The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 04-05 Study Session - Amended AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,April 5,2016 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL A.Motion Consideration: Approval of Allocation of funds for Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project— Steve Worley [Public Comment] 1.Fire Capt Cornelius, Rescue Task Force Update Discussion/Information Police Sgt. Whapeles 2.Karen Kendall Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Discussion/Information (CPA 2016-0001) 3. Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 4. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): (a)Senior Citizens Association Memorandum of Understanding (b)Solid Waste Right-of-way Maintenance Fee 5.Mayor Higgins Council Comments Discussion/Information 6.Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda April 5,2016 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 5, 2016 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Rescue Taskforce Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Fire Chief Chris Cornelius and Police Sgt. Whapeles will give an update on the Rescue Taskforce. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Fire Chiefs PowerPoint SVFD Rescue Task Force t ..... r. - . ..... . -. ' - - i, - a 11111 II 'Ry l pri • 3 , Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) • History • Need • Grant • Team Selection • Regional • Training • Tactical Casualty Combat Care • SCSO • Eastern Washington University Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) • PPE • Active shooter Response Kit (ARK bags) • EMS interventions • County TECC initiative • Mutual aid • Staffing • Dispatching RTF Low ( 39 Low • One to two victims, • Localized; contained to a small area. • Closest ALS, BLS, BC, V31 • SVFD All Operations notification page • Two AMR units. • Apparatus with RTF personnel will opt into incident and respond with dispatched units. RTF High High ) • Reported active criminal mass casualty event with multiple victims in a large area, public space, school, mall, business, or community event. • Closest two ALS, two BLS, V21, V22, V31, MCI Trailer, SVFD All Operations and Valley Chiefs notification page • Four AMR units, AMR 20. • Apparatus with RTF personnel will opt into incident and respond with dispatched units. • Off duty RTF personnel are notified by text and respond to the scene with equipment and ready to deploy. RTF Stand - by • Stable incidents where a possibly armed individual is contained and SWAT plans to make entry to apprehend the suspect. • Dispatch make request through V21 • RTF resources are gathered as appropriate to the situation to stand- by in the warm zone ready to provide care. RTF 2016 • SCSO RTF Integration Training • Quarterly Training • Criminal Mass Casualty Incident Management • Team Expansion • RTF Boot Camp CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 5, 2016 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report Comprehensive Plan Amendment — CPA- 2016-0001 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: CPA-2016-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. If approved, the site will receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The Planning Commission held a study session on February 11, 2016 followed by a public hearing on February 25, 2016. During deliberations the Commission discussed the merits of the proposal. Issues discussed included the fact that parcel 35121.5201 was not included in the amendment, the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be amended, and the impact to surrounding properties. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, and the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. The findings and recommendations were presented at the March 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with a consensus of 6 to 0 to approve. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment has been placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016. The site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, containing a description of the proposal on February 10, 2016. Individual notice was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the amendment on February 8, 2016. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) an environmental checklist was completed for the proposed amendment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the subject properties. A Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed amendment consistent with the SVMC Title 21 —Environmental Controls. 1 of 2 OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with the first ordinance reading scheduled for April 26, 2016; or take other action as appropriate. MOTION: None required STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Power Point Presentation 2) Signed Findings and Recommendation dated 3-10-16 3) Staff Report with exhibits 4) Responses from Avista requested by PC for 2-25-16 meeting 5) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-11-16 6) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-25-16 7) Draft PC Meeting Minutes 3-10-16 2 of 2 sPw‘e''' COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ''t-ItVLANNING''= �lley DIVISION Administrative Report April 5, 2016 Privately Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File No. CPA-2016-0001 -"N., --inr-_. .„.. . ,_ ujiN NINGumr- sokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - -_-__ - ......Valley DIVISION r •.(7) Lo m .Lr) • V) 7.) 8 CO :6- CIJ .z •V) td "E S uy Session a) r%i a E2. (11) 0 ra Lri rts > .c.) -2 E 2-11-16 Administrative n3 4-P 1- -172 0 0 Report in' • +., a) = a_ (u Public Hearing a W a .t. a E E -8 .4— ii) o 0 120 C 2-25-16 z Ordinance 1st U < _o 73 z c u_cu 2 C 0J C) IS •— C C U Reading (r) .5 0 E 8 c w 0 0 Z n Finding & Fact 0- 3-10-16 4-• t3 Ordinance 2nd Reading O. . Today 2 -- . .... sokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — — .......Valley DIVISION .„. ... . ,-: i. n .';'„ -'• ,, Q b, D., 71 0- °- C--- LI •-.D c. .--' 10,0, = L..X -4'-• _i. .,: a Euclig-Ave Ca 7 x 0- Frederick Avs 10 eck Ave cri ; Vi Q M 4.4 4.. l'aerv[ew Ave ia. ..., .r i ... . % ' CPA-2016-0001 ,-. _ a. Fairview Ave me Ave 4 Are _ •. 35in000i 6',\ .........,cP ''' 35122_00B ' 'II — . - b 1 E E r . 00\1 71 C- - ,..- . -- = •' liu :_.• Avc .. I BuLkeyeGr.:cci A" I,.. 2 _,.. ..., ...n -{ I ,.,:„.:.•-• Marietta A,...e r, ., 1 LI Ncl ' ..7-. •-: ' / SPOKANE ,,c)-1'-'1 . r, . C a r,.,s 1.e Aie or .. / aslls 4102 ....-.4.••"''''''''' FT CO C x, Carlile Ave, ,,,,pzi Vans 11 7..• ........ 0,-...0/ lid 51-1-5 ' V t. .m. cA cc •z- c.' I' c- _ ..D cic..112 Knox Ave T. 7z1 -a ,- E -I a- zi.- Ft Z .7 C:I. 7 00 e• 4-- 6 . EnSdhiaannaoonvAve , Ae Request to change from LDR to 1-1 ,. , SPOKA'NE VALLEY Nora Aye ' r7) Parcels: 35121.5501, 35121.5502, _, , Augusta Ave' rf > 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, , i.,... IV; 35121.6001, and 35121.51014,9 Of. 11.4.ieilt KJ'. Nryaxwell A'93 --• 1- et. e._ Owners: Avista and Chad & Jasmine Jones ..... „... .r. _ ,:. Pn. •L' - It,- 1.7: _...-1. .R. 131 .----. '-'-' -.. ...7 -5•IV,.._ . _ - Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LANNING"" `�- ` Valley DIVISION 35122:0401 S P OCA N.E° f9li 4O E � � • 35121.3206. . Mariet Y 2624 �F . E _ .r L �`• 2617 6910 `I . sr5�°x 35121.4901 7,616 .,.v,0 2 � rr�rt� „. 6724 d I8.�' 3607 2610 i§ - ��•. -_____ • . '. ___ �� 35121:s10T 2 6 '� 35121.4 CPA-2016-0001 mi #ter*raF r' _ 3 & 2fA4 li y' ; _ rn 2524 2523 2524 :1 2527 N '. 1 35121.5201 2518 251w 1 2520 I EF:. X13 43.12 2515 Gi b I Q , .'I i N . - • -. "Si° 2505' I 2508 2507 Ce I I e�� 6610 2503 25G4 r 35122.0101 351!1 10 4 24 23 ��""" 3406 s ; Y E::_!.' Id® 111. 24 25 2428 " •.�., 242 7 69)6 35121.5901 241�} ... 2415 < _ 3414 6924 O • 1 ■ • 2410 - 2403go 0,KAN E �I ALLEY 35121.6001 6807 2404 2404 „ , Montgomery Ave - 'I r 6824 2322 -.4 y II, r.l 2311 6909 I, : .o - IVlensfi ' 35125.2303 24 -- .. 2307 • r' 6978 7004 4 SOkane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING,r .......Valley DIVISION ,.., .,'.:413140.1),1:1";.•It' - '1,',i' \y id ' ., .• ,....4.--..r A _ in / .y , - loi- -miimmk-,......„...1....... 0 111 _ 0..., 7/.it__ t: A- _ • .,NORTH on Elizabeth Rd r It! ,11 ,-,1,-0,:e4t ..-,.• ',4,,-', - — ' 40 ' , ' ',,,., --- ; ...... :,,, — ,•, eb SOUTH on Elizabeth Rd Spoke COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANNNING" Valley DIVISION `" .irk,ir - \-, .1414k.... A \ \IN \1 M-744111X4' - _„. __,_,•,..: -,:°,..,,,- - -,,,,, Vi., , '''. •ITWIllallir Alfillalt .I 44*".• . N , Air,. . \_,.......t.....*„....,..26,,, 7„,...,,,_..„.,..,..„.,,,,„,,,_ .„,,,,,,,::;:i....„„:7,.„,, MI PAP-„,"..- - 4,14:',i -- , _ - , L.---whili*,:- _._...„, t . , i Itir. 1 NifrIffilikl , Allik, :' ' ; 1 . 4 0 "--,'01'Ora - 11'.,* s ;moi s �► s 1 19 tJR� d• If 7 A 0 . , t, Looking NW onto site Looking South at corner of Utah & Elizabeth irwr Spokane [ AN NI NZ,"" ,: . .....Valley COMMUNITYand ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �t DIVISION Looking NW from site r 0 • Q _ X -- - - ....7-41' Fl r :< Looking SOUTH from site ...0%., StiOliane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .0,00Valley- .'-'12111.11DN F a,i, w Me 0.r, _ sg •. ! ., . . . . poea , -;- I UJ ,.,. I ,,-. 01.2-\1 Lr Dousity R, 1 b b o --, 7:-.-.--1,....*: ,:..' 12. ..,.. . , I . . ..._ ;jii --- . . - 1 .. City of Spokane . I inill lim =WM Butkl ,,...:, - zi, -- - — GAO -- ,)------' IN 11.1111 VI 113- Light Industrial 2.040S I crI r,1 3111° -.;e*._. I t., . a ,--'- I Nall PI Z ICC I — I 35122.0404 . _,, ,,,, :,„ci 7 ._--n- i , 1 Momairietta-Are ' Low Density Residential - um' 2 , ..,-9-13°.el' ,,.....-- _ Ix' Ca 4 ,' ,— I 1 1 1 [ I I 1 1 r- 1- r _ X ,...., 8 4 imi .. _,LH. i , ! r, Ca rl.i5le-Ave , ''. :‘1 Mi - 4-.6 r'.4 UJ Z . .. -0-'" „NI,' ,. r.,. 1 1 . ix ,... ., moritgom.ry,AN e L_7' ; ., - 1—., '___11 aL ICC —I ..• • Light Industrial 35123.14°2 35,123 2401 3c175 2P.2., ° M - • x SPOKANE VALLEY c- 1 s-—ce • -. —... .N. ...7 u7u_ 2 an .7.. Kan x 4.0...p 7 35,1? 041.4 ,- t11 Elk 35L23.201 --r 1;1 I--L. •-1 — TE r.c.- 41 — et I i .. ';.• ?: • - MI Zt;'," tslf" rl 33 ; ...V .., ,- 01 ilitilSi) R47,i(14:111:11 r. . CO) ;1-• 7, 'T M 1 351.2-1.1X14 77 .---: ...".I % -. D Ve 2i1:!.. z• cc- - — um m es- (NJ N.J.., ft,; . ; z,. m .-• Corridor Mixed Use , — Trerrt Ave 35123.2/US :.,..... . 1.0. v.\ Hi d i 45077;2:2)2. g.- Vo2L°'--, BAidNY , B aldvi in Ave 8 st,01 a COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "" LANNIN� -- -` Valley DIVISION w 0 Fawa':'ie v Ave -1I ..... �z n . 1 44%,, ,N4.;T 06 . x--i_____,„., .... 'at _i— R-2 o Om Cit of Spokane '. II N��r� Y P • kerLucke Light Industrial `k>.- ' I v17-1. ...>....,�: ■ oaos I1 I ]z � � `< I I ■ �� ..^• i �� R1�Iri�tta�Aue P-L: ¢,� �� ' f gill 35122-0464 fir.^' --N. trJ_ 1=INM 2N. MI '+ 1 MEI (lI N. Single-Family Residiential [i/ t+ — — � _ .-A', ` Suburban R 2 r wN. r+'- tip, `�-�`�' �, ^—y xr''�. .`' '�s.1.. `a .. Jl0-4). 1111 r'h ti.. Montgomery AveL — 1.._•"':,,,,--:,--,,,, ---z7,„,":. ,. _ , x.}5 1:5 � l i ►�"' 'f hi—' — - x -- Z L74:-',,.. 23.1 ) '; L'''N 3513.14t?2 `• SRO`Kw#NE VALLEY ' �- _ -mil o- �� µ o4lansfieid Light Industrial .; .-� ▪ . ` __ Z=1 a a•—p �'', C) �., ...,,` - x.,3'5173. 501 eC im w,- ISItsem .: ti - .. - • N. ti u1 R } Corri • dor Mixed Use . ' .; 4 _ . „N..-.-,....-...,. ` , ,'„..:.z..,.-..-. . -,.'S':,'.:: ->u' Endii r Trentt AVe2 .-_ --NN_. . . �a ttia.k 4 It 4507/-6{11]2 4`ti , . 5,11[.tia ■•'`:▪ ,, • ,✓,'›.`.-n 4.; °. . ; `ti ..:`-- - 3;12L -5'. 3 i�'L t5LY8 tom. B a`d WJ'i svalley., COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT W- ►NNIIN - ',. DIVISION < Required Findings Other Considerations • Supports public health, Effect on environment LU safety welfare, and • Compatibility and impact on protects the environment existing uses and OC neighborhoods V • Consistent with GMA and . Adequacy and impact on SCSC Comprehensive Plan services • Responds to a change in • Benefit to City and Region 0CC conditions • Quantity, location and demand for land • Corrects an error CI., • Projected population for area < • Addresses a deficiency • Other effects on Comp. Plan spolza�fe COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - s ANNIN `� Valley DIVISION II3PI7 35122 0401 ��.* r 6933, ig fl h' O'K A .� 35121.3206 6333 .rf'� Marie t 3 � ' 2620 i; -r - _ ¢: ,.�`'^ a'X617 1'L 6910 0., R 35121 4901 -1, r ...- i ;I.' 2607 2610 ca. - , 5.- 672426CG ■ 35121.4608 Z ...)N2,',• ' MBESpv - 2603' 2604 2S2# 2523 2524 2527 m z ; " 35121.5201 2517 2520 ° .. ' 6926 4} y01 , Vii, 2513, - 2512 2515 G ..,I. ,i . ■M'2509 H 250$ ` 25u7 1. 111 6610 25176 ME 2504° 2423 35122,001 e1. 35122:0104 W 6 2406 ; s �T,"- �1 �11 2426 2428 " 3 • 242 4 4976 35121.5901 2419 m . J 2415 ,. . . �� 2414gp 6924 2410 a - �403 ,K AN E ' A L L E Y Cr - " S1 35121.6001 113817 24x3 2404 Montgomery �lYC ii • �' ..~■ a Itnl, I 6824 2322 2311 6909 35125.2303 e_ E - ansfi . 2307 jea'Y: dill' dillWI -- t = ., ." .. 6908 00 74 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2016-0001 March 10,2016 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2"d to November 1st of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November ls`, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2016 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received one privately initiated request for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment,designated as CPA-2016-0001. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. As it is the lone proposed amendment,there are no other amendments to consider concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H),the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2016-0001: 1. The amendment is comprised of seven parcels,all owned by Avista Corporation. 2. Avista owns and operates a Natural Gas Service Center including equipment and maintenance storage yard located west of the proposed amendment area. 3. On January 13,2016,the Spokane Regional Transportation Council was provided notice of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. On January 14,2016,the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 6. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 5, 2016. 7. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Title 21 have been fulfilled. 8. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements. 9. On February 5,2016 and February 12,2016,notice for the proposed amendment was published in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 10. On February 8,2016 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject sites. 11. On February 10,2016 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign and a description of the proposal. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). There were no other proposed amendments requiring concurrent review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 1 of 3 13. On February 25,2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on CPA-2016- 0001. 14. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The change to Light Industrial(I-1)will provide opportunities for high technology and low-impact industrial uses as presently exist to the north,south and west of the amendment area which are designated I-1 under the Comprehensive Plan. The area is served by Spokane County Division of Utilities for sewer,and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District for water. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 provides emergency first responders. 15. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. b. Provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. c. Consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. d. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 16. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. However, a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2014 from Low Density Residential(LDR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) occurred one and one half block south associated with the City's regional animal shelter. 17. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 18. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. C. Factors: 1. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non-project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements at the time of development and in accordance with requirements then in effect. 2. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. Additionally, previously contaminated soils have been removed by the new land owner,Avista,and homes removed. 3. The properties located west, north and south of the amendment have an I-1 land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning designation. The amendment is adjacent and contiguous to properties of the same or higher zoning classification. 4. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood,but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. 5. The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with a light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. 6. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (AO) (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Development may be limited based upon the AO standards related to use, noise and height. The proximity to Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 2 of 3 Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. 7. The City addresses the adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. 8. The site is located at the intersection of two local access streets (Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road) and each lot is direct access to a public street. Transportation concurrency has been deferred by the City's Traffic Engineer until the time of development. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. The site is located within the Orchard Avenue Irrigation District service area. Based on the preceding,the proposal meets concurrency requirements. 9. Due to the size of the property,the proposed amendment would not significantly impact population density and does not require population analysis. Employment would not contribute to an increase in population density,and removing the site from a residential designation would have a marginal impact city wide. 10. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2—Land Use; Chapter 3—Transportation; Chapter 7— Economic Development; and Chapter 10—Neighborhoods. C. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2016-0001. Proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2016-0001 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health,safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2016-0001. Approved this 10th day of March,2016. •-d-det-4, Heather Graham, Chairman ATTEST /1Ci Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane l `�T R FINAL e STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-2016-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 4,2016;revised February 18,2016. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 25,2016,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers,Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA-2016-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential(LDR)with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2)zoning classification to a Light Industrial(I-1)designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Location: Parcel numbers 35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101 located SW of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road,further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12,Township 25 North,Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington Applicant/Owner: Michelle Anderson,Avista Corporation; PO Box 3727,MSC-21; Spokane,WA 99220-3727 Owner: Chad and Jasmine Jones; 6724 East Utah Avenue; Spokane Valley, (Parcel 35121.5101) WA 99212-1430 Date of Application: October 27,2015 Date Determined Complete January 13,2016 Staff Contact: Karen Kendall,Planner, (509) 720-5026,kkendall@spokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions,Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Amendment Application Exhibit 6: Agency comments Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential(LDR)with a Single-family Residential Suburban District(R-2)zoning classification to a Light Industrial(I-1) designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Avista is the current property owner of six parcels(35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901 and 35121.6001),Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101 and included in proposed amendment. Parcel 35121.5201 located directly south of parcel 35121.5101 has not been included in the site-specific amendment as it is not owned by AVISTA. The application meets the procedural criteria,even if parcel is not included. Avista owns approximately 10 acres west of site-specific amendment area for their natural gas service center. Avista has provided several reasons to support their application which include the following: • A growing need for more natural gas services spurring a need to expand the adjacent Natural Gas Service Center equipment and maintenance yard to accommodate for the increase capacity of materials. • The expansion of equipment storage yard will enable existing and future natural gas lines to be better served. • The current natural gas facility, accessed from Dollar Road,has served the community and existed in the area for over 20 years and has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and The combined, area of all parcels is 5.3 acres. The site is relatively flat Characteristics: with residential landscaping including trees and bushes. There are no critical areas in the amendment area or vicinity. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential(LDR) Zoning: Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) Existing Land Use: Single-family residences exist on 5 of the 7 lots. Two residences have recently been removed from site by the current property owner. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—City of Spokane Light Industrial Zoning—City of Spokane Light Industrial Existing Land Uses—railroad,Felts Field Airport, Skyway Café and airplane hangers South Comprehensive Plan—Light Industrial(I-1),Low Density Residential(LDR) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning—Light Industrial(I-1), Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Uses—Landscape material storage yard, SCRAPS, single-family residences. East Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning—Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) Existing Land Uses—Single-family Residences West Comprehensive Plan—Light Industrial(I-1) Zoning—Light Industrial(I-1) Existing Land Uses—AVISTA Natural gas service center, and storage,equipment and maintenance yard Page 2 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls),the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 5, 2016. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site assessment,public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed Light Industrial (I-1) designation is intended to serve high technology and low-impact industries as well as office and commercial uses as ancillary uses. These uses presently exist in the vicinity of the amendment area to the west, north and south. The amendment area is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Division of Utilities and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road intersect at the northeast corner of the property. Both streets are identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan as local access streets. Safety related to fire, police and road access is currently present to serve the amended area. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. Avista discovered contaminated soil on one parcel and has removed contaminants, cleaned and restored site. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. Page 3 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The proposed amendment provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. The proposed land use designation is consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: One significant change has occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. A parcel north of Trent Avenue and Bradley Road located approximately one and one half blocks south of the amendment area received approval in 2014 through a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA-2014-0002) to change the designation from LDR to CMU to expand the regional animal shelter, SCRAPS. Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family uses. Located east across Elizabeth Road are established single family uses. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: Residential and light industrial height standards vary by five feet from 35 feet in residential and a maximum of 40 feet in light industrial. The following table provides a comparison of the development standards for each zone: Page 4 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Zone Building Lot Lot Lot Front Rear Side Height Coverage Width Depth Yard Yard Yard Setback Setback Setback Existing R-2 35 ft. 50% 80 ft. 90 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. Proposed I-1 40 ft. N/A N/A N/A 20 ft. 0ft.* 0ft.* *Exception for properties adjacent to a residential use or zone shall maintain a 20 foot setback along the side and rear. AVISTA would like to expand the equipment storage yard located to the west into the proposed amendment area. Expansion of the storage yard is a less intense use compared to other light industrial uses permitted and would have a minimal impact on traffic and noise. However, the application review should consider the uses allowed in the light industrial zone since the property may be redeveloped or sold. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Considerations are placed upon adjacent uses, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Found contaminated soils have been removed and sites acquired by the new land owner, Avista, have been cleaned and or homes removed. Avista has served the community in its current location for over 20 years. The site has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Avista's equipment and material storage is a minimum depth of 100 feet located along the west property line adjacent to existing residences included in the amendment area. There is minimal intensity to current operations adjacent to the existing single family use. The expansion to existing operations would add benefit to the neighborhood as proposed operations and disturbance are less intense compared to other light industrial uses. Avista's application notes development will provide Page 5 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 landscaping, screening and restrictions of onsite operations to access Elizabeth Road. The regional benefit speaks to increased natural gas services. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 5.1 percent of the land in the City is designated for Light Industrial. Light and heavy industrial categories total 20.3 percent of the total land uses, which is larger than all the office, commercial and mixed use categories combined at 15.3 percent. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared in September of 2015 states there is a rising demand for industrial areas with an increased demand possible in the future. Light Industrial does not affect density within the City of Spokane Valley. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The current density within the single family residential suburban district (R-2) is four dwelling units per acre, except restrictions are placed upon density being located in the Airport Hazard Overlay. If development did occur to meet all development standards a maximum of 23 residences are allowed within the amendment area totaling 5.3 acres. Currently two single family residences have been removed from the site following the land purchase by Avista. There are a total of 5 residents remaining and four of which are under ownership by Avista at the consent of former owner. This does not result in displacement of residences. The amendment would have a marginal impact on population density and does not demand population analysis since there is no increase in density. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan since the amount of property that would move from a residential 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-Family Residential Suburban (R-2) zoning classification to Light Industrial(I-1) designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21 and 22. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20,Concurrency; Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Orchard Avenue Irrigation District is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed. Each parcel has direct access to a public local access street. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; Page 6 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; The map amendment is not being sought to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. However the amendment may inadvertently address a need for additional unused industrial space as described in the Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared September of 2015 stating, `However vacancies have decreased substantially from over 20 percent to less than 10 percent....at some point new space may need to be developed"Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family residences. e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; The properties located west, north and south of the subject property have a Light Industrial (I-1) land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement. f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. The proposed expansion of an existing use to the west would not create new and different operations than presently occurring. Residences located east of Elizabeth Road will be buffered by the existing public street. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible, with the application of development regulations at the time of development. g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; The amendment will allow a range of low intensity commercial uses up to light industrial assembly, manufacturing and processing as proposed uses. If development occurred individually on the seven lots there may be more impacts of several light industrial uses on each lot verse a consolidation of the amended area into one parcel. The currently property owner of six lots is Avista. Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Page 7 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 The proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Light Industrial designation provides for expansion of adjacent property to the west and consistent with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity for additional light industrial uses serving as a transitional category between heavy industrial and other less intense land use categories. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG-1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent nonresidential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Goal LUG-10 Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial areas. Goal LUG-12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industrial areas. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Policy NP-3.3 Encourage commercial development that is designed and scaled in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with public water and sewer. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as local access streets according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Public hearing noticing was mailed on February 8, 2016, the site was posted on February 10, 2016 and the notice was published in the Valley News Herald(local newspaper) on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016. Staff has not received any public comments as of the date of staff report. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff routed the initial proposal to agencies on January 13, 2016 and received no comments. Two comments have been received following the notice of public hearing sent to agencies on February 8, 2016 by Spokane County Division of Utilities and Spokane Tribe of Indians (see Exhibit 6). Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Liberty Lake, Community Development No City of Millwood No City of Spokane,Planning Services No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Spokane County,Building and Planning No Spokane County,Division of Utilities-Info Svc Yes 2-10-16 Spokane County,Clean Air Agency No Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 No Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 No Spokane County,Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority(STA) No Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) No Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) No Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) No Washington State Department of Fish&Wildlife No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation No Avista Utilities No East Valley School District#363 No Century Link No Comcast No Orchard Avenue Irrigation District#16 No Spokane Tribe of Indians Yes 2-17-16 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 9 of 9 CPA-2016-0001 Vicinity Map J r� T , , E, I 0 0 35013.0201 -Bridgeport-Av va T w a o w w o cn Q ® W rn a T .r r ...c, N Liberty Ave °; o o A; o o 35015.0002 y o @ s ; Dalton Ave , m a ® w Ito\ L5"�m p r R a Q fl. 7 �r, 27',..„--ah R e, J a ,. ro o-Ave Q lc w D -r.. a Eu D Frederick Ave ' 4' rr 7,7 a -- a ° Frederick Ave 01111,---L- Frederick Ave L m M I L L W,O © D.- -ir+ 7 -:V An a Fairview Ave Fairview Ave Grace Ave Fatrvtew Ave o --N� 1141 IIIll Q O'' 1 x e 0 Grace Ave la W ro �. I..1 < 35111.0001 ©`� o a h Py x a • - '''^ Buckeye Ave �'9 Grace-Ave MIC , y''Y. 35122.0013 ' Uta 0 Y ii J II U a Buckeye A'F _r. ro a _Ql�I.4L�1 11. ��~ .+ a n m a w Buckeye-Ave q.+ ro Q �� 7D- Nil ��uu� Marietta Ave T v ° York Avengr. ,.p.-ve�tiat� ro "Jackson Ave 0.00''' tee `a SPOKANE v,\-It s o Carlisle Ave a Carlisle Av �°� a Av r „ rr35115 0• _ Wa Montgomery rn .0102 ro o 4 `^1 Pilir 4 ` n - -o 2 ,- [1_ Mans#field Ave o yy x0� o c[ cecc 5 a n m 0 � Lf,--1 m 3511 /4 , o, ,c= 7, '� a, Knox Ave ro a.. _0.----4 �®•"`�0 n, Knox Ave M ° b a. a a 1 000 pve 77 ' � �'`i n Ave o °� ® rb 70 a o° t Ave a 450�� \Avoad Shannon Ave w % o c' a MichieNi Aveb Vn�° e Av 0 J " 70 o _� m �Ce Ln Indiana Ave a ° ic .r o �/, fietc r a ro" ° lndaana ,n m -' °� L ��DO r1% 'COfi „ ' e` C XI L. v ' t ,,/•� Hu c� ,„.00atttt,� „''^ 0. i ; SPOKANE VALLEY Nora Ave Augusta Av r., er D WYiil�'' � vaII 1 it mir”fII Mission AveiiiiiVliSSIOcHl a cr o Qti� 11111 Maxwell Ave Maxwell Avs, '+� '- ro ve tu a a '\" aa� r- C' a d z Sinta AYe r a P �.'n m m �^r dt o z All Ra��to. Y In L 3 -I o. d Ct p v r --L--- 51:1:13C".". yllli �` m Sharp Ave en z o S�7`�rPAve Y11 7/ a0° a Boone Ave 2 U= .0' �Z .,, a m 7o Boone Ave ^ia�g 0. ° z " ro rbv r� ■ rof a n 20 o A518�,9178 °` T Cataldo Ave A °Q 1� ° ro v i[ii: ro Q m _ a. a ro i+ -t L. r y Ln a. a Dean Ave 5u _ -s a, Mallon Ave, �, ¢ Broadway Ave Err!, Mallon Ave A xi 7 2,950.2 0 1,475.10 2,950.2 Feet O This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. t,. .\.4CPA-2016-0001 Comprehensive Plan Map ri. ,>_________., . - . o 35111.0001 v rD L' °- Ave ■hU '� '- .---:,_-- r,i o g _Fal. vi N " = Pi e o z 7 Utah Low Density Residential- 0 a O. O 0 l =. �,ya 35122.0013 Buckeye Ave SPOKANE .. 164'og -';---, ----rip� III WI1z 35122.0405 0 435 00° m ®® • Marietta-Ave - L.() ire m �� .. 35111.0186 35122.0404 �p�0h�_ e Lam" co a El tte oo_ 1 II 1111 1 i - o=�� 0. o —' , n , 7 '�. �,� N � �� o Carlisle Ave fl. '° �. oL .� u, r rfl l-- H --- 0,, 35115.0102 . �>'c"1, m " �' J-� 1 I I 1 ■ —� ---? Montgomery Ave _ 35125.2303 —� r -- SPOKANE \\� 35115.0202 �i' Light I[k[lllstl'►ill 35123.2402 VALLEYIIa r �' \`� _' L 35123,2401 '� x t� Mansfield Ave w E 35123.0414 m l -0 6 a 7 a M, . 35123.2501 cc a- m Pie : Knox Ave D a o o—;High Density Residential Rye n‘o�` e o co �� ecce P� I 35123.0614rD 35123,2603 a �a�lCoad 7 Co C.13°"1 , Me Corridor Mixed Use S�vNa{e , a a 1`15 0. u 35123.2705 512.0. �n Indiana Ave Trent Ave o 290 45077.0002 3 ,nd►aria oll , 0 35124.150$ Baldwin Ave it O. aO c, 35114.0027 Baldwin Ave - `n 0 o �`' rV l/1 Q n Ln m m 3c�y2 , Nora Ave 7 m Heavy Industrialrn L6 7J m n 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feet O This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. CPA-2016-0001 Zoning Map J :,:___-. 35111.0001 ;v m I '� �Fali JIew-Ave — _ o O. PPII As' M1.1 im• <•i 1. .�•, II: Buckeye Ave ° 35122.0013 Ej±±1 N, ilh''1) SPOKANE cv `8 X21— H l pi „- ■ 35122.0405 0 - .I'. �, .k. r, - N :_.. Marietta-Ave , I 11111111 _ Ln OMMINI 35122.0404 m.. % ,," -cfro - 35111.d186 :, 4'�..--P�e -1 , ■� T NMI k 1 - 1 1111111111111111 NOM m-,,,, :� ++ \o\ N i.- 1 1111111111111111 MI Carlisle-Ave 11.,.. ....In ... li \ 35115.01102 +®®N.-, \`')<')N"\ \m El O— IN -, —_ .►' ++ `\\\ Mont omer.y Ave 35115.0202 ' \ \O \\\\ �35125'23d3�� " y �— ' y p[ ��— . \\\' .p+++ -,35123.0202`,..,,\\\�\ \,` 35123:2402 \\\\;\ _ _=� n ��\\ \\\' \ _ S R.O'K•A•N E VALLEY__ - —� k;,\ \\\\\ \35123,2401' 70 -� �� \� ��Mansfield�Ave ` \�:\� a w i :'N'N X35123.0414. \ --;"--Ill'-:: 7::::- ...". �� ---- .m\\\\\\� \\\1=1\ o` �. \�� .\ z�+��+\,.. 35123:2501\ � ` ,3 A m Pve n Knox Ave - �\`\\��\�\\\\�\1%.*:.."._ .. _2 \\n\� .�. a AiF`_\\ 7\ ion n.,.+: \`� \�-1.,.., , o \�� \ �� \ d Pule P`le \`��m \ \' \=�35123.2603�w \\\w\„ o = \'� Ivo.- rn— [ e ce 35123.0614 .,c \ \ \ �\ \ \ \\\ % 2-7 OW CO ), C Ave �� \`a\ �� \��j0 \� 4' :.CAR \ .1� 17: 7° �� ' I I �:\:� \\ � �: -,:;„.,;,....z, _„.....,..:-.'"Zc-,'12". ',IN-'''''' 1.n__Indiana-Ave ,35123:2705:\ �\\\ 3`_. �� ria_ ;. IG` l - Trent Ave �045077.0002 ��\\\\\ ��11d1.3 I I I I �. \�\ \\ \ \ \ 4:15tis. \ ..Baldvvin�Ave o.`-\� \\ \ \\ .\`\\\\ \`\ \� •3512 \ \\ 35114.0027 r \ \ \\+\� \, \ \ \ .: Baldwin Ave ��\m\ .\� \ �[� \\\\\\ _.. ` .� \.:-,,A2 `,,L74 �I oorarA e 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feet0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. .. CPA-2016-0001 2014 Aerial Map .'.'.."-:'/' : „A*'-:. NOM .-,-,..7r-TITXTAni ,.< l' fIJ _ te .. • c-' .■■r •�: 0 . "+ -S Y 1111111j-TPT---7 � 35111 0001 "� + „ , C. _� • / r-'-� , 0I"1 / o, Fairview `Ave t • R - ! 4 11111 — Q } % CI r /� O �� s. // 9' "- 35122.0013 // 4.* , K'A N a ■ // 3 Burke a Ave umik " 35122.0405 r f�/i' °,� ' y• 3g12 rr ..�% Marietta Ave §ro 35111.01$6 •`� 35122.0404 •�� 'j�'`�d4 Ca �. `I +rr� _�� 'm 70_- p a%Utah of C. rD ."--w _ -0 • 1. w . - r i� 1' a t. Carlisle Ave - ' m car, ' t c Montgomery Ave _ � � a / • J 35115,0202 / • it a ' u ., % / . 35123.0202 35123:2402 1 35125.2303 - Mansfield Ave ,E /� ;35123_2401 . - Mansfield Ave / - : 123 041g _ 'G .,C ¢ 0 p: - -. 35 n o v ----•:•, 35123 2501 9 0. n •Q c • ..,„;„......„...-...„...-„....-/—.; � a, e m Ca 4. ra a U0�o� ve n Knox Ave ro o `a �" =- d ��e., e P al 35123:2603 = c7 ¢ _—��-- ,`ro �, '. eCc 3 .35123.0614 b -� � ala OC-c) Ave u;,: �,' � `Za41111 se<' 77 �- a a I 45077.0002 � � c�� o It r ip.... `.< , �■ m ��-��: iz/DA , ��, • Indiana Ave v Trent Ave 35123:2705'®: �� /�� 3 d�ana_ al o —-�/--..--,-,,-;.....=-__-- �� 351241508 In , Baldwin Aver 35114.0427 �,\ Baldwin Ave N......0, l �,�,;�. �1�� ' _ � �� 31� 1l� chi "'' ,..,:-..--',..-0.-..._--.....„-_,,...--,4,. , �� _.1 111 ,• - 1INre L t,; ' 1� I-II "C., {I . •, •ti`s �1��% �;irT 1 1 iAve 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feet el This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 11,2016 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Karen Kendall,Planner Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the February 11, 2016 agenda as presented The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 10, 2015 minutes as they were presented The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 28, 2015 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Election of 2016 Officers: Ms. Horton explained she would accept nominations for position,hand out ballots if there were more than one nomination for the position, announce the voting, declare a winner and then hold the next election with the same process. Only members who have served on the Commission for more than one year are eligible to serve as chair and vice chair, a member cannot serve in either positon for more than two consecutive years. Ms. Horton called for nominations for the positon of chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Graham, who accepted the nomination. Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner Phillips, who accepted the nomination. Ms. Horton handed out ballots, the Commission filled out the ballots,they were collected and Ms. Horton read the results: Commissioner voting: Cast Vote for: Anderson Graham Graham Graham Johnson Graham Kelley Phillips Phillips Graham Stathos Graham Stoy Graham Commissioner Graham was declared the Chair of the Commission for 2016. Ms. Horton then called for nominations for the position of vice-chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Stoy, who accepted the nomination. Hearing no other nominations, Commissioner Stoy was declared the vice-chair. 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 B. Study Session: CPA-2016-0001,A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,near Elizabeth and Utah,requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR)to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have an equipment yard. Commissioner Graham said there is a parcel, addressed 2527 N. Elizabeth, which has not been included in the proposal. She asked why that parcel was not part of the proposal and would it be was considered an island. Ms. Kendall stated she knew the property owner had been contacted however did not participate in the request. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the Commission if they felt they should recommend including the parcel. Commissioner Stoy asked if the parcel were occupied,Ms. Kendall responded she was not aware. However, Commissioner Anderson stated he had done research to note that the property had changed hands in 2015. Commissioner Anderson said Avista started buying property in 2014. Commissioner Anderson commented there was only one line in the staff report which mentioned the fact that the extra property was not part of the proposal. Ms. Barlow asked Commissioner Anderson how he would like staff to address the subject. Commissioner Anderson stated he would not have allowed the proposal to be processed at all. Ms. Barlow stated she was confused as to why Commissioner Anderson would feel non- inclusion of the one parcel would invalidate the entire request. Commissioner Anderson stated the proposal properties were purchased as R-2 zoning, (LDR), and he would not allow the non- included parcel to be surrounded by LI on three sides. Commissioner Johnson stated it was already LI at the rear of the property. Commissioner Anderson agreed all the parcels currently exist as single family and light industrial uses. Commissioner Anderson said he would not allow LI on the other two sides,just because someone wants to do it. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was a way to contact the single parcel owner and ask them why they are not participating. Ms. Barlow stated that property owner would be contacted and probably already had been, as part of the public notification procedures. Ms. Kendall stated the notices for the public hearing had gone out to the surrounding 400 foot radius of the proposal which was mailed on Monday, February 8, 2016. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, February 9, 2016. Ms. Kendall said she was aware Avista's real estate department had contacted the property owner with a proposal to purchase the property, but at this time the parcel was not included in the Comprehensive Plan request. Ms. Kendall stated she would contact the applicant and ask them to address this subject at the public hearing. Commissioner Kelley asked Commissioner Anderson if the excluded parcel was included in the request,would it change his perspective on the proposal. Commissioner Anderson said if the property owner of excluded property, came in and said they were ok LI all the way around their property, then he might look at the proposal differently. There was no explanation in any of the paperwork which said what Avista had done about this lone parcel in the middle of the request, Commissioner Anderson was concerned because the property just changed hands recently.. Commissioner Stathos asked if Avista had contacted this single property owner prior to the property being sold in 2015. Ms. Kendall stated she was not aware of any of Avista's negotiations, but could contact the applicant and ask them to address it in their comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated he was aware of a previous proposal for this area and the two parcels to the north were not included in the previous request. Now the farthest one is included, but the next one in is not. Ms. Kendall stated Avista waited to submit the proposal until the real estate transaction for the property addressed as 6724 E. Utah was completed. It is close to being finished and will be complete by the time this request is finished. However they wanted to get make the deadline for submitting the request in 2015 and not have to wait another year. Commissioner Johnson asked if 6724 E. Utah was added after the request had been submitted. Ms. Kendall stated the request had been amended to add the seventh parcel (6724 E. Utah). Commissioner Johnson asked if this amendment would make a valid request. Ms. Barlow responded the application and request was valid at submittal, and the request to add the additional parcel was a valid amendment to the application. Ms. Barlow said she would like to clarify a couple of things before moving forward. The parcel at 2527 N. Elizabeth, which is not included in the request, would not be considered an island. There 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 is LDR across the ROW from it, so it would not be isolated. Ms. Barlow said in the case of private property rights the City places a high amount of deference to private property rights. However, zoning is a legislative authority, and when making decisions for the good of the City, the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and ultimately the Council's decision, has the authority include pieces of property like this one in the request. Ms. Barlow said there is a set of criteria outlined in the staff report which should be used for the basis of the decision being made. Should the City be challenged, a legal team would use this criterion to determine if the result was a legally defensible decision. Commissioner Graham asked for the definition of an island since staff did not feel the parcel (2527) would be considered one. Ms. Barlow said an island would be completely surrounded and this would not be completely surrounded on all sides. Mr. Driskell stated the argument would be the City creating spot zoning and this would not be considered spot zoning. The parcel (2527) is still contiguous with the zoning across the right-of-way, and the rest of the parcels abut the LI zoning behind them,which is in complete accordance with the City's regulations. Commissioner Anderson said LUG-10 was quoted in the findings in the staff report, along with the findings related to LI, however in his opinion the Commission members should be able to see under LUG-1 LUP 1.2, LUP 1.7 and LUP 12.1 which address land use on private property to give a comparison. Ms. Barlow said she respected private property rights, but from a professional standpoint it would not make any sense to leave the one parcel as LDR and change the others. Commissioner Johnson said for him it would make a difference if 6724 E. Utah sale were to be finalized. Ms. Barlow said there would be no reason to think it would not be finalized. Commissioner Anderson said if 2527 N Elizabeth stayed a residential property it would damage the person's personal property value. Ms. Barlow said she felt that statement was subjective, but based on that, any change of the properties around it would have a similar effect on that parcel. Commission Stoy asked if residential was allowed in an LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated a new residence would not be allowed in a LI zone. However according to the City's nonconforming regulations Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.20.060(A)(5) Existing legally established single-family residential uses located in any nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use. Ms. Kendall shared the development regulations would require buffering if 2527 N Elizabeth remains as R-2 and Avista chose to develop any buildings up against the property line. Buffering could be in the form of a sight obscuring fence and landscaping. This would be required if there was a building proposed, but not if they are just using it for storage. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a site obscuring fence in place now between the properties and the parcel to the west. He said the parcel at 6610 E. Utah changed ownership in 2008. Staff explained since the conditions on the property have not changed, there would be no trigger for the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be access restrictions for Elizabeth or could the approval be conditioned to restrict access from Elizabeth, should the property ever be sold. Ms. Kendall stated the access would be controlled at the time of development. It would depend on whether or not the parcels were combined, and it would be determined based on the City's Street Standards. Ms.Kendall said the applicant has stated they are proposing to expand their yard and are not proposing any access from the proposed lots. Access would be only from the existing access from their yard on Utah. Ms. Barlow did not feel as if the Street Standards would allow access, however would defer to the Development Engineers to confirm this. Mr. Driskell said it would be fair to include a recommendation for this proposal to the City Council for them to consider. Ms. Barlow said the proposal should be looked at not only with consideration to the surrounding property owner's rights, but also considered the property owner who is making the request. There must be a balance in the considerations. Commissioner Graham clarified that buffering is required when a commercial building is put up against a property line, a fence and landscaping, when "adjacent" to a residential zone. However adjacent does not qualify across the ROW when it comes to a landscaping requirements. Ms. Kendall said the setbacks for landscaping requirements would be 20 feet from a zone or a use, 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 which would not be as great as the ROW. Commissioner Graham said she was trying to determine if the word adjacent was used in the same manner in the code. Ms. Barlow said the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5) states, Property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include comer touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; this is where the City applies the zoning criteria standard. Commissioner Graham wondered why this same adjacency would not be applied to the need for buffers. Ms. Barlow said this language comes from the "Changes and Amendments" section of the SVMC. The landscaping buffers are in another section of the code and there is a discrepancy in the way the two adjacencies are defined. However they should be defined differently, because there should not be a five foot wall of screening running along the ROW. Buffers are developed for side and rear yards to protect residential private space. Screening in the front yard addresses different issues, such as security issues along the ROW. Commissioner Stathos asked if hazardous materials would be allowed in a LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated there are some, however these properties are located in the Airport Overlay Zone which further restricts what uses and materials can be allowed in this zone. Commissioner Stathos also wondered what the emergency response time was in the area. Ms. Barlow said the Fire Department was routed notice of the application and generally addresses any concerns through this process. Ms. Kendall indicated the fire department had not commented. Ms. Barlow said this generally means the provider has no concerns. Staff stated they would contact the fire department by the public hearing. Commissioner Stathos wondered if there was a requirement for a specific response time for hazardous materials. Commissioner Johnson confirmed the staff report said the property could support 23 homes if all of the lots were consolidated and the lots were completely empty. Commissioner Stoy asked how wide the ROW was on Elizabeth and Utah. Staff will get answers for the next meeting. The public comment period is 15 days from the date of the public mailing. SEPA notice was done 3-4 weeks ago. No public comment had been received to date. Commissioner Graham said she had read there had been soil contamination on site, and she wanted to know what and where it was. Ms. Kendall said she did not know what the contamination was,but she would request the information. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson noted the Planning Commission meetings are not on the City calendar on the City's website. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. tiVA a9/1 - 2 12 q ',oi1�� Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 25,2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Christina Janssen, Planner Tim Kelley Karen Kendall, Planner Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the February 25, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the February 11, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Trader's Club meeting. The other Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing: CPA-2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA-2016-0001. The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have a natural gas equipment yard. Avista proposes to expand their natural gas storage facility in this area. Ms. Kendall noted she had received one comment letter from Mark Zink, 2420 N. Elizabeth. Ms. Kendall said she had some answers to questions from the study session. She said one question was the width of the right-of-way (ROW) the width of Utah is approximately 30 feet wide, Elizabeth is approximately 40 feet wide with 30 feet of pavement. Ms. Kendall said another question was regarding approaches. The City's street standards would apply at the time of development, but each parcel could have a maximum of two approaches but would need to meet the standard. Ms. Kendall said the parcels may be small enough they could only have one approach. Only if access was taken off of Elizabeth would frontage improvements be necessary including curb, sidewalks and swales. Ms. Kendall contacted the Spokane Valley Fire Dept. regarding response times, they indicated when a call comes in they notify the closest truck for any emergency response call. This would be any emergency call which came into the department. The department does have a haz-mat response unit,but it for larger spills. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were no approaches installed along Elizabeth,then what kind of improvements would be required. Ms. Kendall responded she could not tell at this time, this would be something which would be determined at the time of future development and would depend on what was being proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Stoy asked if the parcels would have to be aggregated into one. Ms. Kendall stated it would not be required. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Ron Staton, Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said Avista purchased the property which fronts Dollar Road in the mid 90's and began transitioning the natural gas storage to this facility because of over-crowding at the Mission location. In 2008 and 2009 Avista purchased the adjoining properties and built a fleet maintenance building. In 2014 and 2015 Avista sent letters to the property owners along Elizabeth to inquire if they were interested in selling. Seven of the lots were sold to Avista along Elizabeth Road, one property owner was not interesting in selling. Avista also purchased a triangle shaped piece in the middle of their property. Avista is proposing to change the zoning to Light Industrial. They are going to use the property for storage of natural gas pipe. Mr. Staton said this was a non-project related request, meaning Avista does not have a specific project coming up in which they need a place to store extra pipe. Avista is out of room in their Mission Avenue storage area and need more room to grow their operations. They need more room to be able to store all the pipe, allow for contractors to come and maneuver in the yard with room to grow for future growth. Mr. Staton said Avista was not opposed to all of the properties in the row, including the one they did not purchase being zoned the same. Mr. Staton said Avista works with the building and planning departments to be a good neighbor and make improvements which are required when developing a property. Mr. Staton commented on the improvements Avista had made on Utah. Mr. Staton said one of the properties had a dump site on it, which Avista spent $65,000 to clean up. Mr. Staton said Avista is a quiet neighbor, the crews come in and leave the yard around 7:30 in the morning, they return around 3:30 in the afternoon, and there are is nothing going on at the property at night. He said Avista has no desire to build along Elizabeth Road. All of the trucks exit the current facility out of Utah or Dollar and travel out of the neighborhood on those roads. Commissioner Anderson asked if there is no project what will happen to the property. Mr. Staton replied the purchases came about because the site was running out of room to store natural gas piping. Avista would like to install some asphalt and begin to store additional pipe on it. They are going to acquire the proper permits and do whatever is necessary to make this possible. Commissioner Johnson asked about the soil testing and lead levels. Mr. Staton responded Avista had removed 68 dump truck loads of old bike parts, washing machines, car parts and other old metal painted items, along with a lot of other debris. Mr. Staton felt the lead levels were from the old lead based paints from the old parts in the `neighborhood dump.' Commissioner Stoy asked if there was enough room on the site for Avista's needs. Mr. Staton said they felt this should be enough storage space for the next 20 years,there is no natural gas stored on the site, only pipe, meter assembly sets, meter repair, gas lines. Commissioner Stathos asked if they would continue to only store piping on the property. Mr. Staton replied Avista has an internal environmental department and it is very important to them to be in compliance with all the required standards. Commissioner Graham asked about a curvy property line between the fleet maintenance facility and the Elizabeth Road properties, and were there any other places where Avista was storing natural gas piping. Mr. Staton said the curvy line is a piece of property purchased from the railroad,there are nothing other natural gas pipe storage facilities except one in northern Idaho. Chair Graham then asked for testimony from the public. Mark Zink, 2420 N Elizabeth Road: Mr. Zink said he was concerned about what would happen along Elizabeth Road, but that Mr. Staton had answered most of his questions. He said he was aware of the improvements which had occurred on Utah and he was happy with that. He wondered what kind of a timeline there would be for the improvements. Mark Shollenberger,2205 N Bradley Road: Mr. Shollenberger said the only access would be on to Utah and down Dollar Road. He said that is not true, that every morning and every night, the trucks are coming down Bradley. Dollar Road is backed up and so they use Bradley to get around the problem. Mr. Shollenberger said he had brought this up when the SCRAPS facility was being proposed. He said there used to be a sign which said no trucks allowed, however someone hit it and the county came out and instead of putting it back up, they just took it away. He says he has called code enforcement and they have done nothing about the many dead cats, dogs and squirrels caused by the trucks coming down the road. He is concerned that this will just increase the number of trucks coming from Avista, along with Mutual Materials and Standard Battery. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Buddy Meagley, 2504 N Elizabeth Road: Mr. Meagley stated his daughter was buying the property which was the one piece Avista did not own. His was concerned the rezoning would make the property taxes go up. He also stated he would not be very happy if he had to look at the yellow pipe all the time. Ron Staton,Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said he would be calling the facility manager and have the drivers stop driving down Bradley. He would support the reposting of the 'no trucks' sign on Bradley as well. Mr. Staton said he will be happy to comply with whatever standards are necessary as they move forward. They do not have a large project moving forward, other than replacing old pipe which was put down in the 70's. He also said there is a brick house on the corner and there will be someone living in it until May. During the study session the sale on the corner property was not final, Mr. Staton said the sale was completed this day and all the cars had been removed from the property. Having no one else who wished to test, Chair Graham closed the public testimony at 6:55 p.m. Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend approval of CPA-2016-0001. Commissioner Graham asked if the fleet maintenance property was bought and improved in 2009 why wasn't a fence put along the properties on Elizabeth. Planner Christina Janssen explained that at the time of the development,the `curvy' piece of property between the Elizabeth Road properties and the fleet maintenance property was owned by the rail road and so it was not required at that time. Commissioner Johnson said, if this were not approved for Light Industrial but was combined for residential, there could be 23 homes built upon the same ground and that would be worse than what Avista wanted to do to it. Commissioner Johnson said he felt that the recommendation should be to straight line the recommendation and not jog around the one parcel. Commissioner Phillips said, if the zoning was different on the one parcel, Avista would have to fence around it, if it was the same zoning,then they would not. Commissioner Stoy asked if the zoning was changed to be a straight line for all the lots, would the landscaping buffers and setback apply because it was a residential use on the property. Ms. Barlow said the code protects the zones, not the individual uses. Commissioner Phillips said he would ordinarily be in favor of including the extra lot in the request but in this case he would prefer to go around it to protect the buffers would apply. Commissioner Kelley said he would be in favor of including the other parcel in the request. Commissioner Graham said she was not in favor of blanket zoning, and would rather leave the other lot as R-2. She said she had concerns about the project but would support it if the other commissioners did. She said she was glad to hear Avista was willing to put up a fence, but knows they need a place to store the pipe. Commissioner Johnson said he would support the one lot remaining residential. Commissioner Kelley said he had changed his mind and he would support the one lot remaining residential. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed B. Study Session — CTA-2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission had discussed the changes to the state marijuana regulations in order to bring the medical marijuana businesses under regulation. The state has aligned the regulations for `medical' to be more in line with those of the recreational marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said he understood that there will be no `medical' marijuana, there will only be compliant and non-compliant marijuana. He offered the retail stores will require a special license, training, labeling and tracking for the compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham confirmed the five collectives currently selling `medical' marijuana can apply for a retail license or they must stop doing business as of July 1 this year. Mr. Lamb also confirmed with the current moratorium in place, the state did not issue the City any new retail opportunities. Based on the way the state was allocating new stores around the state, Mr. Lamb said he expected without the moratorium, the City would probably have been given three more retail stores to accommodate the 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 change in regulations for the compliant marijuana. People could apply for the new licenses, however priority would be given to those who have been running a collective. The current recommendation from the Planning Commission was to not allow any additional retail stores or any more producers or processors and to ban any kind of club. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the Commission also wanted to expand the buffers to the maximum allowable between retail stores, should in the future the state say the cities cannot prohibit marijuana stores. There was discussion of the taxes collected from the marijuana; the City last year received $75,000 in excise taxes from marijuana, along with any sales taxes. These funds are not ear-marked for any specifically, except 10% at the state level is to be used for education. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was anything in the state being looked at like this related to home grown alcohol,Mr. Lamb was not aware of any. Commissioner Anderson said he would consider allowing additional compliant marijuana stores, but no more recreational marijuana stores. He also felt that the compliant marijuana should be required to be separated from the recreational by a physical barrier. Commissioner Johnson said Mr. Lamb explained there would be no legal basis for the City to require an operation to be compliant only or to require a retail store to separate their complaint and non-compliant operations with a physical barrier. Mr. Lamb said if the Commissioners wanted to allow additional `medical' or compliant stores they would need to allow more retail operations which allowed recreational as well. Commissioner Johnson said this would be a fine way to help with control of younger patients, but people of age were going to be able to go into a store and purchase whatever they would want to. He feels prescription drugs were a larger problem and there should be a clear perspective on what is trying to be accomplished. Commissioner Kelley commented the state of Massachusetts is trying to develop a prescription drug program. Commissioner Graham stated that as a school nurse she feels there is a transition from marijuana to other drugs. She feels there is a transition taking place now from marijuana to heroin. She feels the mistake being made is not providing enough education. She said she is seeing an upswing in children using e-cigarettes and underage drinking. Ms. Barlow stated there is an opportunity, if the Commissioners would like to take it, for the Commission to tour a producing/processing facility as well as a retail operation. If there is interest staff can set up a special meeting and make arrangements to facilitate this field trip. Thursday March 3, 2016 at 5:30 p.m.was agreed upon for the field trip. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. --Aciksg , Chair Graham Date signed d_fula_E411-47' (—_-, 4 _ Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, March 10,2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Karen Kendall,Planner Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy, absent excused Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections Commissioner Stoy was excused from the March 10, 2016 meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the March 10, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 25, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the city of Liberty Lake is holding a Planning Short Course on April 27, 2016. She said if any of the Commissioners are interested in attending to let Ms.Horton know and she would assist them in their registration. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Planning Commission Findings: CPA-2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Planner Karen Kendall reviewed the Planning Commission's findings from the public hearing held February 25, 2016, on the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA-2016-0001. The Planning Commission found the proposed amendment was consistent with the approval criteria in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H), it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for CPA-2016-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed. B. Study Session — CTA-2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission had previously discussed the changes to the state marijuana regulations in order to bring the medical marijuana businesses under regulation. The state has aligned the regulations for `medical' to be more in line with those of the recreational marijuana. Mr. Lamb reviewed the proposed changes to the SVMC. The definitions have been updated to reflect the current state RCW's. Also,they will be current when the state updates its definitions as ours will be updated by reference. Section 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to remove any `S' which means permitted with supplemental conditions. These uses are no longer permitted, but the reference to SVMC 19.85 in the "supplemental conditions" will still exist to 03-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 direct users to SVMC 19.85 for reference on additional marijuana regulations. Also, existing lawful uses will be legal nonconforming uses which will still be allowed to continue. Section 19.85 has been updated to reflect the Commission's desire to prohibit any new production, processing and retail sales in the City. A section has been added to address the collectives, which allows home grows for individuals with a medical endorsement. There is a restriction for combustible type of processing in a home grow situation. Home growing is limited to residential R-1 through R-4 zones only. Mr. Lamb said the public hearing is set for April 14,2016. Commissioner Anderson raised a question regarding taxes. Mr. Lamb explained the excise tax on marijuana sales is 37%, which does not include sales tax. The City is allocated an amount of the excise tax based on the number of retail stores the City has. Last year the City received approximately $75,000 from the marijuana sales. An authorization card gives a patient relief from those taxes. Commissioner Anderson asked if that included the sales tax as well,Mr. Lamb said he would have to check into that. Commissioner Kelley shared an article from the Seattle Times, written by Bob Young, from Monday February 15, 2016. He said he had read this article and it addressed the use of unacceptable pesticides some growers have been using on marijuana plants. Commissioner Kelley said he brought the article because he had brought up pesticides during the tour and wanted to bring the information and share it with the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Kelley said there is no way to know right now which pesticides are safe, and he feels there should be a 'slow go' philosophy. He said until these safety issues can be worked out the City should not rush into allowing more businesses before the safety issues are known. Commissioner Anderson shared a spreadsheet he created after trying to understand the compliant vs. recreational and when an authorization card was needed. Commissioner Graham said she was surprised at how close the retail shop, which the Commission visited on March 3, 2016, was to a bar. She wanted to know if it was possible to place a restriction on how close a retail store was to a marijuana retail shop. She also wanted to know if a retail shop was required to "not sell" to someone who appeared to be impaired. Mr. Lamb confirmed it was possible to restrict the location of a retail shop,but he would need to check regarding selling to someone who was impaired. Commissioner Johnson asked why it would be a problem if a retail shop was next to a bar. Many times there is a bar next to a bar,and this is not much different, except you can't consume the product on site. He offered one of the sites visited was employing just over 100 people and they would like to double that figure,but they can't because of our current moratorium. They also would not be able to do it with the way the regulations are currently drafted. He felt that cigarettes and alcohol were more of a gateway to harder things and much easier to get than marijuana. The companies which were visited were clean, generating jobs and revenue for the City. He felt this was important as well. Commissioner Johnson acknowledged Commissioner Graham,being a school nurse,probably saw worse issues in the school system than he did. But funds to provide education, education materials, teachers, and nurses, was under high demand all around the state. Commissioner Kelley said just because the state approved marijuana doesn't mean we should open the floodgate. He said the people in the community can make a living, people can buy it here,but he felt there should be no more allowed in the City until there is a better understanding of it. The Commissioners asked about chemical extraction, Ms. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner, said currently there have been no requests for chemical extraction in the City. Chemical extraction would not be allowed in a residential zone. Ms. Barlow asked if the Commissioners felt there was benefit from the field trip which toured a marijuana producer/processor and retail shop. The majority of the Commissioners agreed they found some benefit in the tour, they learned things they had wondered about, i.e.: size of plants, how they are processed, and how it is packaged and sold and gained a better understanding of the use as a business. However, Commissioner Kelley indicated he was disappointed in the experience. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. 03-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Chair Graham Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of March 31,2016; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress;items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 12,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004 Uncovered loads—Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Approval of WSDOT Call for Projects—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Comp Plan Tiny Homes Discussion—Micki Harnois (15 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Follow-up Comp Plan Goals—John Hohman (45 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] April 19,2016,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 11] ACTION ITEM: 1.First Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 16-005 (City Hall)—Mark Calhoun (25 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2.Accomplishments Report—Mark Calhoun and Directors (90 minutes) 3. Public Safety Ad Hoc Committees— Cary Driskell (30 minutes) 4. Port District Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 165 minutes] Friday, April 22, 2016; 9:30—noon; Spokane Regional Council of Governments meeting;Fair&Expo Ctr. April 26,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 18] Proclamation: Older Americans Month 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004 Uncovered loads—Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amend.(CPA-2016-0001)—K.Kendall(20 min) 4.Admin Report: City Hall Bid Opening—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] May 3,2016, 6:00 p.m. Study Session Meeting Cancelled(tentative) May 3,2016, Special Meeting: 5:00 p.m. (tentative) 1. Motion Consideration: City Hall Bid Award—Eric Guth May 3,2015,Special Joint Meeting, City Council&Planning Commission, 5:30 p.m. (tentative)f2-3 hours Comprehensive Plan Discussion—John Hohman May 10,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 16-005 (City Hall)—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amend.(CPA-2016-0001)—K.Kendall(10 min) 4.Admin Report: HCDAC Report—Christine Barada,Tim Crowley (30 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program Plan Update [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 3/31/2016 8:52:25 AM Page 1 of 3 May 17,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 9] 1. 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program Plan Update —Eric Guth (15 minutes) 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 24,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Stormwater Management Program Plan Approval—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 31,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 23] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) June 7,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due May 27] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) June 14 2016, Special Mtg,Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (no evening mtg) [due Mon, June 6] Council Chambers June 21,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 13] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) June 28,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports July 5,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 27] 1. Review LTAC Council Goals and Priorities—Mark Calhoun (25 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 12,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,July 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 19,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,July 11] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 26,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,July 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Consensus on LTAC Council Goals and Priorities—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports August 2,2016—No Meeting(National Night out) August 9,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: 2017 Budget Estimates Revenues&Expenditures—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 3/31/2016 8:52:25 AM Page 2 of 3 *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Annexation Avista Electrical Franchise AWC Conference (June 21-24) Carnahan& 8th Intersection Domestic Violence Advocacy(Police) Drug Enforcement Update—Rick VanLeuven Economic Development Marketing Plan Emergency Preparedness Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy HCDAC Board Member Presentation Independent Investigative Counsel Ord 15-023 Marijuana Ext/Renew [unlicensed medical shops] (expires 6/9/16) Ord 16-003 Mining Ext. (expires 8/21/16) Sidewalk/snow removal SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion SRTMC Agreement(June/July 2016) TIP 2017-2022 (May/June) Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Draft Advance Agenda 3/31/2016 8:52:25 AM Page 3 of 3 SCI[1 •- - po[11 kane Parks and Recreation Department Valle2426 N. Discovery Place 0 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 4000' 509.688.0300 Fax: 509.688.0188 parksandrec@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council Members; Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: March 30, 2016 Re: Updated Senior Citizens Association MOU with City of Spokane Valley CenterPlace Regional Event Center opened on September 24, 2005. With that opening the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association moved from their former site at Valley Mission Park to their new surroundings occupying the east wing of CenterPlace. As a result of the move into CenterPlace, a Memorandum Of Understanding was developed between the City of Spokane Valley and the Senior Citizens Association. This "MOU" identified the various roles and responsibilities that both parties had within the new facility. This first MOU was signed September 19, 2005. This MOU has been in place ever since. In 2015, as the City was preparing to celebrate the 10th anniversary of CenterPlace, it was felt that it would be appropriate to review and update the MOU as many changes, etc. have taken place in the previous ten years. The City and the Senior Citizens Association Board began a dialogue that resulted in a new draft MOU. This draft continued to be reviewed and refined until it was acceptable to both parties. On March 22, 2016, the updated MOU was signed by both parties. This new MOU more accurately reflects the partnership that the City and Senior Citizens Association enjoys. The City is very fortunate to have a great working relationship with the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association and they are truly an asset to our City. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. The new MOU is attached. Thank you. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING • This Memorandum of Understanding(hereinafter"MOU")is entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter "the City"), and the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens' Association (hereinafter"SVSCA")a non-profit 501(C)(3)corporation,jointly referred to as"Parties". WHEREAS, the SVSCA provides valuable services and support for senior citizens in Spokane Valley at CenterPlace Regional Event Center at Mirabeau Point Park, located at 2426 North Discovery Place, and WHEREAS,the MOU was originally executed between the Parties on September 19,2005, and is in need of updating to reflect current needs and expectations of the Parties. THEREFORE,the following understanding is agreed upon: 1. Parties. The Parties to this MOU are the City, and the SVSCA. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to summarize the terms and conditions upon which the SVSCA will provide support and services to senior citizens at CenterPlace. 3. Contact Individuals. The contact person provided by the City shall be the Senior Center Specialist. The contact person provided by the SVSCA shall be the current President of the SVSCA. 4. Terms of the MOU. 4.1 The City owns CenterPlace, including that portion that is commonly referred to as "the Senior Wing." 4.2 The'City will employ a Senior Center Specialist to coordinate all programs and activities within the Senior Wing. The Senior Center Specialist shall report to the City Parks and Recreation Director or designee. The Senior Center Specialist shall not perform SVSCA office work or handle SVSCA funds. This section shall not limit the City's ability to exercise discretion in the event that organizational, financial, or operational needs require staffing changes. 4.3 No provision in the MOU shall be construed as authority for the SVSCA to preclude entry to the facility by any person,regardless of age. 4.4 The SVSCA shall have non-exclusive use of the Senior Wing to operate programs for senior citizens Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The City will not charge a facility rental fee in recognition of the mutual benefits provided to the parties in that the SVSCA will have space in which to hold events for its members and general public,as set forth below. The SVSCA shall not rent or sublet space in CenterPlace to third parties. All programs shall be available to the general public without limitation to membership status of the SVSCA. Programs and events offered by the SVSCA shall have written pre-approval from the City. Events and programs may be added or deleted pursuant to mutual agreement between both parties. After 4:00 p.m. and on weekends and holidays, the City may rent space in the Senior Wing to the general public. All revenues generated by rentals shall be retained by the City. Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 1 of 6 4.5 Revenue for Senior Wing rentals and general CenterPlace usage shall be collected and retained by the City. Revenue collected by the SVSCA for SVSCA-sponsored programs conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, shall be retained by the SVSCA. The SVSCA shall not rent out the premises to third-party groups or individuals at any time. 4.6 Facility space for additional times for senior programs may be made available to the SVSCA upon request from the SVSCA President or designee to the Senior Center Specialist. Upon receipt of such requests,the Parks and Recreation Director or designee will determine, on a case- by-case basis,whether space is available and whether a fee will be charged for such additional time using the facility. This determination shall be at the sole discretion of the Director, subject to appropriate City procedures and processes governing this action. 4.7 All programs offered by the SVSCA at CenterPlace shall be open to the general public,but may be restricted to specified age groups,depending on the activity. The SVSCA may,from time- to-time, conduct SVSCA membership activities such as dinners or banquets. Use of CenterPlace for SVSCA membership-only activities shall be limited to no more than four unpaid occurrences per year. 4.8 No later than 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, the SVSCA shall coordinate with City staff to ensure that the Senior Wing is clean and available for evening use by the general public. 4.9 All fees for programs which are offered by the SVSCA fees shall be reasonable as compared with similar fees charged for similar services in Northeast Washington. 4.10 The SVSCA may, at its own discretion, offer a discounted fee for programs for which the SVSCA retains revenues. Such discounted fees may be linked to membership in the SVSCA. Fees paid for SVSCA membership and fees paid by the general public,which are collected and retained by the SVSCA, shall be used for program support. The City retains the right to examine fee structures and request changes to ensure fairness. 4.11 Fees collected by the SVSCA are for programs only. Fees charged by the SVSCA shall not be related to admission to CenterPlace or for use of equipment or facilities which are considered by the City to be available to the general public or segment thereof. 4.12 Events which are primarily intended for fundraising, or are considered "private events", may require a fee for use of CenterPlace facilities, as established by the City. Sales of craft items, plant materials,or other goods and services shall be pre-approved by the City Parks and Recreations Director or designee. Items comprised of materials which have been wholly or partially paid for with City funds shall not be sold by the SVSCA. Funds generated by sales shall be utilized to provide programs for the general public and may not be used to benefit individual members of the SVSCA. 4.13 SVSCA will be provided with non-exclusive,shared office space in room 161 in the Senior Wing. 4.14 SVSCA will be responsible to select,train and supervise volunteers and/or employees to staff the front counter of the Senior Wing. The front counter shall be staffed at a minimum of four hours per day. 4.15 The Parties acknowledge that storage space at CenterPlace is limited. The City will work with the SVSCA to provide a reasonable amount of onsite storage of items which cannot be reasonably removed by 4:00 p.m. each day. Examples include furniture and band equipment. The SVSCA agrees to minimize items that require storage or to acquire offsite storage at their Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 2 of 6 discretion. Personal property shall not be stored at the Senior Wing except as approved in writing by the Parks and Recreation Director. 4.16 The SVSCA shall pay for all materials and supplies utilized by its members and visitors to SVSCA programs. The SVSCA shall provide, at SVSCA's cost, maintenance of SVSCA-owned equipment. The SVSCA shall be responsible for any costs or fees associated with, or resulting from, any programs offered by the SVSCA. 4.17 At least one telephone will be available in the Senior Wing for SVSCA office staff to use for local calls only. Internet is accessible in CenterPlace. If internet access can be made available to the SVSCA at no additional cost to the City, the City shall provide that access to the SVSCA at no cost. If there is a cost for providing internet service to the SVSCA, the SVSCA shall provide the City with written notice requesting that internet service be made available,and that the SVSCA commits to paying for said services until written notification terminating that service is provided at a future date. 4.18 The SVSCA may be permitted use of the kitchen facilities if not in conflict with other allowable activities at CenterPlace. In the event the SVSCA has a catered event, it shall use a professional caterer identified by the City. The SVSCA may use the kitchen to cook for some of its own events,but a request for such use shall be made in writing a reasonable amount of time in advance of the date requested. Such use would be limited to certain equipment, as identified by a City staff member prior to the requested date of use, and would require compliance with all rules and regulations governing kitchen use. Permission to use the kitchen shall at all times be discretionary at the option of the Parks and Recreation Director. Any request to use the kitchen shall be made by the President of the SVSCA or designee, or the Senior Center Specialist. 4.19 All furniture, equipment, and fixtures brought by SVSCA when they moved into CenterPlace have become the property of the City of Spokane Valley. The SVSCA Board of Directors shall maintain the pool tables in a reasonable manner so they may be used for their intended purpose, and shall be solely responsible for determining the frequency and extent of maintenance. The City reserves the right to dispose of, and/or replace existing pool tables with other recreation equipment as the City may determine is appropriate after consultation with the SVSCA Board of Directors.The City shall have sole discretion,after consultation with the SVSCA Board of Directors regarding the surplus or disposal of any property, including equipment, or fixtures of any kind. 4.20 The SVSCA shall oversee use of the pool room from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The tables shall be available to guests at least 50 years of age (or other age as identified by the SVSCA)during those times. No food or drink shall be allowed within two feet of any pool table. Food or drink may be permitted only on serving tables provided for such purposes. No fee shall be charged by the SVSCA for pool room use during these hours unless specifically approved by the City. 4.21 Any office equipment owned or purchased by the SVSCA since CenterPlace opened shall continue to be owned and managed by the SVSCA. A written request shall be required to bring SVSCA equipment into the Senior Wing. 4.22 The City may publish a Department of Parks and Recreation brochure which includes space for senior activities,at no additional cost to the SVSCA. If the SVSCA wishes to publish a separate newsletter,or mail brochures to their membership,those costs shall be the sole responsibility of the SVSCA. Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 3 of 6 4.23 Alcohol shall not be allowed in the Senior Wing between 8:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. The City Council may, by separate future action, authorize consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Senior Wing. 4.24 The City shall provide custodial, maintenance, and security services, and pay for utilities and other facility operations costs,except when specifically stated otherwise. 4.25 The Meals on Wheels program shall be allowed to operate from the Senior Wing. The terms under which Meals on Wheels operates from the Senior Wing shall be as set forth in a separate agreement between Meals on Wheels and the City. 5. Insurance: During the term of the contract, the SVSCA shall maintain in force at its own expense, the following insurance: 5.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance. SVSCA shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 5.1.1 Automobile liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired, and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office(ISO)form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. 5.1.2 Commercial general liability insurance shall be at least as broad as ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, stop-gap independent contractors and personal injury, and advertising injury. City shall be named as an additional insured under SVSCA's commercial general liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as ISO CG 20 26. 5.1.3 Workers' compensation coverage as required by the industrial insurance laws of the State of Washington. 5.2 Minimum Amounts of Insurance. SVSCA shall maintain the following insurance limits: 5.2.1 Automobile liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of no less than$1,000,000 per accident. 5.2.2 Commercial general liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence,and$2,000,000 for general aggregate. 5.3 Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for automobile liability and commercial general liability insurance: 5.3.1 SVSCA's insurance coverage shall be primal), insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by City shall be in excess of SVSCA's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 4 of 6 5.3.2 SVSCA shall fax or send electronically in.pdf format a copy of insurer's cancellation notice within two business days of receipt by SVSCA. 5.4 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than ANII. 5.5 Evidence of Coverage. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this MOU, SVSCA shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City Clerk at the time SVSCA returns the signed MOU, which shall be Exhibit C. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are additional insureds, and shall include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to City. SVSCA shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions,and/or self-insurance. 5.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the SVSCA to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract,upon which the City may,after giving at least five days'written notice to SVSCA to cure the breach,immediately terminate the MOU or,at the City's discretion,procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith,with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City,offset against funds due the SVSCA from the City. 5.7 City Full Availability of SVSCA's Insurance Limits. If the SVSCA maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the City shall be insured for the full available limits of commercial general and excess or umbrella liability maintained by the SVSCA, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the SVSCA are greater than those required by this MOU or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability Iower than those maintained by the SVSCA. 6. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. SVSCA shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its officers, agents,and employees,from any and all claims, actions,suits,liability, less, costs, attorney's fees, costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts,errors, or omissions in the services provided by SVSCA, SVSCA 's agents, subcontractors, and employees to the fullest extent permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below. SVSCA's duty to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless City shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of City or City's agents or employees pursuant to RCW 4.24.115. SVSCA's duty to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City against liability for damages arising out of such services caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents or employees, and (b) SVSCA, SVSCA's agents, subcontractors,and employees, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of SVSCA, SVSCA's agents, subcontractors,and employees. Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 5 of 6 SVSCA's duty to defend,indemnify,and hold City harmless shall include,as to all claims,demands, losses and liability to which it applies, City's personnel-related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, the reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the City Attorney, outside consultant costs,court costs,fees for collection,and all other claim-related expenses. SVSCA specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act,Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation, or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers'compensation acts, disability benefit acts,or other employee benefits acts. Provided, that SVSCA's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against SVSCA by City,and does not include, or extend to,any claims by SVSCA's employees directly against SVSCA. SVSCA hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. 7. The Parties hereby reserve the right to alter, amend, or modify the terms and conditions of this MOU upon written agreement of both Parties to such alteration, amendment, or modification. S. This MOU may not be assigned or transferred without the express written approval of the City. 9. The City reserves the right to unilaterally change the terms of this MOU in the event of a substantial anticipated budget shortfall. In such event,the City commits to making best efforts in providing the SVSCA with advance notice prior to changing any terms of this MOU. 10. The City is precluded by law from the gifting of public funds. The MOU shall not be applied or interpreted in a way that constitutes a gift of public funds(as defined by applicable Washington State law). City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association: Cdfox„ 491~sel -\__AF11143— -Mike-Jacksen C—ityMatr� ,MarKc // w �� s 5�1 st'e, SVSCA President Date: 'q22I AG (Ai,t r ccuc� ..� Date: 3 c��1.� ATTEST. {� 4 r Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office the City orney Agreement with Spokane Valley Senior Center Association Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date:Department Director Approval: April 5, 2016 Check all that apply : consent old business new business public hearing information admin. report pending legislation executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN : None BACKGROUND: The City contracted for solid waste transfer and disposal services with Sunshine Disposal, Inc. in November of 2014. Included in this contract under section 5.4 Fees and Taxes Payable to the City, -of- This fee is equal to $1 for each ton of solid waste received at the transfer station during the calendar year beginning in 2015, over 45,500 tons of such waste. This fee is paid to the City on or before March 15 of each year. For 2015, Sunshine Recyclers reported a total solid waste tonnage collected at the transfer station of 101,535.10, which equates to 56,035.10 additional tons above and beyond the minimum tonnage of 45,500 tons. On March 15, 2016 Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. delivered to the City a check for $56,035.10 as a right-of-way maintenance fee as provided for in the contract. These monies will be deposited into the street fund and will be used for street maintenance. OPTIONS : Information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS : $56,035.10 for right-of-way maintenance fee additional revenue for the Street Fund. STAFF CONTACT : Eric Guth Public Works Director ___________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS : None