Agenda 06/10/2004 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chambers - City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Avenue
6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
* * * June 10,2004 * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• May 27, 2004
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Business:
• Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Chapter Draft
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
Fred Beaulac Marina Sukup,AICP
Robert Blum Greg McCormick, AICP
John G. Carroll Scott Kuhta,AICP
David Crosby Debi Alley
William Gothmann, Chair
Gail Kogle
Ian Robertson, Vice-Chair www.spokanevalley.orq
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers—City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
May 27,2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Bill Gothmann, Planning Commission Chair, called the meeting to order at
6:35 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission and audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Fred Beaulac—Excused Absence Bill Gothmann—Present
Bob Blum—Present Ian Robertson—Present
David Crosby—Present John G. Carroll-Present
Gail Kogle—Present
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Crosby moved that the agenda be approved as presented.
Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Carroll and seconded by Commissioner Kogle
that the minutes of the May 13,2004 Planning Commission meeting be
approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Gothmann reported that he will not be able to attend the
Community Meeting on June 211d, Commissioner Robertson will be there in his
stead.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Mr. McCormick reminded the Planning Commission of the Community Meeting
on Wednesday,June 2nd, at Greenacres Elementary School. The final Spring
2004 Community Meeting will be on June 17th at the Spokane Valley Church of
the Nazarene.
Ms. Sukup,who was unable to attend the meeting, asked Mr. McCormick to
notify the Planning Commission that she will have three matters come before
them in the near future: a proposal for an interim UR-1 Zone; an addition to the
existing City Code regarding dimensional standards for residential and non-
residential properties; and proposed Clear View Triangle standards.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. OLD BUSINESS:
There was no Old Business.
B. NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing—Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The Chair declared a Public Hearing to Consider Remanded 2003
Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments open at 6:43 p.m.
Members of the public were encouraged to fill out a card if they wished to
speak to one of the amendments. The hearing on each amendment will
follow these steps:
• Announcement by Commission Chair
• Staff overview and recommendation
• Testimony by the applicant and/or property owner
• Public Testimony(3-minute limit per person)
• Commission deliberation and vote
Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager,briefly explained to the
Commission and audience members that these amendments were adopted
by the City Council on October 28, 2003, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. The amendments were subsequently appealed to
the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board by the City
of Liberty Lake. Liberty Lake cited a procedural error where the Spokane
Valley failed to notify the Washington State Office of Community Trade
and Economic Development(CTED) at least 60 days prior to adoption of
the amendments per RCW 36.70A.106. The purpose of this Planning
Commission hearing is to satisfy the Hearings Board decision and the
procedural requirement of RCW 36.70A.160.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-01 was opened at 6:45 p.m.
CPA-03-01: The subject property is located on the north side of
Montgomery Avenue about 300 feet west of Argonne Road with a
street address of 8915 E.Montgomery Avenue, Spokane,Washington.
The site is currently developed with a commercial car wash facility,
self-storage and outdoor storage for trucks and recreational vehicles.
Greg McCormick,Long Range Planning Manager, explained that the
property owner requested a change in land use designation from Low
Density Residential to Regional Commercial and a change in zoning
2
designation from Urban Residential 7 (UR-7)to Regional Business (B-3).
The subject property was zoned commercial in 1970,but was rezoned
under the recent Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
Phase I Zoning process.
The original staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,
was to change land use designation to Community Center and apply the
Community Business (B-2) zone.
Public testimony for CPA-03-01 was opened at 6:52 p.m.
Public Testimony:
Alfred C.Bevacqua, 8820 E.Montgomery, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Bevacqua is an opponent of CPA-03-01. He testified during the
September 11, 2003 hearing with regard to trucks parking on the street
across from his residence. At that time, Mr. Bevacqua provided the
Commission copies of a letter dated December 7, 2000, written to Mr.
Brumback by James Richardson,Associate Planner of Spokane County,
addressing code violation complaints. He also provided a letter dated
August 28, 2003, outlining his personal reasons for opposing CPA-03-01,
along with a number of photos of trucks parked along his street. Since the
City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation for
CPA-03-01, 18-wheelers have been driving down his street and it has
become even more dangerous for children and elderly pedestrians. He
strongly recommended that the Planning Commission vote against CPA-
03-01.
Public testimony for CPA-03-02 was closed at 6:58 p.m..
A motion was made by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by
Commissioner Crosby to recommend the following Staff
Recommendation for CPA-03-01 to City Council: Change land use
designation to Community Center, with zoning of Community Business
(B-2). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Crosby. Motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Gothmann suggested that Mr. Bevacqua's concerns about
traffic should be handled by the City's Traffic Division, Police
Department, or other authority. It is not a good situation for residents in
this area. Perhaps developing a NO PARKING ZONE on one side of the
street would help.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-01 was ended at 7:02 p.m.
3
Public Hearing for CPA-03-02 was opened at 7:03 p.m.
CPA-03-02: The subject property is located on the south side of
Appleway Boulevard, east of its intersection of Park Road and is
approximately 3 acres in size. Subject property is currently vacant.
Mr. McCormick explained that the applicant requested a change of land
use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial
and zoning from Neighborhood Business (B-1)to Regional Business (B-
3). The main issue concerning this property is the potential impact
commercial development will have on the Dishman Hills Natural Area,
located south of the site.
The original staff recommendation, which was adopted by City Council,
was to designate the property Community Commercial and apply the
Community Business (B-2) zone.
Public testimony for CPA-03-02 was opened at 7:06 p.m.
Applicant Jean Repp,President of Associated Restaurants,was
present but declined to speak.
Public testimony for CPA-03-02 was closed at 7:07 p.m.
It was moved by Commissioner Crosby that the Staff Recommendation
to designate the property Community Commercial and apply the B-2
zone for CPA-03-02 be submitted to City Council. Commissioner
Carroll seconded the motion. Blum, Carroll, Crosby,Kogle and
Robertson voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Gothmann opposed.
Motion passed 5-1.
Commissioner Gothmann stated that he would personally prefer the site to
remain a B-1 zone because of his concern for the Dishman Hills area.
Commissioner Kogle reminded him of the staff's earlier assurance to the
Commission that numerous environmental testing would be required
before development on that land to insure continued integrity of
surrounding property.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-02 was closed at 7:07 p.m.
4
Public Hearing for CPA-03-03 was opened at 7:08 p.m.
CPA-03-03: The subject property is located on the west side of Pines
Road between the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and Mansfield
Avenue. It consists of four separate parcels and is a total of
approximately 2.5 acres in size. Subject property is currently vacant.
Mr. McCormick indicated that the applicant requested a change in the land
use designation from High Density Residential to Light Industrial and a
change of zoning from Urban Residential(UR-22)to Light Industrial(I-
2).
The original staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,
was for a land use designation change to Light Industrial,with a zone
change to Light Industrial(I-2).
There was no Public Testimony on CPA-03-03.
Commissioner Robertson moved that the Planning Commission
recommend changing the subject property land use designation to Light
Industrial and the zoning to Light Industrial(I-2) to City Council.
Commissioner Blum seconded the motion. Commissioners Blum,
Crosby, Gothmann,Kogle and Robertson voted in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Carroll opposed. Motion passed 5-1.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-03 closed at 7:17 p.m.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-04 opened at 7:18 p.m.
CPA-03-04: The subject property gains access from the terminus of
Cataldo Avenue,west of Bradley and is located in the NE 1/ of Section
13,Township 25 North,Range 43 EWM. It is comprised of
approximately 2.57 acres and is currently developed with an enclosed
golf practice facility.
Mr. McCormick explained that the subject property was overlooked
during the County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan update, and was therefore
changed from Regional Commercial with a zoning designation of
Regional Business(B-3)to Low Density Residential with a zoning of
Urban Residential 7 (UR-7). This resulted in the existing use becoming
"nonconforming".
5
The original staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,
recommended a change of land use designation to Light Industrial and a
change of zoning to Light Industrial(I-2).
There was no Public Testimony on CPA-03-04.
Commissioner Robertson moved, and Commissioner Blum seconded, a
motion to recommend Council approval of the CPA-03-04 Staff
Recommendation to change land use designation to Light Industrial and
zoning to Light Industrial(1-2). Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners briefly discussed the recent purchase of this parcel of land
by Senske. The potential for large lots of chemicals being stored there is
real, and they are concerned about risks to the surrounding property. Mr.
Kuhta assured Commission that Critical Materials are strictly regulated.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-04 was closed at 7:23 p.m.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-05 was opened at 7:23 p.m.
CPA-03-05: The subject property is located on the north side of
Broadway Avenue, south side of Cataldo Avenue approximately 960
feet west of Pines Road. It is comprised of approximately 3 acres and
is predominantly vacant with a single family dwelling existing on a
portion of the property.
Mr. McCormick indicated that the applicant requested a change of land
use designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential
and a change of zoning from Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5) to Urban
Residential 22 (UR-22).
The final staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,was
to change land used designation only for the southern portion of the
property to Medium Density Residential and zone UR-12 with no change
on the northern portion of the parcel.
Public Testimony for CPA-03-05 was opened at 7:27 p.m.
Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Robertson stated that he had
received 33 cards from citizens present.
The following citizens in attendance testified at the meeting:
6
Joe Stoy, 1104 N.Perrine,Spokane Valley,WA
He recommended that the Commission and Council adopt CPA-03-05 as
proposed in October, 2003.
Gust Abariotes, 11708 E. Cataldo,Spokane Valley,WA
Mr.Abariotes echoed Mr. Stoy's thoughts, and hopes the land owner
doesn't return to to the Commission to change the zoning on the other half
of his property.
Clarion Bergland, 1018 N. Fox Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Bergland agrees with what was adopted by City Council in October,
2003.
Phyllis Moss, 11822 E.Boone, Spokane Valley,WA
Mrs. Moss hopes that this time the matter will be settled. She doesn't
want apartments built on the subject property because the traffic is so
dangerous as it is.
Leon Moss, 11822 E.Boone, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Moss would only oppose CPA-03-05 if apartments were to be built on
the subject property.
Wilma Belcher,N. 1005 Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Ms. Belcher is opposed to having apartments built across the street from
her house.
Joel C.Rell,N. 1012 Perrine Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Rell is opposed to having apartments built across Perrine on Cataldo.
Nancy Kent,812 N.Wilbur, Spokane Valley,WA
Mrs. Kent is pleased with the recommendation, and doesn't want
apartments built on the subject property.
Chris Keener, 1010 N.Fox Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Keener urged the Planning Commission to stick with their original
recommendation.
The following citizens in attendance did not speak,but signed public
hearing cards:
James Renggli, 1018 N.Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Sarah Kautzman, 1004 N. Perrine Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Johnny Belcher, 1005 N.Perrine,Spokane Valley,WA
Vicky Bass, 1108 N. Perrine Road,Spokane Valley,WA
Carol Nicholson,N. 1105 Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Larry W.Kent,812 N.Wilbur Road, Spokane Valley,WA
7
Leonard Barrett, 1020 N.Wilbur Road,Spokane Valley,WA
Gwen Barrett, 1020 N.Wilbur Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Nick Abariotes, 11813 E.Broadway, Spokane Valley,WA
Tom Nicholson,N. 1105 Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Walter Marion, 1017 N. Wilbur Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Pat Parker, 1004 N.Fox Road, Spokane Valley,WA
W.D.Parker, 1004 N.Fox Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Frances Warren, 11722 E. Cataldo, Spokane Valley,WA
Marla Jo Harper, 1019 N.Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Duane L.Harper, 1019 N. Perrine, Spokane Valley,WA
Judith Bergland, 1018 N. Fox Road, Spokane Valley,WA
Public Testimony for CPA-03-05 was closed at 7:40 p.m.
Commissioner Carroll moved that the Planning Commission
recommend Council adoption of CPA-03-05, changing the southern
portion of the subject property to Medium Density Residential and zone
UR-12 with no change on northern portion of parcel. Commissioner
Blum seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Neighborhood representatives were complimented for their action in this
matter.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-05 was closed at 7:43 p.m. The Commission
took a brief break.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-06 was opened at 7:55 p.m.
CPA-03-06: The subject property is located on the north side of
Broadway Avenue,between Blake and Mamer Roads. It is comprised
of approximately 5+acres and is developed with Broadway Court
Estates,which is an independent retirement complex for senior
citizens, on the west portion of the subject property.
Mr. McCormick explained that the applicant requested a change from Low
Density Residential to High Density Residential land use designation, and
a corresponding zoning map amendment on the eastern portion of the site
from Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5)to Urban Residential 22 (UR-22) for
the purpose of expanding the facility. The western portion of the site is
currently zoned UR-22.
The original staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,
was to amend the land use designation of the property from Low Density
Residential to High Density Residential, including the separate parcel
fronting Broadway and surrounded by the subject property,with the
8
application of the Urban Residential 22 (UR-22)zone to the expansion
area.
There was no public testimony for CPA-03-06.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kogle to recommend adoption of
CPA-03-05 by City Council;designating the entire site as High Density
Residential and the zoning to Urban Residential 22 (UR-22).
Commissioner Crosby seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-06 was closed at 7:59 p.m.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-07 was opened at 8:00 p.m.
CPA-03-07: The subject property is located on the northwest corner
of Barker Road and Boone Avenue. It is comprised of approximately
3 acres. The eastern half of the subject property is developed with a
convenience store that includes a fast food restaurant and a gas
station. The westerly half of the subject property is currently vacant.
The applicant proposes to construct multi-family dwellings in this
area if the comprehensive plan and zoning map requests are
approved.
Mr. McCormick explained that the applicant had requested a change in
land use from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on the
western portion,with a zoning of Urban Residential 22 (UR-22), and
Community Commercial,with a zoning of Community Business(B-2) on
the eastern portion.
The original staff recommendation,which was adopted by City Council,
was for a change to Community Commercial designation, with a zoning of
Community Business(B-2) for the existing commercial business on the
eastern portion of the site. Designating the western portion High Density
Residential was not supported. It was recommended and approved that the
western site be designated as Medium Density Residential, with a zoning
of Urban Residential 12 (UR-12).
Applicant Testimony:
Dwight J.Hume,9101 N.Mt.View Lane, Spokane,WA
Mr. Hume spoke on behalf of applicants Pring and Tonani. He provided
the Commission with a letter detailing the history of the site, site specifics,
and questions about the impact of designating the land as High Density
Residential. He also submitted a copy of an aerial map highlighting the
subject property and its surrounding industrial ties to the railroad and
9
major arterials. Mr. Hume urged the Planning Commission to reconsider
their original recommendation to the Council by honoring the applicants'
original request to have 3 acres changed from Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential.
Public Testimony for CPA-03-07 was opened at 8:10 p.m.
Howard Bruegeman, 18422 E. Sharp, Spokane Valley,WA
Mr. Bruegeman didn't understand why the Planning Commission was
considering a change from their original recommendation to the Council.
High Density apartments will crowd the already-busy arterials during rush
hour, and increase the amount of trash that lands in his yard.
The following citizen in attendance did not speak,but signed a public
hearing card:
Vern Cox, 18419 E. Boone, Spokane Valley,WA
Public Testimony for CPA-03-07 was ended at 8:13 p.m.
Applicant Response:
John Peterson,E. 8412 Sprague, Spokane,WA
Mr. Peterson spoke on behalf of the applicants, Mr.Pring and Mr. Tonani.
He wished to restate his prior hearing pleadings by urging the Planning
Commission to correct a 2002 zoning mistake that changed the subject
property from Industrial 2 (I-2)to Urban Residential 7 (UR-7). The
applicants would like to have more options for their land, and UR-22
would offer that flexibility. Mr. Peterson doesn't think the owners should
be denied the same zoning consideration that property owners on the other
side of the freeway have been given.
Commissioner Blum moved to recommend a change to the land
designation of the west portion of the property to High Density
Residential, with Urban Residential 22 (UR-22)zoning; and a change to
the eastern portion of the property to Community Commercial with a
Business 2 (B-2)zoning. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion.
Commissioners Blum, Carroll,Kogle, Gothmann and Robertson voted in
favor.of the motion. Commissioner"Crosby opposed. Motion passed 5-1.
Chairman Crosby stated that he believes that UR-22 designation is out of
character with the present neighborhood. The subject property doesn't
have Barker Road frontage. There was a brief discussion about the pros
and cons of this recommended change.
Public Hearing for CPA-03-07 was closed at 8:28 p.m.
10
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Private Utilities Chapter Draft
Mr. McCormick provided the Planning Commission with an overview of
the City of Spokane Valley's Comp Plan draft of Chapter 6—Private
Utilities. This chapter is required by GMA, and does not include sanitary
sewer, Stormwater or other water issues which are covered in the Capital
Facilities Plan.
Commissioner Gothmann had a few notes written on his draft that he gave
to Mr. McCormick for editing purposes. Commissioner Crosby
mentioned the impact of growing cell tower building taking place in the
region. Mr. McCormick explained that if this is a big issue, this section of
the draft chapter will need to be built up or amended to take care of it.
Public Comment:
Doug Kelley,Representing Avista Utilities, 1411 E. Mission, Spokane.
Mr. Kelley stated that he saw this draft chapter for the first time on
Monday and was overwhelmed by the 17 different implementation
strategies. He requested additional consideration of the following
strategies:
PUI-8: Mr. Kelley will submit documentation to Mr. McCormick
containing additional wording for this section.
PUI-9 and 10: Mr. Kelley will submit legal documentation to Mr.
McCormick regarding case law on underground lines.
PUI-11: Mr. Kelley recommended that staff take a close look at Spokane
County's Phase II Plan with regard to landscaping around utilities.
Mr. Kelley requested that staff consistently use either the word "should"
or"shall"throughout the Implementation Strategies section to eliminate
confusion.
Dan Villalobos,Representing Inland Power&Light,320 E.2°d
Avenue, Spokane.
Mr. Villalobos echoed Mr.Kelley's sentiments regarding PUI 8-11. There
are a number of costs involved that ought to be discussed in advance.
EMF effects are no known about underground lines. He also suggested
that the City help Mr. Bevacqua with the traffic problem on his street.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
There were no announcements.
11
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Debi Alley Bill Gothmann
Administrative Assistant Chairman
12
CHAPTER 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services
4.0 Introduction
The Growth Management Act(GMA) requires new development to be directed to areas
that either currently have adequate public facilities and services, or to areas where
facilities and services can be delivered within the 20-year time frame of the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan (SVCP). Facilities and services that are required for new
development must be adequate and available at adopted levels of service (LOS).
Locally established LOS's help to define and contribute to Spokane Valley's quality of
life.
Level of Service
Cities are often defined by the quality of facilities and services that are provided to its
residents. Good road, sewer and water infrastructure are typical criteria used by
businesses considering relocation. Park and recreation facilities are increasingly used to
judge the quality of a City. Businesses want to locate where they can attract the best
employees and quality of life issues are often the deciding factor for a person to move to
a new area.
Level of service standards are quantifiable measures, such as acres of parks per 1000
people, or the amount of time it takes to travel a road segment during peak morning and
afternoon "rush hours". The higher the level of service the higher the cost. This element
establishes levels of service, which will be used to evaluate the adequacy and future
cost of urban facilities and services.
Concurrency
The Growth Management Act introduces the concept of concurrency, which is requiring
new development to be served with adequate urban services at the time of development,
or within a specified time thereafter. The GMA allows 6-years for necessary
transportation improvements to be construction as long as a financial commitment is
made at the time of development. The GMA strongly encourages concurrency for water
and sewer, and it is good public policy to require the same.
Impact Fees
New growth creates a demand for new and expanded public facilities and services. The
GMA authorizes local governments to impose and collect impact fees to partially fund
public facilities to accommodate new growth. Impact fees can be used to pay for new or
expanded facilities and cannot be collected to address existing infrastructure
deficiencies. The GMA allows impact fees to be assessed on the following:
• Public Streets and Roads • Public Parks
• Schools • Open Space
• Fire Protection Facilities • Recreation Facilities
4.1 Planning Context
This section provides a review of the policy directives included in the State's Growth
Management Act (GMA) and the Countywide Planning Policies relating to capital
facilities planning.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 1 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
4.1.1 Growth Management Act
The GMA refers to capital facilities planning in two of the 13 statewide planning goals.
The two relevant goals are:
1. Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
2. Public facilities and services. Ensure that hose public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development
at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without
decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
More specifically, the GMA mandates that the City prepare a capital facilities plan which
contains the following components:
• An inventory of existing facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the facilities.
• A forecast of the future needs for such facilities.
• The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities.
• At least a six-year financing plan that will finance such facilities and
clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes.
• A requirement to reassess the Land Use chapter if probable funding falls
short.
4.1.2 Countywide Planning Policies
The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP), originally adopted in 1994, contain a
number of goals and policies regarding capital facilities and the provision of urban
services. Those CWPP relevant to capital facilities planning are as follows:
Policy Topic 1 —Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)
Policy 1: Urban Growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban
growth that have existing public facility and service capacities to serve such
development and second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be
served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional
needed public facilities and services that are provided by either pubic or private sources.
Further, it is appropriate that urban government services be provided by cities, and
urban government services should not be provided in rural areas.
Policy 2: The determination and proposal of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) outside
existing incorporated limits shall be based on a jurisdiction's ability to provide urban
governmental services at the minimum level of service specified by the Steering
Committee. Jurisdictions may establish higher level of service standards in their
respective comprehensive plans.
Policy 5: Each jurisdiction shall submit proposed interim and final Urban Growth Area
(UGA) boundaries to the Steering Committee, including:
a.justification in the form of its land capacity analysis and the ability to provide urban
governmental services and public facilities;
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 2 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
b. the amount of population growth which could be accommodated and the analytical
basis by which this growth figure was derived; and
c. how much unincorporated land is required to accommodate growth, including maps
indicating the additional areas.
Policy 8: Each municipality must document its ability to provide urban governmental
services within its existing city limits prior to the designation of an Urban Growth Area
(UGA) designation outside of existing city limits. To propose an Urban Growth Area
(UGA) designation outside of their existing city limits, municipalities must provide a full
range of urban governmental services based on each municipality's capital facilities
element of their Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 11: Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall, at a minimum, demonstrate the
ability to provide necessary domestic water, sanitary sewer and transportation
improvements concurrent with development. Small municipalities (those with a
population of 1,000 or less) may utilize approved interim ground disposal methods inside
of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) until such time as full sanitary sewer services can be
made available. Each jurisdiction should consider long-term service and maintenance
requirements when delineating Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and making future land use
decisions.
Policy 12. Within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), new developments should be
responsible for infrastructure improvements attributable to those developments.
Policy 18. Extension of urban governmental services outside of Urban Growth Areas
(UGAs) should only be provided to maintain existing levels of service in existing urban
like areas or for health and safety reasons, provided that such extensions are not an
inducement to growth.
Policy Topic 3— Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision
of Urban Services
Policy 1. Each jurisdiction shall include policies in its comprehensive plan to address
how urban development will be managed to promote efficiency in the use of land and the
provision of urban governmental services and public facilities. The Steering Committee
shall specify regional minimum level of service standards for urban governmental
services with the exception of police protection within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).
Local jurisdictions may choose higher standards. In its comprehensive plan, each
jurisdiction shall include, but not be limited to, level of service standards for:
a. fire protection;
b. police protection;
c. parks and libraries;
d. libraries;
e. public sewer;
f. public water;
g. solid waste disposal and recycling;
h. transportation;
i. schools.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 3 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Policy 2. Each jurisdiction and other providers of public services should use compatible
information technologies to monitor demand for urban governmental and regional
services and the efficiency of planning and services delivery. Spokane County shall
coordinate the development of a common database, a regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) and computer linkages among system participants.
Policy 3. Each jurisdiction shall include policies in its comprehensive plan to ensure that
obstructions to regional transportation or utility corridors are not created. In addition,
each jurisdiction should include policies in its comprehensive plan to ensure sustainable
growth beyond the 20-year planning horizon.
Policy 7. Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall include, at a minimum, the
following policies to address adequate fire protection.
a. Limit growth to areas served by a fire protection district or within the corporate
limits of a city providing its own fire department.
b. Commercial and residential subdivisions and developments and residential
planned unit developments shall include the provision for road access adequate
for residents, fire department or district ingress/egress and water supply for fire
protection.
c. Development in forested areas must provide defensible space between structure
and adjacent fuels and require that fire-rated roofing materials be used.
Policy 10. Each jurisdiction shall enter into agreements with special purpose districts
within its Urban Growth Area (UGA) to address the provision of urban governmental
services and public facilities. Interlocal agreements between jurisdictions and special
purpose districts relating to the provision of urban governmental services and public
facilities shall address fiscal impacts and ensure that services provided by special
purpose districts outside of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are not degraded.
Policy 12. Each jurisdiction shall participate in regional planning for solid waste
reduction and disposal.
Policy 13. The Steering Committee shall oversee the development of a management
plan for wastewater treatment, which includes:
a. an inventory of the region's existing wastewater treatment capacity;
b. an analysis of regional wastewater treatment needs; and
c. an analysis of regional wastewater treatment alternatives, including
implementation of reduction techniques.
Policy 14. Wellhead protection plans should be coordinated with water purveyors and
implemented by local jurisdictions. The Steering Committee shall pursue strategies for
regional (to include Idaho jurisdictions)water resource management, which sustain
projected growth rates and protect the environment.
Policy 16. Each jurisdiction shall include policies in its comprehensive plan that
encourages providers of urban governmental services and public facilities to participate
in "mixed-use," multipurpose facilities within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) as a cost-
effective alternative to single use buildings.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 4 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Policy 18. Each jurisdiction shall plan for growth within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)
which uses land efficiency, adds certainty to capital facilities planning and allows timely
and coordinated extension of urban governmental services, public facilities and utilities
for new development. Each jurisdiction shall identify intermediate growth areas (6-to
10-year increments)within its Urban Growth Area (UGA) or establish policies which
direct growth consistent with land use and capital facility plans.
Policy Topic 9—Fiscal Impacts
Policy 1. If new non-urban density development is to be included within the Urban
Growth Areas (UGAs),jurisdictions shall charge the full cost of infrastructure. Each
jurisdiction shall address in the capital facilities element of their comprehensive plan how
this will be accomplished. For those lands outside of a jurisdiction's corporate limits but
within their Urban Growth Area (UGA), the affected jurisdictions shall, by interlocal
agreements, demonstrate how the full cost of infrastructure will be charged.
Policy 2. Each jurisdiction shall identify, within the capital facilities element of its
comprehensive plan, capital resources that will be available to accommodate the
additional development which is anticipated within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).
Policy 3. Areas outside a municipality's corporate boundary and within its Urban Growth
Area (UGA)shall be jointly planned with funding structures to ensure adequate land for
parks, open space and greenbelts prior to urban development.
Policy 4. Each jurisdiction's fiscal analysis should evaluate, at a minimum, a mechanism
for future intergovernmental (including city-to-city) revenue-sharing and cooperation to
finance shared needs and maintain adopted levels of service.
Policy 5. Jurisdictions choosing to use impact fees shall apply a formula which is
consistent with other jurisdictions within Spokane County.
Policy 6. Each jurisdiction shall consider a number of financing measures to provide for
transportation facilities, including but not limited to:
a. general revenues;
b. fuel taxes;
c. toll roads;
d. bonding;
e. congestion pricing;
f. public/private partnerships; and
g. assessment and improvement districts, facility-benefit assessments, impact fees,
dedication of right-of-way and voluntary funding agreements.
Policy 7. Each jurisdiction shall make adequate financial provisions to maintain parks
and recreation areas.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 5 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
4.2 Priorities and Strategies
The following priorities and strategies are consistent with the goals and policies of the
GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. The City of Spokane Valley will implement
the priorities and strategies for services provided by the City. Special purpose districts,
such as water, school and fire districts, are encouraged to implement the priorities and
strategies that are under their control. Spokane Valley intends to coordinate with special
purpose districts when they adopt and amend their own system plans and capital
improvement programs.
4.2.1 General
Priorities
CFP-1 Provide facilities and services that the City can most effectively
deliver, and contract or franchise for those facilities and services
that the City determines can best be provided by a special district,
other jurisdiction, or the private sector.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-1 Contracts with outside service providers shall require that services are
provided consistent with this Plan.
CFI-2 Review plans of all entities providing services within Spokane Valley to
ensure consistency with the SVCP.
CFI-3 The City shall seek a balance between cost of service and quality of
service when contracting with outside service providers.
CFI-4 Local and regional service providers shall be given preference over
non-local service providers during competitive contract bids.
CFI-5 Adopt by reference all facility plans and future amendments prepared by
other special districts that provide services within the City.
CFI-6 Maximize the use of existing public facilities and promote orderly
compact urban growth.
4.2.2 Capital Facilities Planning and Level of Service
Priorities
CFP-2 Adopt and implement a Capital Facilities Plan to ensure public
facilities and services meet Level of Service Standards.
Implementation Strategies
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 6 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
CFI-7 Facilities and services shall meet minimum Level of Service standards
as adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, as described
on page 7?????
CFI-8 Annually update the City's Capital Facilities Plan to ensure that services
and facilities are provided efficiently and effectively and to establish City
spending priorities.
CFI-9 Planned expenditures for capital improvements shall not exceed
estimated revenues.
CFI-10 All City Capital Improvement Programs shall be integrated into the
annually updated Capital Facilities Plan and shall be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
CFI-11 If adopted level of service standards cannot be maintained, the City
shall increase funding, reduce level of service standards or reassess
the Land Use Element.
CFI-12 Development shall be approved only after it is determined that public
facilities and services will have the capacity to serve the development
without decreasing levels of services below adopted standards.
CFI-13 Provide adequate funding for capital facilities projects that implement
the vision of the SVCP.
4.2.3 Public Safety
Priorities
CFP-3 Provide police and fire protection efficiently and cost effectively to
Spokane Valley residents.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-14 Encourage inter-jurisdictional cooperation among law enforcement
agencies and fire districts to further develop, where practical, shared
service and facility use.
CFI-15 Develop a comprehensive emergency management plan.
CFI-16 Require adequate road access and water supply for new development
within the City.
CFI-17 Encourage homeowners to create a defensible space between structure
and adjacent fuels and require that fire rated roofing materials be used
on buildings in forested areas.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 7 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
4.2.4 Water and Sewer
Priorities
CFP-4 Ensure plans for water and sewer service are consistent with the
SVCP.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-18 Review water system plans and provide the Washington State
Department of Health, Drinking Water Section, with comments as
appropriate to ensure consistency with the SVCP.
CFI-19 Coordinate sewer planning with Spokane County to ensure consistency
with the SVCP.
CFI-20 Support the creation of a coordinated, regional wastewater service
organization to provide sewer services to all urban areas of Spokane
County.
CFI-21 Encourage public and private efforts to conserve water.
4.2.5 Solid Waste
Priorities
CFP-5 Promote the reduction, re-use and recycling of solid waste.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-22 Establish a City Hall recycling program to present a positive example of
civic and environmental responsibility.
CFI-23 Participate in updates to the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management plan and support its implementation.
4.2.6 Stormwater
Priorities
CFP- 6 Provide stormwater facilities and related management programs
that protect surface and groundwater quality and habitat, prevent
chronic flooding from stormwater, maintain natural stream
hydrology and protect aquatic resources.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-24 New development shall require stormwater management systems.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 8 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
CFI-25 Implement a stormwater management plan to reduce impacts from
urban runoff.
CFI-26 Best management practices should be utilized to treat stormwater runoff
prior to injection of runoff into the ground.
CFI-27 New development shall, where feasible, the multiple use of facilities,
such as the integration of stormwater facilities with recreation/open
space areas.
CFI-28 Encourage use of alternatives to impervious surfaces through rewards
and credits.
4.2.7 Library Service
Priorities
CFP-7 Provide efficient and cost effective library service to Spokane
Valley residents.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-29 Encourage free, reciprocal library services between Valley Libraries and
City of Spokane Libraries.
CFI-30 Ensure that land use regulations allow siting of library facilities in
locations convenient to residential areas.
CFI-31 Require library providers to develop long-range library plans consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
4.2.8 Schools
Priorities
CFP- 8 Coordinate with school districts to ensure that school sites and
facilities meet the education needs of Spokane Valley children and
young adults.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-32 Develop land use designations that allow new schools where they will
best serve the community.
CFI-33 Consider the adequacy of school facilities when reviewing new
residential development.
CFI-34 Assist school districts in their planning processes.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 9 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
4.2.9 Concurrency
Priorities
CFP-9 New development shall be served with adequate facilities and
services at the time of development, or within a specified time
frame.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-35 Implement a concurrency management system for transportation, water
and sewer.
CFI-36 New development must be connected to public sewer. Interim septic
systems shall not be allowed within Spokane Valley.
4.2.10 Impact Fees
Priorities
CFP-10 New development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of
planned facilities needed to serve the growth and development
activity.
Implementation Strategies
CFI-37 Growth related impact fees may be imposed for public streets and
roads; public parks, open space and recreation facilities; schools; and
fire protection facilities.
CFI-38 Growth related impact fees:
a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably
related to the new development;
b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development;
and,
c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit
the new development.
CFI-39 New development serving a broad public purpose, (i.e. low income
housing, housing for people with disabilities) shall be exempt from
growth related impact fees.
4.3 Capital Facilities Plan
4.3.1 Community Facilities
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 10 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Spokane Valley is currently constructing CenterPlace at Mirabeau Point Park, scheduled
for completion in summer, 2005. The facility will house the Spokane Valley Senior
Center, conference facilities, classrooms and a "great room"for events. CenterPlace will
have a dining capacity of 400 and will include a full commercial kitchen.
Spokane Valley leases office and meeting space for employees and City Council in the
Redwood Plaza office building, located at 11707 East Sprague Avenue.
Forecast of Future Needs
The need for new community facilities is difficult to quantify and depends on the future
structure of City Government. If Spokane Valley continues to contract for services such
as police, fire, library, parks and road maintenance, the need to acquire and maintain
facilities will be minimal. However, if Spokane Valley begins providing these services,
there will be a corresponding need for administrative office space and other facilities.
For example, if Spokane Valley assumes responsibility for parks maintenance, a new
maintenance facility would have to be constructed to house equipment and employees.
At some future point, Spokane Valley will likely purchase an existing building or
construct a new building to house City Hall. This decision must be made with thought
and vision. In the right location, City Hall will be the center for civic affairs and
community events and will influence economic development and the creation of a City
Center. The location should be centralized and accessible to all citizens.
Nearly three-quarters of the Citizen Survey respondents support using public money to
help create a City Center. Locating a City Hall in a future City Center would be a
significant catalyst to creating a distinct City Center and a City identity.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Spokane Valley currently has no plans to construct new community facilities. Future
updates to the Capital Facilities element will include information on locations and
capacities for community facilities.
Finance Plan
Spokane Valley will include a financing plan for community facilities in future updates to
the Capital Facilities element.
4.3.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service
Fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) are provided by Spokane Valley
- Fire DistrictNo.:1 and Spokane County Fire District No. 8. Fire District 1 serves over
90% of the Valley, while District 8 serves a few small areas in the southern part of the
City(see Fire Protection Map). Both districts serve the City with a full range of fire
suppression and EMS services.
Insurance Rating
City fire departments and fire protection districts are assigned a numerical fire protection
rating by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the
Bureau to perform on-site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The
Bureau analyzes five main areas, average response time, water supply, communication
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
network, schedule of fire inspections and fire station evaluations (which focus on age of
vehicles), personnel training and staffing of facilities.
Insurance companies use the fire protection rating to help determine insurance rates on
all fire insurance policies. The rating is on scale of 1 to 10, with one representing the
best score. Quality of fire service can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates,
particularly for commercial businesses. Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1 has a Fire
Insurance Rating of 4 and District No. 8 has a Rating of 5, both indicating good fire
protection.
Response Times
Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1 Level of Service goal for response time are as follows:
• 5:00 minutes- 80% of the time for fire
• 5:00 minutes-80% of the time for Basic Life Support(BLS)
• 8:00 minutes-80% of the time for Advanced Life Support(ALS)
Response times for fire calls the past 4 years are as follows:
• 2003 -5 minutes 22 seconds
• 2002 - 5 minutes 27 seconds
• 2001 - 5 minutes 28 seconds
• 2000 - 5 minutes 35 seconds
Inventory of Existing Facilities and Apparatus
The Fire Protection Map shows the location of fire stations and service area boundaries
for Districts 1 and 8 and surrounding fire protection districts. All fire agencies have
mutual aid agreements to assist each other in major emergencies.
Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1 has 10 stations, including 6 within the City of Spokane
Valley. Locations of the stations are as follows:
Table 1 Spokane Valley Fire District Station Locations
Station 1 10319 East Sprague
Station 2 8007 East Trent
Station 3 2218 North Harvard
Station 4 22406 East Wellesley
Station 5 15510 East Marietta
Station 6 6306 East Sprague
Station 7 1121 South Evergreen
Station 8* North 2110 Wilber
Station 9** East 11514 16th
Station 10 ** East 17217 Sprague
*Station to be completed????
**Medic-only stations
Fire District No. 8 has one fire station inside the City limits, in the Ponderosa
neighborhood located at 4410 South Bates. The District has two stations located
outside the City limits providing additional coverage.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 1 2 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.3 Library Service
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Library services are currently provided by the Spokane County Library District(SCLD).
The District also provides service to unincorporated Spokane County and most of the
smaller towns in the County, including Cheney, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood,
Rockford, Waverly, Airway Heights, Deer Park and Fairfield.
Spokane Valley has one library located inside its boundary, the District's Main Branch,
located at 12004 East Main. This resource library is the District's largest facility,
measuring 22,100 square feet.
Spokane County Library District has a reciprocal library card agreement with the City
Spokane. Spokane Valley residents may use Spokane library services without an extra,
non-resident fee.
Forecast of Future Needs
(Results from Library District Capital Planning will be inserted here when process
completed.)
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
(Results from Library District Capital Planning will be inserted here when process
completed.)
Finance Plan
(Results from Library District Capital Planning will be inserted here when process
completed.)
4.3.4 Parks and Recreation
Spokane Valley has a wide range of recreational opportunities available to residents and
visitors. City parks, school play fields, golf courses, trails, County parks and
conservations areas are all within close vicinity to Valley residents.
The City provides a system of local parks that is managed by the Spokane Valley Parks
and Recreation Department. The Parks Department is in the process of developing a
new Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces Master Plan. When finished, this plan will
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 13 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
offer a much more detailed picture of the park, recreation and open space system and
the changes and improvements will be made in the future.
This Capital Facilities Program (CFP) provides summaries of the parks inventory, level
of service (LOS), future park needs, proposed projects, and a financing plan for the next
six years.
Park Types
Parks facilities are classified by type. The following classification is taken from Park,
Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, a nationally recognized standard for
parks planning. Park types are determined by the size, service area and function of the
park or facility. Major classifications include mini-park, neighborhood, school-park,
community, large urban, various trail designations and special use facilities.
Mini-Parks
Mini-park is the smallest park classification and is used to address limited or isolated
recreational needs. Examples include concentrated or limited populations, isolated
development areas and unique recreational opportunities. In a residential setting, vest-
pocket or pocket parks serve the same general purpose as mini-parks and tot-lots of the
past. They are also intended to address unique recreational needs such as landscaped
public use area in an industrial or commercial area; scenic overlooks; and play areas
adjacent to downtown shopping districts.
Typically, mini-parks are between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size. However,
park areas less than 5 acres would technically be considered a mini-park. Parks in
excess of 5 acres are considered neighborhood scale parks. Although these parks often
include elements similar to that of a neighborhood park, there are no specific criteria to
guide development of facilities. Given their size, they are typically not intended to be
used for programmed activities.
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks remain the basic unit of the park system and serve as the
recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They should be developed for both
active and passive recreation activities geared specifically for those living within the
service area. Accommodating a wide variety of age and user groups, including children,
adults, the elderly and special populations is important. Creating a sense of place by
bringing together the unique character of the site with that of the neighborhood is vital to
a successful design.
A neighborhood park should be centrally located within its service area,which
encompasses a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius uninterrupted by major streets or other physical
barriers. A person's propensity to use a neighborhood park is greatly reduced if they
perceive it to be difficult to access or not within a reasonable walking distance.
Frequently neighborhood parks are developed adjacent to elementary schools.
Generally, 5 acres is accepted as the minimum size of a neighborhood park necessary
to provide space for a range of recreation activities. Seven to ten acres is considered
optimal. Ease of access from the surrounding neighborhood, central location, and
linkage to greenways are the key concerns when selecting a site.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 14 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Development of a neighborhood park should seek to achieve a balance between active
and passive park uses. Potential active recreation facilities includes play structures,
court games, informal playfield or open space, tennis courts, volleyball courts,
horseshoe area, ice skating area, wading pool and activity room. As a general rule
active recreation facilities should consume approximately 50% of the parks area leaving
the remaining 50%for passive recreation areas.
Neighborhood parks typically include the following facilities:
• Accessible play equipment meeting appropriate standards for children 5 and under and
children older than 5 years of age;
• Picnic areas with tables, cook grills, shelters, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles;
• Multi purpose courts for basketball and volleyball or lighted tennis courts;
• Level, open play area for athletic team practice or"pick-up"games;
• Landscaping for beautification of the site and to provide some perimeter screening of the
facility;
• Security lighting and an internal trail system that is linked to adjacent sidewalks.
School-Park
By combining the resources of two public agencies (school district and city), the School-
Park classification allows for expanding recreational, social, and education opportunities
available to the community in an efficient and cost effective manner. Depending on its
size, one school-park site may serve in a number of capacities, such as a neighborhood
park, youth athletic fields, and a school. The important outcome in the joint-use
relationship is that both the school district and the city's park system benefit from shared
use of facilities and land area.
The optimum size of a school-park is dependent upon its intended use. The size criteria
established for neighborhood and community park classifications should be used as
appropriate. The,school lands, including the building and special use facilities, should
not be considered in the level of service (LOS). Establishing a clearly defined joint-use
agreement between the school district and city is critical to making school-park
relationships workable. This is particularly important with respect to acquisition,
development, maintenance, liability, use, and programming of facilities.
Community Parks
Community parks are larger in size and serve a broader purpose than neighborhood
parks. Their focus is on meeting the recreation needs of several neighborhoods or large
sections of the community. They allow for group activities and offer other recreational
opportunities thaleither not feasible or not desirable at the neighborhood park level.
A community park will serve two or more neighborhoods. The service area can range
from a 1/2 mile to 3 mile radius depending on population densities and other factors.
Community parks should be served by arterial or major collector streets and be easily
accessible from the entire service area by way of interconnecting trails. Community
parks should accommodate both passive and active recreation activities. Incorporation
of natural features such as lakes, ponds, rivers or other natural resource features is
highly desirable. Land within 100 year flood plains should not be used for siting
recreation facilities, rather being used for passive recreation areas.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 15 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Community parks are typically developed for both active and passive recreation uses.
Although active recreation facilities are intended to be used in an informal and
unstructured manner, reserved and programmed use is compatible and acceptable.
However, community parks are not normally intended to be used exclusively for
programmed adult athletic use and tournaments.
Potential active recreation facilities include:
• Lighted competitive athletic facilities such as soccer, softball, tennis, baseball and
basketball;
• Multipurpose trails for walking,jogging, exercise, and transportation;
• Recreation center, swimming pools, or group meeting facilities;
• Support facilities such as an internal road system, lighted parking areas, rest rooms,
concessions, and security lighting;
• Landscaping for beautification of the facilities and perimeter landscaping to screen of the
facility or activities;
Regional or Large Urban Parks
Regional or large urban parks serve a broader purpose than community parks and are
used when community and neighborhood parks are not adequate to serve the needs of
the community. The focus of regional parks is on meeting community-based recreation
needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.
Due to the size and intensity of recreation activities, regional parks should be located
with immediate access to an arterial street. Regional parks should not be located in
residential areas given the potential impact from traffic, light, glare and noise. A regional
park should be centrally located within the proposed service area, to the extent possible.
Typically regional parks are a minimum of 50 acres in size, with 75 or more acres
considered optimal.
In addition to neighborhood and community park facilities, new regional parks should
include some or all of the following:
• Lakes, forests, and nature environment education facilities;
• Multipurpose trails;
• Botanical gardens, arboretum, or related facility;
• Amphitheater or gathering place for events;
• Lakes, fishing piers, shelters, and other attractions;
• Support facilities such as an internal road system, lighted parking areas, rest
rooms, concessions, and security lighting;
Given the wide variety of activities and uses of a regional park, the design of such a
facility will be determined by the uses contemplated for the park.
Greenbelt, Open Space and Linear Parks
Preservation of greenbelts improves the quality of the urban environment. Greenbelts
link neighborhoods, schools, public facilities and other points of interest. The design of
neighborhood, community, regional and linear parks should accommodate hiking/biking
paths. Trails and on-street bicycle lanes should be developed in such a way that major
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 16 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
parks and destination points are connected to each other and to major residential
neighborhoods. Cyclists should be afforded reasonable access to bike paths near
residential areas and cycle to a destination point.
Greenbelt areas should be maintained in their natural state to the extent consistent with
maintaining adequate flood control systems. This concept reduces maintenance costs,
while providing passive outdoor recreational opportunities. The City should consider
conservation easements in floodplain areas and other locations where appropriate.
Trails are typically categorized by the primary intended use of the trail, those include:
• Type I —trails used in situations where use patterns dictate separate paths for
pedestrians and bicyclists/in-line skaters. An example of a Type I trail would be a
trail around an inter-city lake or along a riverfront.
• Type II —trails that are more suited to lighter use patterns, such as from a
residential subdivision to a natural resource areas.
• Type III —trails that are suited for areas requiring minimum impact, such as
natural resource areas or nature preserves.
Green belt, open space and linear parks should:
• Include landscape and beautification to enhance the existing area;
• Buffer development between residential and higher land use;
• Provide access to multipurpose trail systems;
• Access to playgrounds and picnic facilities.
Green belt, open space and linear parks should be developed to the following standards:
• Corridor width can be as little as 25 feet in a subdivision, 50 feet in width is
normally considered the minimum;
• Widths over 200 feet are considered optimal;
• Natural corridors are most desirable, however man-made corridors can be very
appealing if designed properly;
• If the corridor is to include a trail, the appropriate design describe above must be
utilized based on anticipated use.
Special Use Park Facilities
Special use parks are those park facilities that do not fit into one of the categories
described above. The,special use park facility classification covers a broad range of
parks and recreation facilities, typically oriented toward a single-purpose use.
Specifically uses generally fall into one of the three following categories:
• Historic/Cultural/Social Sites—unique local resources offering historical,
educational, and cultural opportunities. Examples include historic downtown
areas, performing arts parks, arboretums, ornamental gardens, performing arts
facilities, indoor theaters, churches, public buildings and amphitheaters.
• Recreation Facilities—specialized or single purpose facilities. Examples include
community centers, senior centers, community theaters, hockey arenas, marinas,
golf courses, and aquatic parks. Frequently community buildings are located in a
neighborhood or community park.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 17 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
• Outdoor Recreation Facilities-Examples include tennis centers, softball
complexes, and sports stadiums.
Facility space requirements are the primary determinant of site size. For example, a golf
course may require 150 acres to accommodate all the necessary facilities and parking,
whereas a community center with parking may fit on 10 to 15 acres. Special use
facilities should be strategically located rather than serving well-defined neighborhoods
or areas. The site should be located so that it is accessible from arterials or collector
streets. Locating a special use facility is variable depending on the type of facility.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Parks map shows the location of all parks within Spokane Valley. Table CF-? provides an
inventory of park and recreation facilities within Spokane Valley.
Table 2
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
Type Park Developed Undeveloped Total Acreage
Acreage Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Balfour 2.8 0 2.8
Brown's 8.2 0 8.2
Castle 0 2.7 2.7
Edgecliff 4.8 0 4.8
Terrace View 9.1 0 9.1
TOTAL 24.9 2.7 27.6
Community Parks
Valley Mission 15.4 0 15.4
Valley Mission 0 7.2 7.2
South
TOTAL 15.4 7.2 22.6
Regional Parks
Mirabeau 15.0 39.5 54.5
Myrtle Point 0 31 31
Sullivan* 11.1 5.3 16.4
TOTAL 26.1 75.8 101.9
CITY TOTALS 66.4 85.7 152.1
*5.8 acres of Sullivan Park are owned by Washington State Parks
There are also a number of non-city parks and open spaces adjacent to the City of
Spokane Valley that are utilized by city residents and are summarized in the following
table.
Table 3
Non-City Parks and Open Space
Developed Undeveloped Total
Acreage Acreage Acreage
Centennial Trail 7 linear miles 0
Plantes Ferry 88 2.7 90.7
Dishman Hills Natural Area 226.5 226.5
Buttercup 0 10 10
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 18 Chapter 4-Capital Facilities
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.5 Public Safety
The Spokane Valley Police Department is a contract law enforcement agency,
partnering with the Spokane County Sheriffs Department to provide a safe environment
for the citizens, businesses, and visitors of the City of Spokane Valley. This unique
contracting relationship allows for the sharing of many of our resources, allowing both
agencies to operate at peak efficiency without duplicating services.
Spokane Valley also contracts with Spokane County for judicial,jail and animal control
services. The total contract for public safety was over$14 million for 2004. Spokane
Valley is served by 100 commissioned police officers.
Spokane Valley supports community oriented policing and recognizes it as an important
complement to traditional law enforcement. In Spokane County, community policing is
known as S.C.O.P.E., or Sheriff Community Oriented Policing Effort.
Community policing focuses on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police
services that includes aspects of traditional law enforcement, as well as prevention,
problem-solving, community engagement, and partnerships. The community policing
model balances reactive responses to calls for service with proactive problem-solving
centered on the causes of crime and disorder. Community policing requires police and
citizens to join together as partners in the course of both identifying and effectively
addressing these issues.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Spokane Valley Police Department is located in the heart of the Spokane Valley.
The Precinct itself is located at 12710 E. Sprague and houses patrol and detective
divisions, the traffic unit and administrative staff. The Precinct also includes a property
storage facility and a Spokane County District Court.
Spokane Valley is served by five S.C.O.P.E. stations, shown in Table ??????????
Table 4 Spokane Valley S.C.O.P.E stations
Neighborhood Location
West Valley 13102 North Argonne
University ! 10621 East 15th
Edgecliff . 522 S Theirman Rod
Trentwood 2400 N. Wilber No. 79
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 19 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Central Valley 115 N. Evergreen
East 4903 N. Harvard No. 3
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.6 School Facilities
Four public school districts provide service within Spokane Valley, including East Valley,
West Valley, Central Valley and Spokane School District 81. Spokane Valley must
coordinate with each district to ensure consistency between the City's plan and school
districts' plans.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The School District Map '?'?'?'» shows district boundaries and locations of all public
schools within Spokane Valley. Tables 9????9997?7'w show capacities of all schools
located within Spokane Valley, which may also serve student populations outside the
City limits. School districts use portable classrooms at some school sites as interim
measures to house students until permanent facilities can be built. Portable units are
not included in capacity figures. School capacity figures are reported by the Washington
State Superintendent of Public Instruction and are based on square footage per student.
Table 5—Central Valley School Inventory
Elementary School Sq. Ft. Area . Capacity
Adams 46,879 521
Blake I 34,823 436
Broadway J 40,648 499
Chester 38,388 480
Greenacres55,875 680
Keystone 33,669 421
Liberty Lake i 60,477 756
McDonald 46,504 563
Opportunity 1 42,388 521__ _
Ponderosa 51,377 642
Progress ............. �..._.._........_.._ _ 1....... 37,573 452
South Pines 41,399 499
Sunrise i 53,673 662
University 37,867 455
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 20 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 621,540 • 7,587
Junior High Schools } _
Bowdish ) 74,738 743
Ever reen 76,075 ! 751
Greenacres 91,803 7 908
Horizon .84,795 _ 838
North Pines 105,368 1,044
Total Junior High Permanent Facilities 432,779 4,284
Senior High Schools
Central Valley 386,844 1,988
University 397,787 L 1,986
Total Senior High Facilities 1784,631, 3,974
Table 6 East Valley Schools
Elementary School Sq. Ft.Area Capacity
East Farms 47,047 579
Otis Orchards 51,789 629
Skyview......... 42,140 ...................................509.._...._._.._..___.....
Trent 58,482 713
Trentwood 47,274 573
Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 246,732 3,003
Junior High Schools _
East Valley 84,561 831
Mountain View 82,544 816
Total Junior High Permanent Facilities 167,105 i 1,647
Senior High Schools
East Valley 1203,248 1,686
Total Senior High Facilities 203,248 1,686
Table 7 West Valley Schools
Elementary School Sq. Ft. Area Capacity
Arthur B. Ness 27,342 324
Millwood 27,164 340
Orchard Center 27,377 333
Pasadena Park 27,838 339
Seth Woodward 28,659 358
Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 138,380 1694
Junior High Schools
Argonne 81,751 843
Park 89,870 946
Total Junior High Permanent Facilities 171,621 1,789
Senior High Schools _....._......_....._.._.__........_. _. _._. _.____.__._._._.____.
West Valley 149,128 1,243
Spokane Valley ---.........___x30,258__._.._-.__.._..-252
Total Senior High Facilities ' 179,386 1,495
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 21 Chapter 4-Capital Facilities
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.7 Sewer Service
Background
In 1983, Spokane County initiated an ambitious program to bring sewers to houses and
business located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). Since that time, over ??''??
Spokane Valley homes and businesses have been connected to the County's sewer
system, an investment totaling
Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan
In 1996, the County adopted an Interim Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan
(CWMP). The intent of the CWMP was to develop strategies to expedite the sewer
program for protection of the Aquifer and to satisfy regulations established by the
Washington State Departments of Health (DOH) and Ecology(DOE) and the Spokane
County Health District.
In 2001, Spokane County updated the CWMP, which focused on redefining priority
sewer areas and conforming to requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA).
Most significantly, the CWMP resulted in updating population and wastewater flow
forecasts and a revised Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Wastewater Facilities Plan
Along with the CWMP, Spokane County adopted a Wastewater Facilities Plan (WFP) in
2001 that identified wastewater facilities and programs required to meet the long-term
sewer needs of the County. The WFP provides an in-depth analysis of various
wastewater treatment technologies available, in addition to exploring the wide range of
related environmental considerations. Public participation was fully integrated into this
extensive planning effort.
The Wastewater Facilities Plan explores the following treatment alternatives:
• Discharge of treated wastewater effluent to the Spokane River, using one or
more new treatment plants between Liberty Lake and-the City of Spokane.
• Discharge of treated wastewater effluent to the Little Spokane River, providing
flow augmentation in the Little Spokane River to help meet minimum stream flow
needs.
• Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for irrigation of agricultural lands, golf
courses, school grounds and parks.
• Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for creation of wetlands.
• Underground storage of treated and reclaimed wastewater for subsequent use
for irrigation or release to streams for flow augmentation during critical low-flow
flow periods.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 22 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
• Recharge of the Spokane Aquifer with treated wastewater effluent, with the co-
mingled water being available for all uses including potable water supplies.
• Discharge of wastewater to the Liberty Lake treatment plant for treatment and
subsequent discharge to the Spokane River.
The WFP focuses on developing an overall wastewater management strategy for the
County. (MORE HERE ON SEWER PLANNING)
Upon Incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley contracted with Spokane County to
continue providing sewer service
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Sewer facilities within Spokane Valley are a system of pipes and pumping stations that
move untreated sewage to the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility
operated by the City of Spokane. The inventory is as follows:
Table 8
Spokane Valley Sewer Facilities
Facility Name Service Area Capacity
Ella Road Pump Station Portion of Spokane Valley 2,600 GPM
Riverwalk Pump Station Portion of Spokane Valley 320 GPM
South Valley Interceptor South Spokane Valley 30,800,000 GPD
North Valley Interceptor North Spokane Valley 10,150,000 GPD
Table 9
Spokane Valley Sewer Lines
Gravity Mains Total Length(ft) Force Mains Total Length(ft)
8" 1,077,820 2-3" 4,036
10" 124,828 4-6" 20,452
12" 42,908 8" 3,588
15" 39,718 10" 2,363
18" 34,591 16" 4,279
21" 14,464 Total Length 34,718 ft=6.6 miles
24" 29,467 Manhole Covers 5,401
27" 12,585
30" 14,991
36" 19,211
42" 20,599
48" 11,088
54" 16,630
Total Length 1,458,900 ft=276.3 miles
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 23 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.8 Solid Waste
Spokane Valley is a part of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, which is guided
by the 1998 Spokane County Comprehensive Waste Management Plan. Spokane
Valley is currently participating in an update to this plan.
Solid waste services are provided by private haulers licensed by the Washington Utility
and Transportation Commission (W.U.T.C.). In Spokane Valley, Waste Management of
Spokane provides residential and commercial garbage services and weekly curbside
recycling collection; Sunshine Disposal provides only commercial services. By
ordinance, Spokane Valley could require all residences to have garbage pickup. At this
time, Spokane Valley residents are allowed to self-haul their garbage to an appropriate
dumping site.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
4.3.9 Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater runoff in Spokane Valley flows to a combination of public and private
facilities. In developed areas, runoff flows down street gutter and is disposed through
drywells in public road rights-of-way, drywells on private property and grassy swales with
overflow drywells in easements on private property.
There are advantages and disadvantages to relying on on-site facilities for all stormwater
management in Spokane Valley. The advantage on on-site facilities is that they are
constructed with private funds. New development has to handle all additional
stormwater generated by the development. If on-site facilities are well designed and
maintained, they can be integrated into the development as a green space amenity.
Disadvantages are that on-site facilities are sometimes not well maintained. Their
capacity may be diminished over time or they may fail entirely during large runoff events.
ON-site facilities may take up large portions of a development site, thereby reducing the
effective density that can be accommodated in that area.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Spokane Valley has only one major stormwater facility, constructed in conjunction with a
road project. This "barrow pit" is located at Dishman-Mica Rd. and 32nd, and provides a
disposal point for water flowing from Chester Creek.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 24 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
Forecast of Future Needs
Spokane Valley will continue to use private, on-site treatment facilities for new
development. All new development must provide on-site treatment of stormwater.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Location and capacities of future facilities is dependent on the size of new development
and the design standards stormwater facilities.
Finance Plan
N/A
4.3.10 Transportation Facilities
See Transportation Element for information on Transportation Facilities
4.3.11 Water
Background
The City of Spokane Valley does not own or operate a public water supply system.
Rather, water is provided to Spokane Valley residences and businesses by special
purpose districts, associations and private corporations. Water service is coordinated by
Spokane County through the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), which identifies
service boundaries, establishes minimum design standards and promotes the
consolidation of regional water resource management. The CWSP is updated as
needed at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners or the Washington State
Department of Health (DOH).
Water System Plans
The Department of Health recommends that all water purveyors prepare a water system
plan to determine future needs for water facilities within their service areas. The plans
must include an existing facility inventory, project future needs for water supply, ?????
Once a water system plan is adopted, it must be updated every six years. The
Department of Health is the approval authority for water system plans.
In 2003, the Washington State Legislation passed what is commonly referred to as the
"Municipal Water Law", amending sections of the State Board of Health Code (RCW
43.20); the laws governing Public Water Systems (RCW70.119A); and sections of the
state's Water Code (RCW 90.03).
Water Rights
Washington State water law requires all prospective water uses to obtain a water right
permit from the Department of Ecology (DOE) before constructing a well or withdrawing
any groundwater from a well. However, the law does allow a water right permit
exemption, referred to as the domestic exemption, which states that no water right
permit is required for the withdrawal of up to 5,000 gallons of water per day from a well
when the water is being used for the following:
1. Livestock watering.
2. Single or group domestic water supply.
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 25 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
3. Industrial purposes.
4. Irrigation of no more than 1/2 acre of lawn or noncommercial garden (RCW
90.44.050)
For many years, Ecology issued water right certificates to water suppliers based on
projected future use, rather than actual"beneficial use." The unused portions of those
certificates or rights are known as "inchoate" rights, which could potentially be taken
away by Ecology if not put to beneficial use.
This situation was troubling to municipal water suppliers. Public water systems need a
level of certainty to obtain financing for capital facilities as well as to issue letters of
water availability to development interests. The "Municipal Water Law: of 2003 clarified
that cities are entitled to inchoate (unused)water for the purpose of serving expanding
areas. This ensures that municipalities have sufficient water for anticipated growth
based on the communities' comprehensive plans and water and supply plans.
Watershed Planning
In 1998, Washington State passed the Watershed Management Act to develop a
"thorough and cooperative method of determining what the current water resource
situation is in each Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) of the state and to provide
local citizens with the maximum possible input concerning their goals and objectives for
water resource management and development" (RCW 90.82.005). In late 1998, a
Planning Unit was formed for WRIAs 55 and 57, or the Middle Spokane-Little Spokane
River watersheds, with Spokane County designated as the lead agency.
The Watershed Management Act requires the Planning Unit to address water quantity
issues and allows water quality, habitat and instream flows to be considered in the
process. The watershed planning effort is expected to produce information on how
water is used in the Water Resource Inventory Areas and recommendations for how it
should be used in the future.
The Planning Unit may also formulate a recommendation for instream flows for the
Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers. The Department of Ecology may establish
minimum water flows or levels for streams, lakes or other public waters for the purpose
of protecting fish, game, birds or other wildlife resources, or recreational or aesthetic
values of said public waters whenever it appears to be in the public interest to do so.
The data, information and recommendations generated by the Planning Unit may be
used by the Department of Ecology to assess the ability to issue new water rights for the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Most of the water used by Spokane Valley residents and businesses is provided by 11
main purveyors, listed in Table''?797 These water purveyors supply water to ??? of the
City's population. 3
Table 10
Spokane Valley Water Purveyors
Water Purveyor Current Connections
Carnhope Irrigation District
Consolidated Irrigation District#19
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 26 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities
East Spokane Water District#1
Irvin Water District#6
Model Irrigation District# 18
Modern Electric Water Company
Orchard Avenue Irrigation District#6
Spokane County Water District#3
Trentwood Irrigation District#3
Vera Irrigation District#15
Total
Forecast of Future Needs
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Finance Plan
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 27 Chapter 4—Capital Facilities