Loading...
Agenda 11/18/2004 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers -City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Avenue 6:30 p.m.—9119 p..a n. it* * November 18, 2004 x r w I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • October 14, 2004 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I . COMMISSION BUSINESS Old Business: • Continued Public Hearing': Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA-07-04. Public Testimony open. New Business: • Greenacres Area Petition Requesting a Moratorium on New Development • Election of Planning Commission Officers — 2005 • Discussion of Planning Commission Rules of Procedure --Section 9, Pages 4-6. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Xl. 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 veimv s okanevalIey-Orq +City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: November 18, 2004 TYPE: O Consent E Old Business [] New Business li<1 Public Hearing ❑ Legislation E Information CA Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE; 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Continued Public Hearing- C PA-07-04 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive Flan provides for an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan amendment requests was July 1, 21104. On September 23, 2004,the Commission considered eight Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests, The Commission continued the hearing on File No. CPA-07-04 to allow time to consider all information submitted by the proponent and to allow time for City Staff to respond to public hearing testimony. On October 14.2004, the Applicant requested the hearing to be continued in order to complete a traffic study. The Commission continued the hearing to November 18, 2004 to allow sufficient time for the Applicant to produce the traffic study and to allow City Staff time to review the study. On November 10, 2004, the Public Works Department received copies of the"Traffic Impact Analysis for Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment and Lawson Property' from Todd Whipple, PE. The Public Works Department requests that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to January 13, 2005, to allow sufficient time to review the study. Community Development Staff recommends continuing the public hearing to January 13, 2005. ATTACHMENTS: Public Works Department Memorandum STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhts, AICP, Planner .0,00Valley 11107 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.10Q0 • Fax: 503,921.1008 ♦ cityhallOspakanevalley.org Memorandum To: Scott Kukla, AICD—Senior Planner From: Sandra Raskell, P.E.— Assistant Engineer Cod 'v=- - CC: Todd Whipple, P.E.—Whipple Consulting Engineers Bill Lawson —Property Owner Chris Ashebrener—A& A Construction and Development Date: November 12, 2004 Re: CPA-07-04 Time Extension On November 10, 2004,the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department received 3 copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis for Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment and Lawson Property. We request to table the November 18''meeting discussion to the January 13th meeting. This will allow our department to appropriately review and comment on the study. City of Spokane Halley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: November 18, 2004 TYPE: ❑ Consent L Old Business Now Business © Public Hearing ❑ Legislation L Information 1_ Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Greenacres Neighborhood Request for Temporary Moratorium GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.63.200 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control (Attachment 1). PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: The Commission previously considered a request to rezone the north Greenacres area from UR-7* to UR-3.5. The Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to approve the request (the Commission actually voted on several amendments to the original motion none of which received a majority vote), resulting in no recommendation going forward to the City Council. The case is schedule for Council review on November 30, 2004. BACKGROUND: On August 10, 2004, the City of Spokane Valley City Clerk received a request for a temporary moratorium on new development in the North Greenacres area, The request was delivered to the City in the form of a petition signed by area residents (Attachment 2). The request is to establish an interim moratorium on new development with densities greater than one house per acre until interim zoning is adopted. The petition sites issues relating to maintaining neighborhood character and history, maintaining large parcels and a rural lifestyle, and public sewer availability. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE: City Council has requested the Planning Commission to review the request and to forward a recommendation_ The moratorium request is scheduled to be discussed by the Commission on December 9, 2004. The Commission may hear comments from the public and staff in making their recommendation to City Council, CONSIDERATIONS: Moratoriums are enacted when there is an immediate threat to the general public's health, safety and welfare. A moratorium can be enacted without a public hearing; however, State law requires that a public hearing be held within 60-days of the enactment of a moratorium. The moratorium will remain in effect for 6 months, but may remain in effect for one year if a work program is developed for studies related to the moratorium. Finally, the moratorium can be renewed for additional 6-month periods. The Commission must decide if current zoning within the North Greenacres area threatens the public's health, safety or welfare and make specific findings reflecting relative to the public health, safety or welfare. The Interim Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations were adopted under Washington State's Growth Management Act. The area was determined to be appropriate for urban growth by Spokane County, is included within the County's Urban Growth Area and is within the City of Spokane Valley. If the Commission considers recommending a moratorium; it must also consider its scope. For example, should all new development, including building permits on individual, legal rots, be affected? Or, should the moratoriumonly apply to new subdivision and PUD proposals that that are not vested? The Commission should carefully consider these issues when discussing the request. ATTACHMENTS: 1_ RCWs 2. Petition requesting moratorium STAFF CONTACT: Greg McCormick, AICP - Planning Division Manager Scott Kuhta, AICP - Senior Planner Cary Driskell - Deputy City Attorney Attachment 1 RCW 35.6 3.200 Moratoria, interim zoning controls --Public hearing-- Limitation on length. A council or board that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning control,without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim zoning control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the council or board received a recommendation on the matter from the commission. If the council or board does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the council or board shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorinnn or interim zoning control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period.A moratorium or interim zoning control may be renewed for one or more six- month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. [199�� 36.70A.390 2�c{ 207 § 1.] RC}* Moratoria, interim zoning controls — Public hearing—Limitation on length — Exceptions. A county or city governing body that adopts,a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption,whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interum zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. This section does not apply to the designation of critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands, under ROW 36.7OA.170, and the conservation of these lands and protection of these areas under RCW 36.70A.060, prior to such actions being taken in a comprehensive plan adopted under ROW 35.70..070 and implementing development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70:4.120, if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions. 11992c207 § 6.] ATTACHMENT 2 To the City of Spokane Valley City Council Sc Planning Dept. We ,the undersigned ,are the resident landowners and primary. stakeholders of North Greenacres Community whose boundaries were defined in 1993 as follows: North and West luny is the Spokane River and the South Boundary is Mission Avenue and the East Boundary is Barker Road. The Simpson Subdivison in the southeast corner is excluded. The owner occupied plats represents the primary stakeholders who are committed to preserving the traditions, customs and culture and economic stability of our neighborhood. WE ARE PETITIONING FORA TEMPORARY MORATORIUM AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OF DENSITIES OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE PER ACRE UNTIL INTERIM ZONING IS ADOPTED. WE ARE ASKING FORA ZONE CHANGE THAT ACCOMMODATES THE RECENT RIGHTS WE HAD UNDER SR-i. We the undersigned agree that this is an old established neighborhood dating back 100 years, sharing a common culture. The keeping of larger lot sizes, gardens, small orchards, animals, and some truck farming characterize the historical foundations of this local area. Approximately 85% of parcels are single famfy residences occupied by owners. We have a tradition of larger parcels with. over 50% of these parcels being larger than 1 acre as pursuant to a study done in 1994 by Spokane County. We are committed to the process of wilting a Neighborhood Plan for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan Furthermore,we are concerned due to the near proximity of the river, that our health and safety will be compromised without a moratorium. TOM ABILITY TO BRING SEWER PIPE OR PROPOSALS FOR NEW WASTE MANAGEMENT FAcrurrEs DOES NOT MEET GNU CONCURRENCY. UNLESS THE PRESENT WASTE MANAGEMENT FACELITY HAS THE CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY TREAT ALL TILE ADDITIONAL EFFLUENT FROM BOTH CITY AND COUNTY NEW DEVELOPMENTS , IT POSES A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD.. (The danger as posed by the recent accident provokes serious thought. This issue , by overwhelming evidence must be solved.) WE are also seeking adoption of a resolution for establishing policy that mitigates impacts that effect traditions, culture, and customq, economic stability, and quality of life. (i;e. horse keeping and a PUD side by side) I am a homewoner in the North Greenaeres Neighborhood have read the above petition and add my name in su ort, Name (print) 'K'r-1,4--a--4S\--4-16)1' ` Signoture Address \ I - i f Date Name (print) 7l` \) Signature9 ------ Ad dress I E r' m Date " 1..-j, Name(print) c, n 6 Signature ‘=.:. -- - + , Address 1 4) - Date r 2 — Name (print) Cc t kt C l Si. IF. : re's - Address (-7(g-0 ' -t '..rte' Date Name (print) f4t[LJ" Qit'CIA " Signature / , rli. Address � �� � �-��_� Date 1:2--/-e-- Name riot Signature OY-) -14) Address f eCi, 610 ii(qtry2n Date Name (print) Signature Address Date Name (print) Signature Address Date { • I am a homewoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood 1 have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name(print) ' I C Ct irA Signature t Address 2207 ejQr Date { Z Name (print) 174411 Fla if Signature '777-e Address /9F/Oril Date 42 Name (print) :ce)tip ;' ) T11)1 ! 7 SignaturellA. Address 1'7 // A r / Date 1 "- Name (print) ,-.4 { Signa#ur5:' Address ( 2 /1 r($ Date Name (print) \ E s,_c t-c.L I r Signature C),�- Address s fr�r F� Date NI G J C r Name(print) r, I L In S I d! Signatur , e..-7 --. Address 6 Lac( Date (01103,-( Name (print) r "" k__Signatu �. Address /6., 3 r 4 F • Date Name(print) /c77,02.0 /71 Signature. g � Address 4.25 IV t ` , d _ Date `2 ? -0/ rC.7-)nbora,-, .AamLivot L,,,a)624/1,L) to A) O; - ? (/-60 - 4)w I am a homevvoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name (print) > Signature Address I 2L172,- ( ' iT = Date "57)1/' Name (print). Jaren #Gtc/ fes Signaturet Address eatrit.,0r Date 57:9-61(6i./ Name (print) X 2)--4P Signature " AL, f P &LL. f Address 7A16 " Date Name(print) O,•& { L&A ',L Signature y h Address - f Date ,4-1 „ Name(print)4,, ` if r'� Signature Address./7 7 Date . 2 Name(grint)�� Y Signature 6-1.44361 Address /77 /77/ 5/-,(">7 Date e-3 1. Narne(print) 1, ACNO Signatu , i Address rt[ IO ,4-1 -) Date S/—.23 3 f Nanie (print) + o Signature f' Address / % 7/ tatet I am a homewaner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition.and add my name in support. Name (prial_;.` , SIraturre Address if'l "V / Na517-2 Name (print) • _ S,gnatare Address . Date -, – Name (print) Signature r f f ' - •-� Address € G'. 'l - 1r(( r C' Date Name (print) /J2 IQi 1]`',''LL t Signature a a 0..e..-ctja.„4 Address , / ' iCLn. Date_-2 -' FAL, A Name (print) r AL `�J Signature A- Address ,, P‘o Date Name (print) n fes'"t sign rture, '/ra_40. -t Address – 'f Name (print) d '!1 Signature t r ddresst / f 'V /,, ,a j r c.}.tee ( t Date 2 _ y Name (print) " Y'"� '► Signattur J4 i.. In Address,, 0 2--C, � n' 441 CA_,) I 4 _ date. n. f0 ti I am a homewoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name riot W'W 1-1.0ture C4' ''r. Address Jr 6 1/A ,C . - P ' z, Date, . ` 4 Name (print) } ja, T _ Signature ,y1 Address/ L. _IALAL CA l Date /2 a fcc-f Name (print) j 1 gbe„,..."-__Kr,„ Sign a ture , �� Address , y Date 5 Z r Name rint F e o-f-d- 5 " 1' 01 -U U 511 Signatnr4 1' ru____- j-",---m-- 41,0' L' k Address Ir 5 0 '7 ---0-2-----J-:1,--r---21- ----- Date 5 C.Name (print} Ai 1(• I4. Liv , Signature ; / m _ ;: .fid dregs — {i T Date r} - 4 A Name(print) I LJ ,� +un.a Signature ,_.,a, -. -z / Address_ / , Dater , C lJ� �� Name(print) \ % ti _ Signature Vicki t..__' 4._ �' Address kt_4 t, a t 4,‘ -- Date • "' — -{ I 4 i ., Name (print) ` lg. 1 Y1. f ignature ,0 Ord Address _ 1-7 6 [1 E r i( (.cz P A Date I am a homewoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name(print) k 4- eir t.OZOILS- SignatureZJA" 'ilii4)6.' i Address D9 '+ ` w _ to 54.3 b r Name (print) -4zGKd` IK; I{ Signature i ,_r� Address//$ 1917 4 o r 12b, Date 3 Name (print) '1-,4\i` r\ 1 -J,..., , Signature' \ M Address 1,10 \ . ) t - Date I Name (print)X -': r 5 --" - - Sigaatur _ ., . Address IQ f Il i_c„ ciDate r • C2 C:0/ F �' i Name (pant) a��Gt�` I � �'f`-' Signature Address A' ` Date47-2-'3//67 Name (print) , d i2Signatur Address .,. r / , / Date Name (print) 1347; .2 -r. Signature ,,M L,,-/Ukt-4- Address 2 6 ( l rDate d7° K f Name (print), G" y v1 W r ! L c7 Signature 777 jr-.4_,I,Lx-z- Address atedf icy I am a homewoner in the North. Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support Name (print) Signature jha' Address E / /OP Date / - ' . Name (print)4,-.),) Tr. f L' :14 'Signature__. 4?/ Address 1'G r i c.1;,9/7)A Date Name (print)r- 0.3\1\._ Address ' 0 _ Date5-1,,,..4/61 Name (print)�O1 .5 r - '-4-70 Ignotine y - Address )O C t✓ Date f_ `0 Name (print) Signature Address Date Name (print) Signature - Address Date Name(print) Signature Address Date Name (print) Signature Address Date t am a hamewoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name (print) 14thit d 14-6°e Signature-A.1/(17N/ Address I f /V /'O1 b e W J ' Date --c:;.)7194/ Name (print) L ,► r 5' Signature Aw 'I Address e^, Date Name (print) a Signature L _ (704,,L,,,,-,4 .._... ,,'-- f :� � Address Date (0 Name (print) A10 t ) ignatu Address (f) ate ‘' „pp tit F r -= Name (print� �'' �' Signature Address 4 F-1 0 C'>. r ' Date3c) 6 Name (print) Signature - Address Date Name (print) Signature _ Address Date Mame (print) Signature Address Date I am a homewoner in the North Greenacres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support Name (print _ Signatnr _ Address ' Date Name(print) Signature Address Date Name (print) _ Signature Address Date Name(print) Signature Address Date -_ Name (print) Signature Address Date Name (print) Signature Address _ Date Name (print) Signature _ Address Date Name(print) Signature Address Date X am a hornewoner in the North Grcenaeres Neighborhood I have read the above petition and add my name in support. Name (print) 7 � d Sigma turc. F Address 12-' L-6/1/4 Date . 0 Name(print) r if 8y.i Signature Alt 4 . d Address Name (print) Signature Address _ Date Name(print)_ Signature Address — bate Name (print) _ signature Ad d r-ess Dale Name (print) — Signature Address _ Date Name (print) _ Signature Address Date Name (print) -- Signature Address ❑ate Debi Alle From: kerrsa lybbert Iteresnker►+ hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:40 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Greenacres Neighborhood Request for Temporary Moratorium I am strongly in favor of this moratorium being approved. The number one issue with the current zoning is safety for the people that live in this neighborhood. The roads in this area are very narrow; often times when you have two cars going in opposite directions one car has to drive with two wheels off the side of the road to pass safely. The way the current zoning exist and the planned subdivisions that are in the works will greatly increase the amount of traffic thus increase the chances of having an accident. There is also a very dangerous corner where Montgomery turns into Flora road. This corner is extremely sharp and very hard to see around. People often cut this corner shorn With increase traffic this once again will increase the chance of an accident. The last point the narrow roads make it very dangerous for pedestrians. I believe one of arguments presented against the rezone for this area was the neighborhood was trying to keep people away from the river and the trail. With the infrastructure the way it is, increased traffic, and more people this is recipe for disaster. This area is great place to live with a strong community bond. Outside developers should not be allowed to come in and change bits and pieces of it with out making the entire area safe. I will never be in favor of them dividing the land in this area into such small lots and destroying the character that exists. But if you are going to back the developers and allow them to proceed they should also have to pay to make the roads in and out of the area safe for the amount of traffic they will bring in. Kevin and Teresa Lybbert 17607 E. Montgomery i City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: September 17, 2004 TYPE: Consent E] Old Business ❑ New Business El Public Hearing ❑ Legislation ❑ Information ❑ Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Area-wide Rezone request, North Greenacres area GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interim Spokane Valley interim Comprehensive Plan and development regulations PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code, Section 14.402.100, provides a process for properly owners to initiate an area wide rezoning action via petition. The code requires that at least 51% of the properly owners within the boundary of the proposed zone change sign the petition for rezone in order to initiate the rezoning process. On July 1, 2004 the City received a petition from the North Greenacres neighborhood requesting a rezone from the existing Urban Residential 7* (UR-7) to Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5). Cfty staff verified the signatures on the petition utilizing the most current tax payer records of the Spokane County Auditor's office. The area under consideration for this rezoning action is bounded on the south by Mission Avenue, Barker Road on the east and the Spokane River to the north and west. The area is approximately 457 acres and is comprised of 264 separate parcels of land_ ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and attachments including vicinity, zoning and comprehensive plan maps. STAFF CONTACT: Greg McCormick, AICP - Planning Division Manager STAFF REPORT SC]T1-L!E pokane SUBJCT: AREA WIDE REZONE-01-04 40000 Vall EZ 1NE-01-04 11eY Community Des>elopment Department. PLANNING NTNG DrinsioN Hearing Date: September 23, 2004 Staff: Greg McCormick, AICP — Planning Division Manager Scott i uhta, AICP— Senior Planner I. Background Section 14A02.100 of the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code provides a process for property owners to initiate an area-wide rezoning action by petition. The code requires that at least 51 percent of property owners within the boundary of the proposed zone change sign the petition to initiate the rezone process. On July 1, 2004, a representative from the Greenacres neighborhood submitted a petition with signatures of more than 51 percent of property owners requesting a zone change from Urban Residential-7 ` (UR-79 to Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5). The Community Development Department placed a notice of public hearing in the Spokane Valley News Herald on September 3, 2004, notifying the public that a public hearing on the proposed area wide rezone would be conducted by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2004. As required by Section 14.402.100 of the city's interim code, public notice boards were posted in conformance with requirements of the appropriate code sections. Moreover, city staff sent written notice to all property owners within the proposed rezone area and property owners within 400 feet of the boundaries of the rezone area, based on the most current tax payer records of the Spokane County Assessor's office. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) an environmental checklist was required for the proposed rezoning action. Under SEPA rezones are considered 'non- project actions", which are defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use of modification of the environment. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist submitted for the proposed rezone and a threshold determination was made on the requested rezone. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on August 24, 2004. The ONS was published in the City's official newspaper consistent with City of Spokane Valley requirements. REZ-17-O4-Grccnacra.s Arcawide Rcoorm Pig€Z of 4 It. Previous Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Actions The subject site is generally bounded by Mission Avenue on the south, Barker Road on the east, and the Spokane River on the north and west. The subject site is approximately 457 acres and approximately 264 separate parcels of land. As previously stated, the existing zoning in the area is UR-7*. `Yhe UR-7* zoning district allows 6 single family dwelling units per acre. The UR-7* district also allows duplexes and multifamily structures as long as the overall density does not exceed 6 units per acre. This area was involved in an area wide rezoning action in 1994 by Spokane County. The County received a comprehensive plan amendment request (CPA-79-94) and rezone request (Rz-17-94) from the North Greenacres neighborhood requesting the following: • Amend the comprehensive plan map west of Flora Road, north of Mission from ."Industrial"to"Urban"; • Amend the zoning map from I-2, Industrial west of Flora Road and from. UR-3.5 east of Flora Road to SR-1. Based on this request the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) directed county planning staff to conduct a study of the subject area. The Spokane County Planning Department developed a "Lead Agency Report" (June 16, 1994) referred to as the ."North Greenacres" Study. The report stated that the County was mandated to establish an "interim" urban growth area (IUGA) by October of 1996. This action would determine if the subject area was "Urban" or "Rural"' under the County's comprehensive plan required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). As indicated above, the IUGA was established prior to the County starting work on the GMA comprehensive plan. The North Greenacres study states: "The Planning Departments major concern, regarding the "North Greenacres" Neighborhood, is the unknown results of the 20 year Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary and which future Land Use Category would be assrgned to the "North Greenacres''portion of the Valley" The report further states (page 20) that County's intention was to consider the comprehensive plan amendment and reione as an "interim" measure until the IUGR and ultimately the GMA Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the County. Spokane County adopted an IUGA that designated the subject area as "Urban". Additionally the County adopted its GMA Plan in January 2001 that designated the subject property as "Low Density Residential" on the comprehensive plan map. REZ-17-04—Grccnacres Meawide Reap= Page 7 4f 4 III. Analysis of Proposed Rezone The City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan (including map) and development regulations as interim measures upon incorporation. As the attached Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the subject area is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). Several goals and policies are included the City's interim comprehensive plan related to residential areas of the City, particularly the Residential Land Use Section of the urban Land Use Chapter. Specific goals and policies that support the requested rezone include: Goal UL.7 — Guide efficient development patterns by locating residential development in areas where facilities and services can be provided in a cost- effective and timely fashion. Policy UL.7.3 -- New urban development must be located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. Goal UL.$ — Create urban areas with a variety of housing types and prices, including manufactured home parks, multifamily development, townhouses and single-family development, Goal UL.9a — Create a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Area with an emphasis on compact mixed-use development in designated centers and corridors. The City of Spokane Valley adopted interim development regulations under Ordinance 53-O3, which adopted the Spokane County Zoning Code as amended, as the interim zoning code for the City. The interim zoning code includes the County's Phase I Development Regulations. Section II of the Phase I Development Regulations include a table designed to stipulate comprehensive plan categories and zoning designations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan map designations. As previously stated the subject area is designated LDR on the Cityrs interim comprehensive plan map. The table referenced in the previous paragraph indicates that implementing zoning designations for the LDR map designation are UR-3.5 and UR-7*. The proposed rezone to UR-3.5 is consistent with the subject table. Staff would like to state that the rezoning of this area to UR-3,5 will not preclude individual property owners in the subject area from requesting rezones of individual properties to [JR-7 Site specific rezone requests' are processed through the City's hearing examiner on a case-by-case basis. REZ-I 7-04—Grccnserts Areowida Ronne F.Ce 3 of 4 IV. Findings and Recommendation Planning Division staff makes the following findings related to the proposed rezone: 1, The rezone petition is sufficient in that signatures of over 51% of the property owners in the affected area have signed the petition; 2. An environmental review of the proposed rezone was completed and a threshold determination issued by the City consistent with state requirements; 3. The proposed rezone is consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the City's Interim Comprehensive Plan; and 4. The proposed rezone is consistent with the City's Interim Zoning Code's comprehensive plan category/implementing zoning table included in Section II of the Phase I Development Regulations adopted by the City of Spokane Valley in Ordinance 53-03. Planning Division staff recommends the requested area-wide rezone be approved. Attachments REZ-1 7-04—Greenacres Arezwide Rezone Page 4 caf4 }EP'Ai TI �eI '� Pr ► +1 dUNT Y VEL PMENT 7 FNIkk &z4 Wane o- lRRE +1 AHNIN� - F .0001Flialley `�AREAWI REZONE APPLICATION ..., APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Mary Pollard MAILING ADDRESS. 17216 East Baldwin CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99224 PHONE (home): 926-8899 PHONE (office): 926-8899 CELL: 990-3103 EMAIL ADDRESS: maryp@icehfouse.net NUMBER OF PARCELS WITHIN SUBJECT AREA: 264 GENERAL BOUNDARY OF PROPOSAL: North and West boundary is Spokane River; South boundary is Mission Avenue; east boundary is Barker Road. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN SUBJECT AREA: Farming, storage of large machinery, greenhouses, commercial raising of flowers, equipment repair shop, single family residential homes, classic car paint shop, small orchards, gardening, barns and shops for storage of personal and small business use (such as an upholstery shop.) SIZE OF SUBJECT AREA (acres or square feet): EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S): Urban Residential 7* (LIR-74) PROPOSED ZONING: Urban Residential 3.5 (LIR-3.5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY: Low Density Residential LIST PREVIOUS LAND USE ACTIONS, IF ANY, INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: In 1994 there was an area-wide study conducted by Spokane County following the GMA process that resulted in an area-wide zoning of SR1. In sanuary, 2002, when the county adopted their Comprehensive Plan, they zoned our area UR.74. Our existing land use and insufficient level of services and improvements (such as roads), created a hardship for this neighborhood to safely function at this density. The zoning designation also changes the ability to continue animal keeping, except under the grandfather provision. There is a majority Interest in retaining this right. This is the impetus for application for an area wide rezone of UR3e5. We are seeking to protect our area from high development. This Is the only zoning available under the existing zoning ordinances. We would prefer larger lot sizes of 1 acre minimums but are seeking to protect ourselves with this zoning of LJR3.5 while the City of Spokane Va'ley writes our own Comprehensive Plan and adopts a broader variety of zoning designations to accommodate a richer variety of lifestyles, more closely resembling the community that makes Spokane Valley an attractive place to live. WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE AREA WHICH YOU FEEL MAKE THIS PROPOSAL WARRANTED? This area has not changed, but areas nearby have dramatically increased in population as developments have encroached around us. This has caused increased traffic on all roads. Mission recently had a sewer line brought by a developer but the rest of the area is still not part of the 6 year sewer plan. This has created an inequitable situation. Those with money are purchasing public services at the expense of capacity that the general public on the Atari should have been receiving. Also, others desiring sewer, cannot develop their properties and may be delayed even longer as capacity of our waste water treatment facility reaches capacity officially in 2000." One citizen should not receive special treatment over another for public services. Present road conditions on the secondary roads such as Baldwin, Indiana, Montgomery, Riverway, Long and Greenacres Road, are narrow and not well maintained. In winter, we are nut plowed on snow days. It usually stops at Mission, and days later we may have our streets plowed. This will create more hazardous road conditions with the hundreds of new cars that are expected to travel daily down these roads. Neighbors have already commented they have had near misses with head on collisions when they have moved over on the road to accommodate a bicyclist. Any reduction in homes will lessen the traffic and hopefully avert more serious problems but I believe the roads are not up to the standards needed for any significant increase in traffic. Concurrency is demanded by GMA, UR 3.5 is the only zoning available to try to mitigate the road problem that is being created. During summer months, slow moving vehicles such as tractors and harvesting equipment utilize Flora and some of the other roads. WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT THE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION? COhNSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: To quote the Short Course on Planning, "the perception or reality that existing roads cannot handle present traffic and that they would be overtaxed by significant new levels of use - would be a barrier to increasing densities in existing urban or suburban areas_ The Comprehensive Plan demands that capital facilities funding is provided for in the present. The courts have ruled that you cannot hold an area's land indefinitely. There roust be a clear need for those lands for housing and without that it is a taking of property that must be compensated. it is too early to know where the people want to put our growth and what we want to preserve. The County Comprehensive Plan ,c rarwr AQQTCTINVItiriPJ ADD*Trerrnra osno 3 of requires a 4 house average per acre of new housing. The zoning would conform to this goal while North Greenacres waits out this Interim period. The land use element of the plan and the finance piece of the capital facilities element must be coordinated and consistent. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING: Zoning is to prevent urban sprawl and must have capital facilities in place. Good planning would not Initiate large developments in an area without sewer services for the entire area. We need to have good management of what already exists before we attempt to increase the population and traffic of an area. Schools are full and there is a need for more schools. While there may not be enough room for new students, by law schools cannot turn any student away and so we must not just follow the letter of the law but the intent and purpose of insuring there is money and capacity in the present school system. Otherwise, students that move Into an area are bused outside of their neighborhood and cannot begin making friends and their educational experience is interrupted by school moves beyond their physical move to an area. Poor development standards may cause the larger community to bear the expense of retrofitting the development to meet urban standards. WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING AREA? It will be consistent with zoning adjacent to the South Boundary on Mission WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSED TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON SURROUNDING LAND USE? Animal keeping should not be a variance since 71% of the area support this use. We would like to see something created to permit this use, to be submitted with the community comprehensive plan amendments if needed. Likely, this is a bureaucratic decision that can be made at this time. The present zoning is injurious to the historical and present land uses and deprives us of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in this vicinity such as Otis Orchards and South Greenacres area. This is a takings that can be rectified. In addition, the following measures should be enacted to mitigate the interim zoning that was enacted to assist the proposed zoning. In order to preserve the scenic view, 11 story houses should also have a 10 foot setback so there is not a visible wail created since that Is the setback required of 2 story homes. Since it 's more than one story, it should be treated as a 2 story not a single story structure. 7f1NTN�' OFel aCAI RTIATrrl a DO Tr'A P1V1 d DanIc Setbacks should be a minimum of 10 to 12 feet if there is animal keeping on adjacent to the proposed building project. This is to protect both neighboring property owners from harm to one another. Fencing should be required of any PUD or housing development along the entire perimeter of the development to protect the neighboring properties. The benefits to the local area to continue agricultural use is of public Interest. Residential development adjacent to these lands should be advised that these uses shall not be considered a nuisance if conducted and maintained according to beset farming and animal management practices. Informing new or potential purchasers of the daily activities and potential "inconveniences" (i.e. dust, odors, machinery operation, sounds, etc.) would be helpful in maintaining a harmonious neighborhood, while such notices do not have any real force of law. If one is determined to live in an area that has these land uses they should be prepared to accept inconveniences or discomfort as a normal and necessary aspect of living in an area with a rural character. Definitions: Agricultural Operations means, but is not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, production, irrigation, frost protection, cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing of any agricultural commodity, including viticulture, horticulture, timber or apiculture, the raising of livestock and poultry, any agricultural practice or process, private or commercial, performed as incident to or in conjunction with such operations, including recycling of agricultural waste, preparation for market, delivery to storage or to carriers for transportation to market. A Grievance Committee could be established to assist in the resolution of any disputes that might arise regarding agricultural operations and the right to farm or use your property. Electric fence should be encouraged and provided for in our zoning ordinances to prevent damage to neighboring property and fences - since it discourages leaning on the fence and does not pose any harm beyond a shock to any child or adult touching the fence. (Any planner wishing to touch an electric fence as a trial is welcome to try.) Penalties for unlawful interference, theft, trespassing, or vandalism to owners in agricultural pursuits should be created since a large majority of the area are grandfathered with these uses and should be protected. PART II (For staff Use Only) DATE SUB' iiTTED: RECEIVED BY: FILE NUMBER: srIAIThin Cr rdiCaTiffirritTiVIM &DOI rrr rrnrr PALMA A Al fi Aerial Map • p! itn �� -1 - • ',�r7, x--r'J- F- • EueIt t �• .' A., +�s$ + 3 5 "` ���y y 1114 :r.,'1 ' ,.-, . ,at a f 9s .1.. a I'y — ,I'814 4eY ,. its ,,,t.:4 4•. .......... I 1 ° 4-,"- A. r• r f "� t 1 i • I I ��I. I . : Ifl x�#A" 8r. r,,,fa l •i a pn 1' .�fe Fes, f!� 4 • . -q .19. 'f y ^fi d. Vii, . . .3'M lis $ .9 W.„,.-4,,,„4.'-. - +� a �'d k.'. te. --33 q� 1 �.• r..� ,1- Y Vs-y'. 's. gip. . It r9 + h N e,, I- .r ti r$A, • SA i d`+ +AQ "L aE,--, .-0--.-..,..-` 15. v 7 Baldwin 1541 n [q 1 W e .. I ! i ',,.� Flata 6 I ,e- y7 M G S� fr i _ r f.5 .. ".,,,,F...:,. '. .I L •J I �, La 8 . i�L1° {. I. 3 yP.L. L �R P C 14 + u _ . 9 c4 ,1 r Lal 0, i. !an* .��_19n 4- -ru, . - � t 1---'- tNi Tr Y }I Er :1% J _: 6 ,- r I i _y �+ ,. - 1.4.-_,,_4,61,..• , :1 dr's a . _ey-+':. :i ! ? ' •- ` - • • • i. I;s m 1 l 1 -, [,}164 ra y� F p 1 .1-C} I i� • Z r _ r-1 Lk r 4 .• ----CA Edi ,i.~ ,Nly,on. I- . �.,. .°,,;1,--;--1/4'.L • �'I L.p � F. r n y'1aim "1 . 9. 11 Greenacres Areawide Rezone ne August,200440,0041,,Wley Comprehensive Plan Map mr—apprnr--1 l= Ills 11111.11111111FIF i dillog,......- .r-11 ,:.,.,-IN r-11 , 1 4111111 1'101101 .1 no Illeil-iirtr,1 113 1. MINK •Mn j WWI ■ � ��4- k �, �.ISOittl isa -+vii. reZ dis,n. ..,_.:--,.______— '7.1TH mor-mill• ,----------- / .4.4...„.49. iiii0P.r, - Bram_____,—; •, : . 4, .17' .i VI .N..01 ' -111111111.v_•11 t6Plir00 N t Vot IV) I I Kt ra. ralf�M�'C�II `.,1111 01111.o•'*"...........''''. i--,% 0,4 .fit I ir:: 0'#11,1* IF F' • III /d pi, r i.1 fe ill aSite tiot �+ fir ' o �.. ► IWire' "Pr- ,,,--,_ !F d a 1. ,,Cid!' . . it 941:0 4.l! 0.#rolora tr �„ �. lirortift r/#1,--- r 2,00 '� ZrA0 291 lirg*P efili a�.; rr-: � r *x.11 . rrrfp, r•P11( rt' .2..1 ' rFfi r � err r,����, �+`�f�..a d .��,,�, �� t��� ' r �r•. /i / ' // a • sari+, trf----0,4 4024 OVA r•er/i4"49'4.110754119,4,1 41P,0,71E•IA 144611 /, 000,,,:, , Ker.04 i or ToroP/ irir tgo t .. / i „r / m0,RI,rIi ■PL je, ,6jriliTho In Al --iv- 1 II :41 Sib PIMP.4iiiilankil ill i I lal MI iv'Zi I gilleMillik, . _ ' .tillR4411.01711111111N 11 mil 11111.11 mil. Ma OM OPSINA iiiiiiiiittal III _.-rtii --6-ai twill'weitza-41Zuris is Aple !. Comp Plan Category j rs i r �ris� �� . ' Low Density Residentia t>� I ■STAR1 1 II . 1-7 Medium Density Residential "Ill i'I � �' isgill.� 1� _ .=\ .4. 11111 Mg Penal Realder�lial _.�� 4. J ` t El li use MI 11111111.111111111111 ¢riglik 1 ._ Community CarderRil =J ��aF I� rid -wliMilt•IN ___-- �� loplyilIMAIN r ..I= Urbana Activity Center 11 /11 11111■�tiilalii NI f Neighborhood CormiernfaI Mnia h 11 a iii".111.1 e =Community C+arxner al +� :7 411 111hin ,�upp sSLIhe r_ la gionab Caarmerdel �1 i fid i-� o � * ' tJght Medd � 'L11� � r r� _ I� mitt; IV4`nRh. :001 Ai itio61 Remy pndu trial 1� til !` vp . ' *' F;.,+,3,T.T iN Ilk� �� l ililti �EiiL1�� 11 �� Mineral Land � �I�,.,i � # � • '� 'r li „ ■ .1 I�1 1.1 + Greenacres Areawide Rezone August, 2004 Valley Zoning Map - -- wimiLo �o 1 ims3 R o!rte .1. 4` ii tvi. li.S.N- 1 -1.,,AL‘f1101-;ItIrri! 2. - &WOO' vo, Alb Dit,,,Vallitii'4i'7 1 IkiW iiit,ViVia"iliki 55- `" ■ + u pirig 15g` fO O 11 aV11 1� 41k;VW ill r* PillXI MillP4.>% MIN � 1....r. ..51: rrr ,. row mill iv volgotol* 4614:114i#11;4:11. ifele4'::;:r•• ,e; �� „� 6 ;Ili;;:h i!! �tl w - orf �.. .. # Koinisv 00.---------. 0 , .: _ iv.,.:.. . 1 1,006,70',40 lior N Itifitt0110 , 4. "96'1 0-", ' E$11.1.:;14,30- •1 w ...Nev.• .\l‘1111,..........„0.. Arf AI: ,Io4 05.47A #.":"VOS VA I VtrO 04#0 elipriAN.14,00 •ir.I. ''.. -_+a!I rE-rill .. f : + ,'; .: 1,WPe0Iri I 0 Of r 'W 2If MEIIIk i{riY4 'I . •,...:%. ' . s .•..•. e%'.la /0;05.101 ,,,igroopriy0 gg6025,74 ,PAlft gral 1{11;FA • .;'p Z.. -.5.-*. 1. ..4 Nit / . 4 dair,Aitir 0%97'5 6071FA pr07,Areifirifrir rir f- r-"rd- ZLECIKK_Ne0 ofdior ,if dr," /,,e,•4 AM16.1 4' ' •" ' • . r fArr feral 9-#4.40 .. .',.. . ifili F � _.'F Waire f lam. /le V � '�� I &/.,0ntillq#2111 AV404 orr. r• y4 : F.... .,,.. •.-.. to,,, ry, ,0165093 ,r . '' -, 0p;aragyAt#0,0 V Tag iiicdrAilif ALA A e / dwell p g .. rairh-'49.4 +'4. • . r:;' r oli � .01F/ for, `., D `�al for 0 cimits7nlialmingis ill i p � t ,4 if- or0, :rte//,I,, w/' ! --. es ..._.....................74.:„..... ,.\\„,„,! ... "7.#4\ 14, II 111111 ! ri1 !.1rtR.�er� NO mi 1 iffinrilin ISMS.-'' MI ,k..N46. .Ykl Lb\4L9\V4146.4.04.4\ OS mi'Zi mit!usoulosels:..iiirgivo „,,, n...,___. --itv V,N':1,_,,1_„_7•1„'_A.I9_,,M4‘).,•,‘.1F...1.3_4,4,„N,.1\,i-,hv.„..'a‘."-N k44t„,,,i*t;1ri1, '.-V.,-IOt 11.I9L..•uvx.N1Iik,i-e.,1....&ti5'IN : � 5ilIgnliiib•_li__i1:..n,..,,ami.i i gimnr.4e.7i_m41mfir.1ar{�, _,ti... Ail_tr._1.F.2,.i.s,.194, s Legend ` ■li E11i1r-o130N\ I L--J UR-12 Freda f gnni i ' 4 miutTin 111111=rillihr IIMMINIM ri CA' I 8-28-1 -nonios•alov 1 I 1011111 1'11 .11 . iiM :41 1 —1" r .in sa.1„. ii vz,imio IA i ���� Noll%. �■ �`� rereollf474 iip /tt ��. P �. tryi k2 o �� 1'�� 1%; 1 lill HUE rim' -14 104„,,,,,f.V.70.47, •q. �4 w� sig ■Blit,n f BR, tier1.404, �� i TIM N Greenacres Areawide Rezone 111 ti+.f�4 August, ' 11 City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: October 14, 2004 TYPE; ❑ Consent 0 Old Business 0 New Business @ Public Hearing ❑ Legislation ❑ Information 0 Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Area-wide Rezone request, North Greenacres area. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive Plan and development regulations PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code, Section 14.402.100, provides a process for property owners to initiate an area wide rezoning action via petition. The code requires that at least 61% of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed zone change sign the petition for rezone in order to initiate the rezoning process. On July 1, 2004 the City received a petition from the North Greenacres neighborhood requesting a rezone from-the existing Urban Residential r (UR-7) to Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5). City staff verified the signatures on the petition utilizing the most current tax payer records of the Spokane County Auditor's office. The area under consideration for this rezoning action is bounded on the south by Mission Avenue, Barker Road on the east and the Spokane Diver to the north and west_ The area is approximately 457 acres and is comprised of 264 separate parcels of land. The Planning Commission considered the area-wide rezone request at a public hearing on September 23, 2004. The Commission received testimony from a number of residents of the area in question; including property owners who requested that their property be removed from the area-wide request The Commission voted to continue the public hearing and requested that Planning staff provide the Commission with a map indicating projects vested under existing zoning in the subject area as well as properties requested to be excluded from the rezoning action. ATTACHMENTS: Map indicating projects vested under existing UR-7* zoning and individual parcel requests_ STAFF CONTACT: Greg McCormick, AICP - Planning Division Manager CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 04-005 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 35 CREATING A PLANNING COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING THE DUTIES THEREOF. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is a non-charter code city authorized to create a Planning Commission which will serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City will adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to guide the reasonable and orderly development of the City; and WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to respond to the expressed concerns of citizens that immediately after incorporation the City begin a comprehensive planning process and review of development regulations; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires to encourage citizen input into the planning process by establishing a Planning Ccjrmnission which will study, receive public input and recommend a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to the City Council for review and adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, does hereby amend Ordinance No. 35 passed on February 25, 2003, to read as follows: Section 1. Establishment and Purpose. There is created the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to study and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for future planned growth through continued review of the City's comprehensive land use plan, development regulations, shoreline management, environmental protection, public facilities, capital improvements and other matters as directed by the City Council. Section 2. Membership. 1. Ouaffications: The membership of the Planning Commission shall consist of individuals who have an interest in planning, land use, transportation, capital infrastructure and building and landscape design as evidenced by training, experience or interest in the City of Spokane Valley. 2. Appointment: Members of the Planning Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority vote of at least four (4) members of the City Council. Planning Commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and shall serve without compensation. The Mayor, when considering appointments, shall Ordinance O4-005 Amending Ordinance 35 Page 1 of 4 attempt to select residents that represent various interests and locations within the City. 3. Number of Members/Terms: The Planning Commission shall consist of seven (7) members. All members shall reside within the City of Spokane Valley. The terms for the initial Commissioners shall be two (2) one (1) year terms, two (2) two (2) year terms and three (3) three(3) year terms. The initial members and their terms shall be decided by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Subsequent terms shall be for a three (3) year period. Terms shall expire on the thirty-first day of December. 4. Removal: Members of the Commission may be removed by the Mayor, with The concurrence of the City Council, for neglect of duty, conflict of interest, malfeasance in office, or other just cause, or for unexcused absence from three (3) consecutive regular meetings. Failure to qualify as to residency shall constitute a forfeiture of office. The decision of the City Council regarding membership on the Planning Commission shall be final and without appeal. Vacancies:. Vacancies occurring other than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as for appointments. 6. Conflicts of Interest: Members of the Planning Commission shall fully comply with RCW 42.23, Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers, RCW 42.36, Appearance of Fairness, and such other rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the City Council regulating the conduct of any person holding appointive office within the City. No elected official or City employee may be a member of the Planning Commission. Section 3. MeetinEs - Rules. 1. The Planning Commission shall every year organize and elect from its members a Chair, who shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and perform such other functions as determined by rule. A Vice-Chair shall be elected to preside in the absence of the Chair. A majority of the Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and a majority vote of those present shall be necessary to carry any proposition. 2. The Commission shall determine a regular meeting schedule (time, place and frequency) and shall meet, at least. one time every month. All meetings shall be open to the public. 3, The Commission shall adopt such rules and procedures as are necessary for the conduct of business and shall keep a taped record of its proceedings. Section 4. Staff Support. Administrative staff support to the Planning Commission shall be provided by the City Planning and Community Development Department. In addition, the Commission, through its Chair may request formal opinions or memorandums form the City Attorney or Planning and Community Development Director on any pending matter. Ordinn D4-JO5 Amending Ordinance 35 Page 2 of 4 Section 5. Duties and Responsibilities. The Planning Commission, as advisory body to the City Council, shall perform and have the following duties and responsibilities: l_ Assist in the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations in compliance with RCW 36.07A and 35A. 3 including the establishment of procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Regulations; 2. Review plans and regulations related to land use management, shoreline management, environmental policy, transportation systems, public facilities and capital infrastructure planning and development; 3, Upon request from the City Manager or City Council, review potential annexations to the City; 4_ Where design review is required by land use ordinances of the City, perform such design review unless that review is delegated to some other appointed body or City Staff; 5. Identify issues and recommend priorities for geographic sub-areas including park and open space areas in the City; 6_ Meet and confer with the Hearing Examiner to review the administration of land use policies and ordinances to enhance the planning and permitting process; 7. Make periodic written and oral reports to the City Couuncil. addressing work in progress andother significant matters relating to the City; 8. Hold public hearings in the exercise of duties and responsibilities; 9. Perform such other duties and powers as may be conferred by ordinance, resolution or motion of the City Council Unless other wise assumed by the City Council, the Planning Commission shall hold all public hearings required to be held in the course of adoption or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the development regulations,adoption or amendment of the zoning map, or adoption or amendment of regulations for the subdivision of land, shoreline management, environmental regulations, and other land use ordinances of the City. Section f. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Qrdhnance O4-O05 Amending,Ordinance 33 Page 3 of 4 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this 10th day of February, 2004. Michael DeV Leming, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Stanley M. Schwartz, City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 04-1105 AMCIlding Ordinance 35 Page 4 of 4 rna' 11707 E. Spm_Avenue, Suite 106 ,S ane Vaiiey, WA 99206 P09)688-0180 (509)688-0194 VIA. Citizen Contact DATE: October 20, 2004 TO: Sue Colman-Council-Marina VIA: Phone, E-mail, Walk-in FROM; Walt. DeWitt ADDRESS: 16804 E. Indiana PHONE: 926-7464 RE: Zoning Walt lives on Indiana which is a dead end. The city wants to re-zone in this area. Walt insists that it stay the way it is. Walt said that he was at a meeting which Mr. Crosby stated he wants to exempt the area from a zone change. Mr. Crosby said very insulting statements at this meeting. He said there is not enough character in this neighborhood to worry about. He told those in the neighborhood they were being selfish by not allowingothers to live by the river. He will be giving Sally Jackson $10,0OO for the disincorporation if this goes through. He said he has already lost his horse back riding area when the centennial trail was put in. RESPONSE: I told him I would pass this onto the council. C_ Catizwl Coi tact{Welt DeWitt _ 1 Land Action Applications and Plats Approved and Recorded Since �� Phase I Crossover in Proposed Greenacres UR 7* to UR-3.5 Areawide Rezone �7�-�� "� Portions of 07-25-45&12-25-44 in the City of Spokane Valley � �� +, `_ � .— �' Map Legend 1" _� M■ Proposed Rezone »-- Railroad Centenial Trail IV �'� +-.... I L........_Area Boundary ® Parcels that want Accepted Applications After Approved Plats After , , ., . • / .. _ ___,„, _ , , , , , . \ Section Line to retain UR7 zoning Phase I Implementation Phase I Imple1111111111 rmentation / '� �- 1 /it .MW`ialc ll�h Ymd,.�,n o.Lbil"��i ssi�t ivle - R,,,,, ...\ , ., , i , ,f _ / 1 J ,ter • ,/ ` i 1 piii • 1 1 re ............- ,_ , \ ,. ,,,,,4 ..., .•'' 1I \110.„.„10010 ' \'• ' 1 Application Accepted 09113/0' I; / D2 Subdivision0* '• 1. �. s. 1 SUB-11-04 ''-•-- I 45 lots �; 94 Acres 1. fI 1 All 1 ciIIIrII,IIl(lO7/2)/Ol 1 I — ---- D1 Subdivision j SUES 05-03 i`! 11.6 Acre, 1 / Preliminary Plat Approved 12/14/99 r / I lora Meadows PE-1706-93 i Ilk , 31 Lots i•. Indiana lii /; .•.n 9 Acres iif J j .Baldwin i 551174.1025 5;074.1031 1 i ' ar 1 1 Applicat on Accepted 07/01/04 1 DI-A • SUB-12-04 /i { 15 Lots _ ( 3.1 Acres — 9 w,n---� t Cg »...... I �` / Preliminary Plat Approve( 10/22/03 f SHP-12-03 i 7 Lots j ffff 3.2 Acres , Pre iminary Plat Approved 12/0 i ' I1/ ____4±....R J I lora Springs PUD 1 - PE-1921-03 1 s� I 54 Lots t I l .:1.. 9.6 Acres t _ .» .. i _ ........... .....Mission.......... . .»... L.2........... 1 —— Mission — — —» , / , .;„ 1 -- I t