•74'.' - # - t• . !--, f,` 6..., t.' C:t1 / •. ,". ' ,'.1 ' k .‘ 4 It,' • 0 ilir *;:r‘•. . ::" . ,..-s- •; i 60%. • ..... ; I:•: ' 1 • ' f4• ila ;.; i:...-• 44.11;,te ..114 . .'lpiro13,••••,!..i kiN '4'• - . 44 ,-44- v ,•,.. - ' :4-.• vs) • .- . ...,. ... • . ,„,...;I, le. ":„S.,., _,.,-4- ... . . ••• . ,'j:' 1` :...I '''. : q ': 1 '.- -•:1-A.., - :4- '-.*:,•tl ' ,„ -kb. n. fi-..:.-1.'-i, •.- , t • •.,,,' / - - . •••'-'1.4.: '` •' . : !:.i.- • ; .. '- ...;/:4 ...,!,:f.,!t' te .- .-, • ,,F.11P.-. .4r.; .- f;'.Y, 0, 1 44e • , . . '144-.v..0 •iiio ' •4. • 1^. - t• VfilZ.- 1,,..,- ' :' -- ',•4 • * •T,.. ..., e •.',1 o:- Lilr.'' ,/,,ii've'. * ,_ j',i.vl a•_-.. . ;.# .?A. 1 • - , attlet%t•r.11-.414:, . •- ,. -..,.. 4. i... •ItAtt ..:;.,,,,„,,,,,..k. ...-.).,.q., _ .1 .43-,ir_ j-7., , , - -•-• , si. .E-Gttle.74,1ve,....w.,..,„ ...,.,41 -.....i, -er. VI° .1',.:'‘....q.14., ' ,t,,,. " ' ,44.. t'•I-Pl. -i , It• . "cisick4 ...... ,-- ,11"'.riT411.0.r i.„.111 ,7i. 1.1.4.:FF ra , . 1 Ifiri e:,•4•4.. .}•;4".t, -:‘,, ,t i' - ' 4,.." i RV-- t, ''--E•Bfidgepoit&teti*-frz ell.it 1.410 '414.-- 0 . • t`:../Cr.''S (VC - V n•' "•-e: •.' '- *../ k 4.,''. .,14, ,.1.•'f.'eV-0 1..., *h....N.,' - ' . . • t1.1.,' •" 7 -" ',1140rIlit,i• • g. • - ....# • _ ... • .., 4./. -.,..,- t ,,i. • 1='' ,e,*3. - .4e -•./'• ••• , , • 4 r• ? I a. 0 . \CI Z' •-•• ,.c.,..X.,....• .........„....; ';'..-111tierlib..Ay.:;e1,--t.s.:,..,,,.. iv; s? it • ri ;-i'31-. 1 .L: ,...,,* . ttye! -- . 4,„.• 15., . 1 r• - r. - -.A. ,r . ,k, ... • raEra Av . .. --4 . e,...k. ... II a• . . .t.t... ,,...3.* . t -. 4?If IV ,.71•'1 1:55r-'-:7'. < . •, 1.lir .iv •• ,'Av..:,e,Lt„ ,... ._,,,,.....--,-:-.0ri ......_ ,•,:, ,,,,, „. i. „, ;-.... , , ,...— ,:t.k.'„-- ....3.1 ,.,.-tt• --F. t ,Oss,...,- -%!:,t.):4". 4-,.. i ''' A • '1,:.4 ';'? ". yr. .1.1 *Z. ' * . -• \-to .,../........„4.w-,,,, E:F_ir re -Axe-a ,:_.----1 2.'4 : - .itifp 14 * :71'1*.' '.1.k ' .c , > . a . : I . • ' ' .v/4' ,w,_ ... ...,-- . . i ..,.%u ....-. .. " . -41 f ?-_it:ti, 47,e.li •;c., ., 2.? ., ... t.. : e .- .1.44....„,...,,.-- --,'-,- . ... . , At7 • - I.0••• ,S : ,i.) - X..-'1 :.---;•-..;'.-.7•1 '•• 0•4.A...i,.4. vs.....zielfEER“--: 11: •;- ' - . -t . _ -- .,. ,J.t,otui A lz.14.,.. 1- ___.;;DLI , • i r..i ... i• ' / 'lw -0-°- .. .1.1.,..-.•,,x...<.- , ,...30,_ .0.;'Iv etta.A.... 1 ,......., ....1 . ., rm:r4 irazgz z 1 . A-0- ,....,- 4:'7. ipti-.:;. ....,..j. -..:7:,,;z...-_,:-.• .-,,,,i--' •-•.:•i?Pii, ,e,----t/w -.4 ,,, • , , qt ,;;E.,,b.- :A4-/-•;ID•,..,c-,:;°'• . - • r.' 4* - . iv.2' :-.- -: •• 4:-• " ,i'' T.41.7- ..- ,,,,ccal.0'-,..,‘,..., f A '1 ;'!..-7.,,,„qt.. ..4 e - •• :_'%.. •,-2.. ;•6, MY LOT it*. . '•4. ." e .,71 ''-- ''''''',—,' ik , • ' a! -4 it,a ti' .1;.7111iwriA*;,j'S, :'-`.;_:, ar-m4' . .... •;RA ' • 3.e 2-17 .--,:‘,2 : ...''Fa:i "1 , .. : 1.11(.4 :,-'': .Ve. .i..ix 4 -1. , w.• - *. ';- .---- ---' --il'-' *j1. 4'.'.7"'t - riN rdiqd•-7•7,4451-,_;., 0 • ..,:.A. .....:-z;-::. =:- it.' -.1--incet a.••••..L4---, ,I•.... ;.......a ,7 00... ,,•':;, -,..gd;‘,- r- - .-- 1..-%;-;:ifi—f.... ,..:• a - •• it7.41,6.--xt.m.%1.3, ±-,:-F.- • . ,-,-...=•,..c,-rit.i.. 1-0 .,_ , • •• --- No: •-*k 13 34;.1..4 •,.. - -: _ . ).i '--Ti.. 7 . ia..... .•Fia'fACT44,,D 0-.. % t:::::;`'.-"f-1 s,.3.:• ' , , ,.-•7 .---,....--4-:,---..).1. it•I. co'...-__,_‘.— 1 ''-'' 'a ' "-:'-'''' : ''''''...--Iii.lr ... -- ...tep .:..,..• • _ -2.- ,: ,-54, - - - ''-::Li • 14-%,, 1:?`"'i4 i' -z .1^. ..--; - *,,,..t. i..-e ' ' - d'_ti--- _•,.- • ,--:'.- ' • •..::,..). •-_,:-_-sitax - Orc —herdiPerk.-- __. — e Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Josh Nerren Spokane Valley resident 8204 E.Jackson Ave. Spokane Valley,WA 99212 (509)939-9517 10/21/2008 October 23,2008 Planning Commission City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane,WA 99206 Dear Planning Commission Members: The Spokane Airports Tenants Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Our organization,formed in 1994, represents 130 tenants at Felts Field who lease land at the airport to support a business,operate aircraft or both. Our mission is to protect and promote the viability of Felts Field as an important community asset. As you may know, Felts Field is one of only five"Reliever Airports" in the State of Washington, and as such plays an important part in the transportation infrastructure of the State. The most recent Washington State economic analysis for the airport identifies an economic impact of more than$16 million annually. We are aware that the Airport Hazard Overlay was originally adopted by Spokane Valley's City Council to establish land use compatibility zones restricting certain land uses in proximity to Felts Field. We believe that increasing residential density within the airport overlay zone is not a reasonable land use and potentially increases the risk of future noise, operational and liability issues which may put the airport at risk. We believe that stewardship principles appropriate for this important community asset require that a comprehensive analysis and input from all sources must be considered when making such an important decision. Therefore,SATA respectfully requests that the Commission delay its decision on this matter, and that the Commission allow more time for comprehensive and collaborative research and input. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.We welcome the opportunity for SATA to participate in future discussions on this topic. Sincerely, ern 00- Jeff Hamilton / President Spokane Airports Tenants Association WASHINGTOR PILOTS>ASSOCIA►TIO October 23, 2008 Planning Commission City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 Dear Planning Commission Members, The Spokane Chapter of the Washington Pilots Association is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposal to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Our chapter represents pilots throughout the Spokane area and is a component of a state-wide association that represents pilots throughout the State of Washington. Our mission is to advance the interests of general aviation in Washington State. Community airports are community assets and as such must be protected! The most recent Washington State Department of Transportation—Aviation Division Airport Data and Facilities information from 2001 found that 320 aircraft are based at Felts Field, including 281 single-engine, 22 multi-engine piston-powered, 4 turbojets, and 13 helicopters. Their data found that there were a total of 70,669 annual operations. This represents 22% more annual operations than the 57,362 annual operations that occur at Spokane International Airport. I would like to add that on a typical day both parallel runways at Felts Field are utilized extensively, which enhances both efficiency and safety. In this same report,the WSDOT-Aviation Division economic analysis of Felts Field identified an economic benefit of 250 jobs resulting in over $4.5 million dollars in labor earnings and economic activity to the community approaching nearly $16.5 million on an annual basis. Additionally, Felts Field is one of only five"Reliever Airports" in the State of Washington, and as such plays an important part in the transportation infrastructure of the State. It is our understanding that the Airport Hazard Overlay was originally adopted by Spokane Valley's City Council to establish land use compatibility zones restricting certain land uses in proximity to Felts Field. To allow an increase in the allowable residential density within the airport overlay zone is not a reasonable land use. The consequences of such a move would be to potentially increase the risk of future noise, operational and liability issues which potentially puts the viability of Felts Field, a community asset approaching $16.5 million annually, at risk. Furthermore, with the volume of flight operations occurring annually at Felts Field, it seems incomprehensible to consider a move to allow an increase in population density under the airport overlay zone. Consequently, it is the position of the Spokane Chapter of the Washington Pilots Association that stewardship principles appropriate for this important community asset require that a comprehensive analysis and input from all sources must be taken into consideration when making such a critical decision. Consequently, the Washington Pilots Association—Spokane Chapter, respectfully requests that the Commission delay its decision on this matter to allow time for comprehensive and collaborative research and input. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Spokane Chapter of the Washington Pilots Association would welcome the opportunity to participate in future discussions on this topic. Sincerely, L6Qe Gary White I. Blake McKinley,Jr. President Treasurer; President 2006 Washington Pilots Association—Spokane Chapter cc: SATA EAA Chapter 79 Spokane Airport Board Washington Pilots Association ACEBEDO 3 JOHNSON, LLC. ATTORNEYS PIERRE E.ACEBEDO PUYALLUP EXECUTIVE PARK CINDY A.JOHNSON* 1011 EAST MAIN *ALSO ADMITTED IN CA SUITE 456 PUYALLUP,WA 98372 TEL(253)445-4936 FAX(253)445-9529 October 22, 2008 pacebedo@hotmail.com cindyajohnson@hotmail.com Ms. Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development RECEIVED 11202 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OCT2 3 209 Re: CTA-04-08 SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEV`L;: Dear Ms. Kendall: This office represents Mrs. Donna Simonson, owner of parcel number 45063.2140, a property affected by Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") § 19.110.030. This letter is in response to the proposed amendment to the density limitations under SVMC § 19.110.030(Airport Hazard Overlay). A. Due Process Violations. Under the Constitution, certain basic fundamental rights are guaranteed. One of those rights is due process of law. As this relates to property, there is a fundamental right to receive notice if the government plans to change regulations with respect to real property. It is surprising to me that it took over a year for anyone to even realize that the new regulations existed. As a result, it will be necessary to scrutinize the notice procedures followed by the City of Spokane Valley and those required by the Constitution. Conversely, the City of Spokane Valley has an opportunity to revisit the zoning regulations and remedy the problems it has created. B. Amendment Possibility 1- Consider Reasonable Height Restrictions. The property owned by Mrs. Simonson is a beautiful riverfront property that she has been waiting to develop for her future retirement property. However, according to SVMC § 19.110.030, the half acre property is no longer developable. In order to properly amend the aforementioned regulation, it is necessary to allow properties like Mrs. Simonson's to be developable. Instead of the current regulations, the City of Spokane Valley could consider height restrictions in order to accommodate the airport. This alternative would be beneficial to all parties, as it allows for a reasonable use of vacant property and will help the city avoid numerous eminent domain lawsuits. C. Amendment Possibility 2-Eminent Domain. For the City of Spokane Valley to make broad sweeping regulations restricting any permissible use of the property for the benefit of the airport is not only irrational but is clearly unconstitutional. In fact, the actions by the City of Spokane Valley restrict all permissible use of the properties, which constitutes a regulatory taking. According to the Washington State Constitution, Article 1, § 16: "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been made." Case law is very clear on this issue. As a result,the second amendment option should provide a clear statement that properties rendered useless by SVMC § 19.110.030 will be purchased via eminent domain. This way the city will be able to keep the regulated properties vacant, as well as ensuring that Ms. Simonson will receive fair market value for her property. If you chose not to institute an eminent domain case and fail to amend SVMC § 19.110.030 to allow for reasonable use of her property, my client has authorized me to file suit. This will to ensure that she is justly compensated for the property that the City of Spokane Valley has literally"taken"via SVMC § 19.110.030. D. Conclusion. The City of Spokane Valley, Department of Community Development, has the opportunity to reasonably amend SVMC § 19.110.030, to allow for reasonable use of vacant property in the Airport Overlay Zone. If the city chooses not to do so, it effectively invites litigation by Mrs. Simonson and other vacant land owners for reasonable compensation for the taking of their land. Sincerely, ACEBEDO &JOHNSON,LLC. Cindy son Attorney at La" MEMO To: City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development Attn:Karen Kendall RE: WRITTEN COMMENT File# CTA-04-08 Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) My name is Kevin Galik,my wife and I own a home located at 2605 N Ella Rd. Our property is one acre in size. We bought the property 13 years ago with the intention to subdivide. Last year,a lot adjacent to mine that had frontage on Murrieta Street carne to the market. I open an escrow to buy it as it would give me frontage on both Murrieta Street and Ella Road for additional access when I was ready to subdivide. I went to the planning dept and found out about the Airport Hazard Overly that I couldn't subdivide due to the possibility of an airplane disaster that would kill additional people; I pulled out of the escrow. My property is not in the path of take offs or landing of airplanes, although, it is a play ground above my property for bi-planes buzzing around in circles and small crafts that are no more than a chair with a propeller attached to it; due to this play ground above my rights have been taken away from me. My property is zoned for sub-division,therefore,I should be able to do so. I have contacted a land use attorney who is currently researching the fact that an ILLEGAL TAKING has taken place. The City of Spokane Valley has illegally taken my right away to subdivide my property without just compensation. Furthermore, sewer lines where installed in this community during the Airport Hazard Overlay. Spokane County installed additional 3" sewer stub outs at my property line for future subdivision and many more properties in the area. I may also sue the City to reimburse the County for this work if the Airport Hazard Overlay is not amended. The reimbursement may lower my monthly utility bill. I petition the City of Spokane Valley to amend the Airport Hazard Overlay to allow one acre parcels to be subdivided that are not in the path of take offs and landing routes to Felts Field. Ke in Galik 10-23-08 RECEIVED 5.30t- gig - 3S 15- OCT 2 3 2008 SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT