Loading...
2016, 11-08 Regular Formal 6 pm • MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,November 8,2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Sta► Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Caleb Collier, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Pam Haley, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Mike Munch,Councilmember John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev.Director Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief Mike Basinger, Economic Develop. Coordinator Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Counciltnembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. I.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations--Mike Basinger Mayor Higgins stated that we are here for a public hearing for the draft comprehensive plan and development regulations, and he opened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. and invited Mr. Basinger to the podium. Mr. Basinger explained that although staff and Council have gone over these issues several times, he will go through the recommendations in detail so members of the public will understand the issues;he explained that this is the legislative update of the comprehensive plan,which we are obligated to perform every eight years. Mr. Basinger explained that we have had four public meetings, twenty-five Council meetings, fourteen Planning Commission discussions,and a public hearing before the Planning Commission followed by Commission deliberations. He stated that when discussing the comp plan with the community, the community was interested in having a focus on the parks and trails; the community wanted to look at the area around the new city hall; wanted to provide for greater variety of housing types; to preserve the character of neighborhoods; locate housing near amenities; and increase business opportunities and reduce barriers.Mr.Basinger then went over the Council goals,which he said were very similar to the community's focus, but that in addition, Council wanted to look at mixed use designations along Trent to consolidate office and garden office or change to corridor mixed use or even consider something else that might work better on those corridors, and expressed an interest in expanding and designating new areas for neighborhood commercial. Mr. Basinger explained the approach to the plan which included an economic development focus, that it be innovative and data driven, easy to navigate with an attractive design, be concise and understandable, and include existing studies and strategic actions. As Mr. Basinger went through his PowerPoint, he explained the land use map and the creation of one multifamily designation as opposed to the medium and the high, and that they included that in areas where there were transit services within about a half-mile walk; said they designated new areas for parks and open space such as the Department of Natural Resources' land by CenterPlace; they looked at the Appleway Trail right-of-way and designated that as parks and open space, and he explained that the intention is in the long term to have it as a lineal park with other amenities within it; said they changed Office to Corridor Mixed Use which Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 1 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 allows multifamily, office,retail and light manufacturing,so those are in those north/south corridors where office used to exist. He said they integrated Community Commercial into Corridor Mixed Use and regional commercial;and designated new areas for neighborhood commercial development,which were at the major intersections and within close proximity to existing neighborhoods.He said they created an industrial mixed use designation along Trent Avenue; and when they did that they heard that some people were interested in doing things like contractor's yards and tow yards in that area; he noted that in that same area along Trent,the option to do multi-family was removed because it's really not walkable and is a pretty high speed corridor, and it made more sense to be offering these types of uses in there, so they opened it up a little to try to get some more business along Trent Avenue. He said industrial designations were consolidated and where there was a light and heavy zone, there is now one industrial zone; transitional provisions were included to lessen those impacts when you are adjacent to residential zones. Further, he explained that mining in our community was examined so language was created in the development regulations to allow existing mining operations to mine within their existing permitted rights;he said one of the things that came out of this is that the existing map has twelve designations and seventeen zones, and the proposed map shows nine designations and eleven zones,thereby simplifying the designations and hopefully making the plan more useable. In putting together the policy document,Mr.Basinger explained that staff looked at the regulations to make sure those are consistent with that policy document;they examined Title 17,Title 19,Title 21,Title 22 and the definitions; a stronger interpretation process was developed in title 17, and the sign requirements for public hearing notices were modified to make sure notice was getting out to the community; said in dealing with large lots, a 400' radius really didn't get the notification desired, so that was modified to give more flexibility in those situations;in looking at the Hearing Examiner's change of conditions,vesting provisions were added;he said a lot of changes were made in Title 19 because Title 19 is actually the zoning and that is what implements the policy document or the comp plan; so that title was reorganized and the zoning district and zoning map were modified to be consistent with the land use map,and the permitted use matrix was modified to do the same; language was incorporated for small dwellings, the density and dimensional standards were modified, and transitional standards were created which are the provisions that will be put in place to help reduce the impacts on adjacent residential zones; and the administrative exceptions were also modified. Further he explained, that in looking at alternative residential development, a chapter was created for those issues; options and standards were provided for non-traditional single-family development;he said some of these already excited in the code and they were re-organized and put into this section; accessory dwelling units already existed, industrial accessory dwelling units was added, cottage developments were added,duplexes already existed,manufactured homes already existed,small residential dwellings was a new section, and townhouses just moved. Mr. Basinger noted that density and dimension standards in the R3 zone were adjusted; the minimum lot size was adjusted to 5,000 square feet,and the minimum lot width and length was eliminated,but the density of six units per acre remained as it was; and he explained that the density cannot be exceeded but these adjustments provides some flexibility for some smaller lots in some circumstances.He said that standards were adjusted in the multi-family residential, and density and building height were eliminated; said it is also important to note that he knows Council has looked at Planning Commission's recommendation and at the multi-family residential and has some insights Council might want to move forward with. Mr. Basinger explained that Council hasn't made any decisions yet just discussions;that staff is aware of those discussions and those will be reflected in what staff brings forward to council. Mr. Basinger said that non- residential dimensions were eliminated except for neighborhood commercial. He showed the chart of "transitional provisions" and explained that the goal is to make sure there is not a very tall building adjacent to a residential zone;he noted landscaping is required there and a 1:1 ratio helps to show that in the diagram; said he think this adds some certainty to know what is built next to residences in certain situations,and that we wouldn't have a 50' tall building ten from the property line, but would be in a position to have scaled back. Mr. Basinger noted that Title 21 created a SEPA(State Environmental Policy Act) infill exemption Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 2 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 to promote development,and said we have areas in our city that we looked at, primarily multi-family areas which are identified on the zoning map; said they looked at the transportation network in those areas and identified a certain amount of trips that would be available for trigger improvements, adding that this helps if someone was coming in the door to get development moving a little quicker, so we took advantage of the SEPA exemption; said we also made sure that the critical areas were consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan; said staff spent a lot of time with the Shoreline Master Plan and wanted to spend an equal amount of time to ensure our critical areas ordinance was consistent with that Plan.Mr.Basinger explained that staff updated methods and references to reflect the best available science as required. For Title 22,Mr. Basinger said the design and development standards were examined including standards for off-street parking and loading to make sure those were consistent. Moving to the Planning Commission recommendations, Mr. Basinger explained that they held a public hearing which had eighty-six people testified; concerning the Sprague and Barker area, he said sixty-four spoke against changing that to multi-family residential, and four spoke in support; concerning the 3001 N Pines Road that was to change to mixed use, four were against the change and two supported the change; he said other comments related to supporting elements of the plan such as parks and trails, alternative housing, impact fees, preserving neighborhoods and commercial zoning changes. Mr. Basinger noted that at the Planning Commission's Oct 6, 2016 public hearing, which was continued to October 13, the Commission voted six to one to recommend approval of the 2016 comprehensive plan, supporting development regulations,and zoning map changes. Mr. Basinger noted that although the slides describe the 'City Council Decision,"the Council held discussions on the recommendations but no decision was made. Mr. Basinger discussed the following recommendations: (1) Commission recommended adding a policy in Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping,water conservation,and sustainable park management methods in future City park improvement projects. Council discussion included verbiage to allow for the potential inclusion of xeriscaping,water conservation,etc. (2) Commission recommended designating noted parcels (see slide 27) as Single Family Residential and zoning those same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban, R-3. Council's discussion on this was to retain the exiting zone; he said one of the things Council discussed was that there was some entitlement there, that the two properties that were multi-family residential before this started, and that this could be seen on the existing zoning map on slide 28; he said the thought process was they didn't want to take anything away in this particular instance and wanted to keep the existing intact; so Council proposed to keep the two parcels to the north, multi-family and then keep the two parcels to the south single family or R-3. (3) Commission recommended designating the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road,north of Sprague Avenue,and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban,R-3. Council agreed with the recommendation, and Mr. Basinger explained that the idea is that the property shown on slide 30 with the slide line,would go to single family residential R-3. (4) Commission recommended that the applicant for these parcels use the annual amendment process for the proposal to change their parcel from low density residential to Mixed Use and zone the same as Mixed. Council agreed with that recommendation; that the person making the proposal missed the opportunity for the annual review and Council felt it made sense with the school to the north and the steep topography and mixed use across the street. (5)Commission recommended the applicant use the annual amendment process for their proposal to allow a greenhousefnurseiy, commercial on the identified parcel. Mr. Basinger explained that this is in the Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 3 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 Ponderosa neighborhood close to Chester Store and a storage facility. Council discussion included considering a code text amendment for future Commission analysis,and to look at how to perhaps put in a nursery or something similar in the Code where it made sense overall throughout the City. (6) Commission recommended amending SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer or employee of the company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located. Council discussion was to retain the proposed language in SVMC 19.40.050. (7) Commission recommended removing SVMC 19.40.100 small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings supportive housing and consider through a separate future code text amendment process. Council discussion was to discuss this further and that was where that was left. (8) Commission recommended amending SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the Multifamily Residential zone; which Mr. Basinger explained means that the regulation would go back to what is in the existing code of 22 units per acre and a height of 50 ft. Council agreed with the recommendation and said they felt it was reasonable based on where we have multifamily in the community. (9)Commission recommended amending SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1)to provide that full screening is required when a multifamily or nonresidential project abuts a single fancily residential zoning district or single family residential use. Mr. Basinger said that the key here is the "or single family residential use." Council amended that to require full screening when a multifamily project abuts a single family residential use in inultifainily zones. Mr. Basinger said that the intent was if that use was in a multifamily zone and a multifamily project was coming in, that it made sense to do a little extra landscaping in that situation. Mr. Basinger explained that the next steps are to continue to compile agency comments as received, and continue working with some of the agencies, SRTC in particular; said staff is prepared to modify the documents at Council's direction; and said second reading of the ordinance is currently scheduled for November 22. Councilmember Collier asked for confirmation that the property owner on the north end of Barker and Sprague wants to keep this property at multifamily, and Mr.Basinger confirmed that the owner wants to keep the zoning it has. Deputy Mayor Woodard noted that Chapter 4 Land Use has some discrepancies,and he asked if the regulatory items should be in the development code and not in the comp plan; he said that single family residential is not coordinating with the code; and asked if this would be the appropriate time to at least mention some discrepancies so staff can bring back a final product. Mr.Basinger clarified that Deputy Mayor Woodard is addressing that we have density standards in the policy document and suggests that be in the actual regulations and not the policy document. Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed that was his suggestion,and said that is the way it should be. Mr.Basinger agreed that is a sound suggestion. Mayor Higgins then explained the procedure,and invited public comments. 1. Glenn Weils, Olympia: he thanked Council for taking testimony on the comp plan update and said this is a great chance to plan for the future; said he likes creation of high density multifamily transition areas separating the commercial from single family as it helps manage growth by putting higher density closer to retail centers,which encourages walking and use of transit;said it helps reduce urban sprawl by encouraging development close to the downtown areas, and helps and encourages local businesses by providing more people near the downtown shops; said multifamily projects more urban and more compatible to traffic and congestion much more than single family homes,and transitional zones act as a buffer between commercial centers and single family residences; and that having transitional zones of a higher density is a good planning tool as it provides the opportunity to achieve the ultimate planning ideal where people live, work and play by walking or biking. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 4 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 2.Lynn Plaggemeier, Spokane Valley: said he talked with the contractor and his staff and asked if the city hall influenced any of the other planning along Sprague;said he has asked this at several different meetings, but never got an answer; said he hears from staff and from council that this city is a complaint-driven city, and would like to know what that means; said he looked through all the past minutes for the last twelve years and there is nothing in there about being a complaint driven city;said he thinks council should publicly tell people what a complaint driven city is. He started to address the proposed utility tax and Mayor Higgins informed him that is for tonight's second public hearing. Regarding the comp plan,Mr. Plaggemeier said our city used to be called a city of home owners,but not anymore; now we are a city of renters. 3. Nina Flugal Spokane Valley: said she has a lot of issues with the plan; that she doesn't believe the umbrella zoning,what she calls umbrella zoning is when you throw everything MF1 and MF2 into one pot; said it enables many builders to do as they please because they will always find a way around the re-sets; said we don't have enough police officers to sustain all these new people coming into these apartment complexes;said she thinks we only have about six police officers for Spokane Valley and that's not enough; they are already overworked; regarding the zoning on Trent, said she thinks we could run another bus line down on Trent if that was the only option that we had to build more apartments along Trent, then let them overlook the busy street and not ruin a residential area,which was what happened to her house and her area, said the Planning Commission should look into when someone applies for a building permit as a phase one, that common sense will tell everybody that there might be a phase two;while phase one goes on MF 1 with just 12 units per acre; said if their property is bigger than what could be built, then at that time that person needs to apply for high density housing and zoning, and not build what he can and come back and ask for more because it will come in line with the comp plan; said that's just not going to work; said the person bought that property knowing what it was zoned for,and said don't just say'A'and now you got to say'B' and said that's not going to be acceptable either; said she thinks we have four elementary schools under construction because we already have an overflow of children; now there is a proposal for even more high density which brings even more children; said she lives right next to one; said she never sees anyone take the bus, but sees massive amounts of traffic on her road with no control, and no slowing down; said this road and neighborhood can't sustain any more;that it is enough; and said do not do umbrella zoning. 4. Ian Robertson, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning looking for ways for the working poor to own their own homes as noted in his November 8, 2016 letter; most of which he read; said generally homeowners take better care of property, and said there is only 60%housing for single family residences. 5.Jamie Dodd Fales, Spokane Valley: said she volunteers with Inland NW Fuller Center for housing along with Ian Robertson; said the Fuller Center is a nation-wide organization and that site does a lot of networking across the nation; said all communities are facing the problem of having too many renters and not enough homeowners; she extended compliments to Council for being forward thinking to be planning for this now; said small residential dwelling components have been put on hold but there are institutions ready to give them funding, but they have to know that Council is ready to back that with the change in the code; and she asked Council to make this a good holiday season and put those codes in force before the end of the year. 6. Frank Roberts, Spokane Valley: said that 1934 was last year with the highest spread between the rich and the poor but that last year surpassed that;said we are becoming a nation of two tiers: of haves and have- nots; asked if the zoning is left the way on that piece of property Sprague and Barker, what is the largest amount of buildings that can put on that property. 7. George Kovacs, Spokane Valley: said the lives just around the corner from the Sprague/Barker area and he is concerned now that the sees everything that has gone on with this entire project; said there has never been an outreach to anyone in his community—not from Viking Homes or the builders, and that no one has asked how the people would feel if this is done, or ask what can we do to make this a better Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 5 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 neighborhood; said he hasn't heard anyone ask about how the people feel in the neighborhood;all lee's seen is some guy who wants to come in and build a building and put in as many units as he can with no consideration for the schools or services; said every Monday there is a septic truck outside his house that pumps out the sewer lines;said the sewer lines don't go anywhere but he had to pay$3,000 to have someone install a sewer line to his house when he had a perfectly good working septic system, and now we're back here again after two years and we want to do the same thing,and that this time around a lot of people didn't know about the meetings that carne up, and said lie's glad he did and said people don't want this; said nothing has changed over the last two years that will make anything better for them; said they like their homes and that his house value will go up because there are Iess apartments than homes; said that a lot of the other apartment complexes, especially the one on Broadway, were set on fire three times before they were burned to the ground and said he's glad they did because when he lived across the street, all lie saw was cops there every single day either serving a warrant or looking for a criminal,or other criminal activity going on; said he doesn't see the cops around his new place; said he understands a lot of people want the American dream of owning a home and said there's nothing stopping them from earning it; and if people want to get ahead they will have to put in a little more effort other than looking at what the government can give them because the government isn't here to fix things,but is here to do the things the people need; said the best thing to do is preserve the neighborhood and say no to this thing as it will only cause more problems. 8. Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she supports landscape regulations as it makes the area more desirable, and it should be seen as economic development; said hours of construction have never been addressed; said her neighborhood has been under construction since 2005 and there needs to be respect for the communities; she spoke of no height restrictions regarding fill; said there are three acres of fill next to her, 12 feet high;said there is nothing to prevent someone from putting in yards and yards of fill;concerning backyards of those who have larger parcels,there is a big embankment they never had to finish off so there's Canadian thistle and it's just a weed embankment; said there needs to be something about finishing off landscaping and that it's not just a matter of somebody's ugly backyard; people sometimes use Roundup which has killed some of her trees; said we need to see this community as a family where we all work together;said she thought developers and communities should get together and create a good neighborhood policy as it would be easier to work with the developer and iron out things early on. 9. David Colombo, Spokane Valley: said the valley can't take more traffic; that without taxing citizens to death,there is no budget even in the distant future for roads to catch tip with traffic we already have; said you want growth but you can't be talking about future growth, as to him, that's their children; said he took his children out of the valley schools long when he was told the schools couldn't deal with his son who has high functioning autism; said schools can't handle local kids so they bus them out; said this is because of the corruption in the valley when builders can get politicians to change zoning and building codes without real public notice to the people it really affects; said his kids are no longer thinking about putting down roots in the valley; that if Council thinks future growth is a bunch of pot shops and apartments where the families rarely if ever put down future roots, then go ahead; but if that is the case, the real future of the valley is death valley. 10. Stephanie Colombo, Spokane Valley: said she appreciates the Planning Commission listening and giving recommendations, however she understands that Council doesn't want to take away from a community or landowner where it is zoned for high density in the property next to the one changed back to single family, but by leaving it as the high density said it opens it up for the developer to come back every year and try to change that; said she knows it doesn't work, but feels she will be doing this over and over again;said she feels that whole block should be put back as single family as recommended by the Planning Commission; said she likes it was changed back to a limit on the number of houses and height as they had removed that before in the original update;said she hopes Council continues to listen and change that corner to single family,and let all the single family area enjoy being where they are, and not be overrun by all the development. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 6 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 Patti.trace}carne up to speak and said she wanted to speak about the proposed utility tax.Mayor Higgins told her that would be coming up immediately after this hearing. 11. Zeta Smith, Spokane Valley: regarding the Sprague and Barker area, said this will leave that property at least for this year, as single family residential,but she doesn't understand how that one piece of property to the north,stays high density when originally back in 1996 or 1997,it was zoned high density only because the owner was supposed to build a retirement home and then when she didn't build it and we became a city, that property where the mobile homes are just to the north of that was zoned back to medium density, and this property is where there are cattle most of the year, stayed at high density; said she doesn't understand the point of leaving that at high density when it will bring people back here every year or two to fight this problem; said she has lived in her home for 46 years; it is a nice neighborhood without a lot of crime; and she feels that property to the north should be rezoned back down like the Planning Commission recommended; said all the surrounding area to that is single family residential except for a post office and a couple of churches. 12.Cathy Scott, Spokane Valley: said she had a lot of comments,but most of the people already said it;she asked that there be a change to the notification procedure because they weren't notified and said that is a real problem;said in today's paper Councilmember Pace said you have nothing to hide regarding the utility tax, and not underhanded intentions or ttying to hide anything; which she said she believes; but that they weren't notified is troubling; said the last time she got a letter in the mail and put up a big sign which was enough to get people involved; this time, nothing; said it took a neighbor to read the agendas and notify people or we would have all missed it; said you do us all a disservice if you don't communicate, and she asked Council to reconsider the lack of notification. 13.Kelly Konkright,Spokane:said he owns the property at 721 N Bowdish in Spokane Valley on the corner of Bowdish and Broadway;said this is the property when you are driving east on Bowdish,it has two older log homes on the right; said the City built up around it;that it is kind of a neat property but it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood anymore; said he bought the property in 2007 to change the character of that property; when he purchased it in 2007 it was zoned multi-family, MF-2; and under the current proposed comp plan amendments, it would be rezoned to neighborhood commercial, so for things like gas stations, car washes, non-medical offices in that part of the neighborhood, and it is all single family residential around it; said he is in the process of trying to sell the property to someone who can develop it as he himself is not in a position to develop it; aid he found someone who is interested in doing that and lie would like to see that property get developed and bring that property up on par, and modernize it is more in character with the neighborhood, but he can't do that if it gets rezoned neighborhood commercial; said according to his realtor, it's just not marketable if it gets rezoned neighborhood commercial; said that area already has sufficient neighborhood commercial type uses on Pines, less than a mile away, and a gas station about a half mile away, and a lot of development on Argonne, and said he would appreciate Council keeping it zoned multi-family which is what it has been for years and what it was when lie purchased it; and he hopes to get the property developed and improved for the benefit of the surrounding community. 14. Wayne Vinson, Spokane Valley: concerning the area between Bell Road and Sprague and from Greenacres to Barker that was going to be zoned corridor mixed, said he is glad to see it reduced down to multifamily; glad to see on the east side of Barker on that high density parcel; and that he would like to see it disappear and be all multifamily homes in there. 15. Steven O'Meara, Spokane Valley: he as a general contractor in North Idaho, and he has already seen the devastation that this type of move makes; said he moved out of north Idaho to here because of the same reason; he saw the devastation to the family neighborhood, and the building of huge apartment buildings which brought in all the people; said crime started and property values dropped so he moved; and said so Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-OX-2016 Page 7 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 now you're talking about doing it here; said he loves the valley; he lives in an older neighborhood with beautiful homes, and is a great place to raise kids; but now you want to make the same devastation, and said he feels sad and very disappointed and hopes Council makes a great decision as he'd like to consider this his home for the rest of his life. 16. Dennis Crapo,Spokane Valley: said he had requested a piece of property that was on the agenda earlier, Sundown and Bowdish adjacent to the Chester Store,joining the railroad tracks and behind the storage at Dishman Mica Highway and Bowdish,to be included in the amendment,and said he feels it is appropriate to be included now instead of waiting for a year and considered separately; said it is a piece of property right against the railroad tracks, and the adjoining property is the same zoning he is requesting, which is commercial,which would allow him to use it for a nursery. 17.Douglas Florance, Spokane Valley: said that several years ago you rezoned some property,an apartment off Broadway,and he asked Council to please reconsider rezoning places;that since the apartment complex came up, his property value has gone down; said the height of it with having a third floor is they can see right into the back neighborhoods; said crime is up and he had stuff stolen from his front yard; said he thinks Council should seriously consider when rezoning something to make it an apartment complex as it affects people around it; said that several years ago a Councilmember mentioned it was a million dollars just in permits; said that's not much for people who lose the value in their home and lose the trust of the neighborhood; said now he has to keep his garage door closed all the time as there are kids out at 3 a.m. just roaming around; feels crime has increased because of the complex; he sees kids going back and forth from the apartment complex to Fred Meyers; and he asked again for Council to please really consider the consequences of your decisions when you rezone to an apartment complex. 18. Bert Shepard, Spokane Valley: said lie lives on Main between Locust and Willow; that years ago someone wanted to enhance their investment and they built apartments right behind the property; said they are within fifteen to twenty of the property; aid apartment dwellers seem to have use of the backyards of those property owners as their own personal trash can; said he found diapers, drug paraphernalia, beer bottles, pop bottles; that most homeowners have a pet and then the pet becomes the target of the people living in the apartment; said if the dog barks, they turn them in and the Humane Society comes omit and issues a warning to stop your pet from barking or further action will be taken;said apartment dwellers don't have an investment in the neighborhood; they don't mow laws, rake leaves or paint their house; said he found in the evenings late at night people sitting out on the second level porch, smoking, and when they finished the cigarette,they flip it down in the backyard; said he has been dealing with this since Beginger Place apartments were built; said he has no interest at Barker Road, but does have an interest at Beringer Place Apartments; mentioned the lack of parking for all cars too so the people in the apartments park on the street; some of the cars don't run or have flat tires;they never move; said the police get called and they not a notice on the car. 19. Dallas Williams, Spokane Valley: said he lives at 18903 E Sprague and his home is right next to the house that Viking purchased under the zoning that was there when they purchased it; said no one in this room has a problem with Viking Homes building based on what they purchased the property for the zoning requirements that they bought it under; said he didn't get a notice this time and finds it appalling that it was taken out of the comp plan;he rhetorically asked why do you think people don't trust government;said you have to be transparent; said he found four separate websites that rent apartment complexes; some will try to tell you that there is a shortage of apartments in Spokane Valley but that is incorrect; said there's plenty of property they can purchase; there's a great lot right next to the VFW on Sprague; 5.2 acres; go buy it; build under that current zoning law;said to buy a piece of property and try to ask us to Iive with their change is appalling; one of the websites he found said there are 384 apartments available in Spokane; no one is saying that people who Iive in apartments are bad people; said the won't say that; but there are places that they fit and it doesn't fit in this piece of property; said Deputy Mayor Woodard came out on his property Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 8 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 two years ago and sat on his deck and looked at what we're talking about and he said `balls,you're right, it doesn't fit here.' He said that Viking built the homes based on what you purchased the property as; said don't try to backdoor us and get the lady who owns the mobile homes last year to try to get her property changed so you can buy that property from her and backdoor the zoning laws; said that's not right;said you need to listen to these people;we're here for a reason,and we're here again for the third year in a row;said the smartest thing this Council can do is to take the cow pasture that the County changed several years ago and move it back to single family zoning to fit what's already there; said we're proud of our neighborhood and of our families; and what we have and we don't want to lose it but there are places that can be built, that can be bought to build apartment complexes. 20. Chuck Schmidz, Spokane Valley: voiced his concern with cottage development and the size of the car garages limited down to 250 square feet; said that is quite a bit smaller than his pickup and the standard is about thirty-two feet long by twelve foot wide for buildings; said if we could put something like that in for garage sizes to give enough room for a pickup; concerning the permitted use matrix for the transitional housing, says the only conditional one is the multifamily residential; that in looking at the transitional housing like Homeless Vets and Hearth Homes, said it's only one zoning and that seems veiy restrictive; said there is probably a lot of emotion whether to have R-3 for that or not, but said he thinks that is worth looking at to make it not quite as limited in which zone they call have their transitional housing. 21. Bill Courier, Spokane Valley: said it thought it was a unanimous decision with the Planning Commission instead of the 6-1 to change that cow pasture back; said he heard a couple of times that it would be a downgrade; said in his community a lower zoning is not a downgrading; said a ton of people live across the street from him,the whole section that was going to be put to corridor mixed that are getting downgraded but they are all happy; said it's not a downgrade; said it's a downgrade to her because she spent a lot of money to get it changed; said he read the old '96 documents for about four hours,but it was the intention of building that retirement center which never got built; if you go back and read all that,it was changed for the retirement center; it never got built; so it's twenty years later and you say you don't want to downgrade, but really you're downgrading one hundred people right across the street; the thing is, it's not a downgrade; it's just that she just can't make as much money off it; said he was almost positive the Viking homes land will be kept the way it is; said lie thought he heard in the laws that you can't apply for high density property to get your zone changed to high density if you don't have any surrounding and touching you; said if we can change that cow pasture back, he doesn't think it's a downgrade for that community; so far as apartment places, he said if you have so much more land now so it's corridor mixed use that allows apartments to be built, there's no need to put high density in the community like his. 22. Russ Boucher, Spokane Valley: said so here we are again; that one of the main reasons we want it rezoned is so it doesn't touch the existing corner spot on Barker and Sprague; said this is a form of harassment; that he wants to live where he is and not feel he has to sell his house because it can happen next year or the year after; said he talked with the Planning Commission to getting everything zoned that way so we don't have to do this all the time; said you can rezone, upgrade, and downgrade; that he has property that has been downgraded from twenty acres to ten because of conservation rules; said this one is just one of those where we don't have the infrastructure for it, or the sidewalks, or snowplows; said he can just see kids trying to walk to school and then add 300 more kids to that roadway; said traffic is crazy and we need a better handle on what we have going on now; said this is a perfect place to build houses but not apartments; that apartments have their place, but we need to think of where they are going and the effect on surrounding houses;and said he hopes Council goes with the Planning Commission to rezone everything to R3 in that area. 23. Myrna McElwain, Spokane Valley: said that several years ago a friend owned the property on Barker and Sprague, and he sold it to Viking; said they told him at that time that they would not build apartments and would put in single family homes; which she said was not true and not what they planned; they also Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 9 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 put out misleading literature at the meetings;said the apartments would be within walking distance of health facilities and grocery stores but that is not true; said if you're going to walk three miles to Liberty Lake when you have pneumonia in the winter time, that is not her idea of health care within walking distance; said they also stated that the apartments would not be low income apartments but it was stated in their literature and when they were challenged on this, they said it must have been a misprint or typo; said that is a little misleading to think that a construction company like Viking doesn't proofread their paperwork; and she said that this is why we don't believe what we're told as we were misled several times; she said that they are all against apartment buildings on that property; and said she appreciates Council taking the time and deciding not to change the zoning. 24. Shelly Boucher, Spokane Valley: said she appreciate Council taking the Planning Commission recommendation to leave the zoning as residential on Sprague and Barker; said she has lived in that neighborhood since 1970 and it is a great community for residential homes;and she asked Council to please reconsider that other parcel that is multi-family to rezone to residential so we don't have to come back and see you again. 25. Clyde Smith, Spokane Valley: concerning that cow pasture;he said in 1996 the zoning was changed to build an old folks home and said that no one fights an old folks home so everything went through and the zoning was changed;said he feels like he's been duped and like Council has been too;said there's no reason to leave that land twenty years later with a higher zoning; said maybe they just proposed a nursing home to get the zoning changed and increase the property value,but they didn't build what they said they were going to; said he moved to the valley to get away from urban sprawl. 26. Ben Wick, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning a proposed change to neighborhood commercial on Wellesley and McDonald, which he said is his family farm; said some parcels were proposed to go to Neighborhood Commercial and he requested to maybe scale back just to the two parcels right on the corner of McDonald and Wellesley; he explained that they raise llamas and in neighborhood commercial there is no allowance for animal raising; he suggested maybe just limit the Neighborhood Commercial to just the two lots on the corner of McDonald and Wellesley and the Mirabeau Chapel parcel recently included to be rezoned; said there were some comments about how steep it is around there; he said it is steep on the southern border,but on the west side of the property it is even with the neighborhood roads; said a double- sized gate fence is there coming off the property into the neighborhood; said he heard that in the past there was-quite a battle over that parcel possibly being rezoned to the same proposal that you see today; there was a lot of discussion and the neighbors came out and there was contentious discussion; he requests Council follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to wait another year to see if that proposal comes forward again; said he participated in the open houses and that parcel wasn't included so the neighborhood wasn't aware that was being discussed at that time and he again requested that continue on and not be included in this round. 27. Jackie Williams, Spokane Valley: said she lives next to the Barker and Sprague lot and is getting tired of being here; that she heard it all except she didn't hear tonight, that at the last meeting at the Planning Commission, she heard Mr. Olson state that the County agreed to allow another 500+ lots right at the top of the area south of Barker which will add more traffic and more people and she asked Council to reconsider rezoning the property north of the Barker Sprague property and put it back to the single family residence, 28. Danielle Coullier, Spokane Valley: stated that her property is known as the island property, although she said she isn't the island as the cow pasture is the island; and she asked Council to please change it to single family. There were no further public comments. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned some statements that were sent in, and she acknowledged e-mails from Susan Scott regarding the small residential swellings to delete that Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 10 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 portion of the plan; an e-mail from Charles Southern about Barker Road zoning to stay as it is; an e-mail from Addy Mathison and Timothy Blake who are children who live in the Barker area who don't want that to change; and a message from Wayne Vinson about the Barker Road zoning and that he is opposed to that. After confirming there were no other public comments, Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Higgins stated that before we start the next public hearing on the proposed utility tax,he called for a ten minute recess at 7:31 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:42 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Transportation and Infrastructure Utility Tax—Chelsie Taylor Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Finance Director Taylor explained that the next item on tonight's meeting is a public hearing discussing funding needs for the City's transportation and infrastructure programs;she said the purpose of tonight's meeting is to communicate to Council and citizens the funding challenges for transportation and infrastructure programs that the City is facing; as well as the option of using a utility tax as a potential funding source to meet those challenges; and then for Council to consider public input on this topic. Director Taylor went through the PowerPoint explaining the issue, including a brief background related to funding current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure, as well as a utility tax proposal in 2004 which did not advance to a second reading; she mentioned the various discussions on this issue in 2016, including the March 15,2016 Council workshop, the June 14, 2016 budget workshop, 2017 budget development discussions in August, September and October, as well as Finance Committee meetings in May, September and October. Ms. Taylor went over the street fund purposes and projections; the pavement preservation fund purposes; and projections for 2018, 2019,2020 and 2021 for those combined funds as well as funding needs. Ms.Taylor also explained the utility taxes that are permitted by state law, and revenue estimates for each utility tax for 1%,2%,3%, 4%, 5% and 6%,and showed utility tax comparisons for neighboring jurisdictions. City Attorney Driskell then explained the various sections of the draft tax ordinance, adding that the proposal includes repealing the current 6%telephone tax;lie also noted that the draft proposal would require that all revenue generated from those utility taxes would be used exclusively for funding City road projects, such as construction, operation, maintenance, preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade separation, and other projects directly related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation. Concerning the last provision, Councilmember Munch asked if a future council tried to change that, or parts of that would that change the whole provision, and Mr.Driskell said a future Council could change that if it wanted to, and that this proposal is similar to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.70 in place now with funds dedicated for road purposes,and lie said that those funds have been used for that because there has been a specific need.Mayor Higgins opened the floor for public comments. 1. Bill Gothmann, Spokane Valley: Mr. Gothmann read his prepared statement dated November 8, 2016, applauding Council for facing the legislative obligations and suggesting that Council needs to study the problem and adopt the minimum level of utility tax to meet the need to keep the streets in good condition. 2.Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: she asked if the phone tax is gone and replaced with the utility tax,when would each tax come into effect. City Attorney Driskell explained that the imposition of the taxes would be sixty days after adopted. Ms. Fluegal stated then if we kept the telephone tax we'd still have 6% and would need a future increase; and she asked about just doing a 1.2%tax for each instead of 6% for each utility; she said the proposed percentage increase is massive; said several utility companies have contacted citizens urging citizens contact Council because that 6%if passed would be passed through to the customer, which she said is mostly business and home owners; she said people who live in apartments don't have two-thirds of these expenses as they don't usually have water, sewer, or garbage as that is included in their rent payment; said another thing to include might be a multi-family housing tax when they start building instead of giving builders exemptions because it is because of them we have more people,more apartments, and more roads that are being deteriorated like her road; said people who live in apartments don't care if there's a bump on their road or not, but the homeowners care and would have to carry that cost; so she asked, how can we get the apartment complexes and the developers involved. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 11 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 3. Bryan St. Clair, Spokane Valley: said he is against the tax as written; said he didn't know about the tax until he received a notice from his utility company; said he pays for a home phone, and now is looking at 6%gas,electric,and water; said he doesn't know if that will all work out for a full 24%, but it's nothing he wants; said the City has a 137-page business plan that speaks about using or not using reserves, the low debt ratio and how revenue is generated; and he asked Council to look for other ways to generate revenue; said he thinks it would be good to have great roads and that he doesn't want to be a Spokane, but would like more education on how Council proposes to do that,and said he wants to feel comfortable that Council has examined all the options and educated the public so the public knows exactly where the money will be going and what it will be used for; said we heard earlier that 37%of the families in the valley are struggling now and now,you are going to ask other utility companies to put this tax on them;said it will cost the utility companies to put together the requested monthly report; said he appreciates his water and power provider, and is happy they forwarded hits the message about this tax; said the telephone tax taxes big companies, and now it will affect the small water and power utility company; said lie doesn't want to see bad roads, nor wants to see a big tax increase just because it's an easy way to generate revenue; and he suggested Council look at everything; and he suggested we be unique and not be a 20% tax entity like the City of Spokane; adding that just because it's legal doesn't make it right. 4. Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she represents a lot of people; said they help at a nursing home and she spoke with the nursing home about the idea of paying more utilities, and the nursing home said they would pay less raises and have fewer staff, which means fewer beds; she rhetorically asked since when is asphalt more important than the lives of people; said Council has to weigh the needs of the people and everything they have to do; said we can do less, we can have beautiful roads and do less; said we need to collaborate;said how terrible that we would vote yes for a gas tax but our community isn't getting any help for bridging the valley; so not collaborating has cost the community a lot of money; said many people have no margins;that there have been reports that many people don't have$400.00 in case of an emergency; she asked what can citizens cut who live on social security,and any tax increase equates to less groceries or no medical co-pay or no prescriptions,so they'll stay home because they are sick and they are proud; said this is an"overreaching scandalous kind of thing"that forgets the plight of the human heart; said we don't need asphalt; said she thinks Council's conscience must be awakened because they are so privileged that they have forgotten the struggling people Council serves; said she is very incensed about this; that it has not been rational, Council has not been forthcoming, and Council broke their promises, and the only time Council remembers their promise about no new taxes is when they get called on the carpet about it. 5. April Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she is opposed to this tax; said she is a business owner and a single morn so this hits her at work and at home so it's 12%, and said she doesn't have extra money to spend on extra stuff and it is ridiculous when you are on a fixed income to have a budget to expect to have to spend all this extra money; said why not keep the telephone tax as there are people who will keep their house telephone, and then look into something else besides taking more money out of the pockets of people who are struggling. 6. Joe Tortorelli, Spokane Valley: said he is the Secretary and Executive Director of the Spokane Area Good Roads Association,which is a transportation advocacy group of about 100 area businesses; said he is also a resident here and was amazed in 2009 when the telephone tax was imposed to pay for roads as it is taking one utility to pay for roads; and now the proposal is to tax all other utilities to pay for roads; said about twenty years ago the state legislature created a means for cities to raise funds specifically for road maintenance and preservation, which is a Transportation Benefit District; said in the past years it was proposed for a County-wide TBD,all the other cities agreed except Spokane Valley; said Washington State has the second highest gas tax in the nation at 49.4 cents per gallons, and it was projected that the gas tax revenue would start declining due to more efficient cars,and electric cars; so probably starting next year or the year after,those revenues will also show a decline;he encouraged Council to examine alternate revenue Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 12 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 sources, said a $20 TBD would raise a little over $2 million a year; said they originally proposed a $40 TBD which would raise $20 million for the whole county, then be split based upon the various City participation rates. 7. Rog Repp, Spokane Valley:: said it's too bad the schools don't teach civics anymore; said people living in apartments tell him they don't pay those taxes; said he tells them maybe they don't pay the taxes but their landlord does, which affects their rent, but they don't realize that; said he doesn't know if 6% is too much or not;he asked if the Utility Commission has looked into this regarding percentages; said the knows something has to be done,but doesn't know if 6%is the right amount and feels it should be put to the voters. 8.Neil Sullivan, Spokane Valley: said he heard some stories about the 6%tax; when he first heard it, the rumor in the street was it was all about taxing the cell phone 6%; he thanked Council also for cancelling tonight's first reading of the ordinance; said he visited his neighbor,a 95-year old widow,and he explained that he would come to tonight's meeting to speak about the 6%tax;said he got a letter from the water utility and thought it was just the water; said his widow neighbor is on a fixed income and gets the inflationary rate on social security benefit, and for her to decide how to spend that tax,she would have to decide not to do something else; said this surprises him that it would be on all the utilities, as people rely on the heat of natural gas, especially people on a fixed income; said he believes the streets need to be funded, but a 6% tax from a decreasing base from a telephone, is a huge increase, and he asked Council to please consider maybe doing 1% the first year, and maybe 2% the next, or something that would impact the community less. 9. Katherine Morgan, Spokane Valley: said she is the President and CEO for the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce; she thanked Council for the delay on the consideration of the ordinance; said they look forward to the Chamber facilitating a discussion, as was previously discussed with Council, on December 6'h with further details to come; and said she looks forward to the discussion, clarity, and opportunities that are ahead. 10. Bill Courier, Spokane Valley: said he didn't know about this at all; said he has owned a home phone for 15 years or so;the only thing he can see is going from a 6%tax on the phone to multiple 6%seems like a huge jump; said he lives on disability; that when he goes to license a car, or renew the car tabs, that he thought those taxes were for roads. 11. Calvin Brown, Spokane Valley: said the lives in Spokane in the Ponderosa area; said he'd like a clarification;when the lady was reading the reason we are here for this proposal, she mentioned cable TV, but said he doesn't see anything with cable;he rhetorically asked if Council ever considered that investment in street fund activities as proposed is too ambitious and questioned if they aren't going beyond the heeds In asking citizens to fill a void so Council can spend the money; he asked if Council has control over the street department,and asked why that department isn't here to talk about this,and that the street department has impressed upon Council that the department needs 'x' number of millions of dollars; and he asked if Council doesn't hold them accountable and why they aren't they here to defend this need that the citizens are being asked to fund through utility taxes; said a reduction in the telephone tax isn't a tradeoff, as cell phones are eating away at landlines anyway and as that is a diminishing resource,Council wanted to replace it with taxes on utilities and presume that the utility rates will stay constant; or he asked, will it be 6% of the present rate; what happens if any of the municipal water departments decide to raise their rates by 30% because Bonneville Water is raising the cost to the water districts;the asked Council why don't you tax cell phone towers as that is where the shortfall is coming from; and if there is a tax on sewer,will there also be a tax on the construction portion of the sewer bill; said lie is still paying for the installation of his sewer and he doesn't want to pay tax on top of interest; and he asked Council to consider all those points. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 13 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 12.Tony Lazanis, Spokane Valley: said about 60%of the people live week to week or month to month and don't have that extra money; said there are a lot of sources from incoming revenue, like from gasoline,and sales tax; said he hopes that will be enough; said Council is supposed to be a no-tax council and they need to remember that; said 6%tax is pretty high and will hurt a lot of people, particularly those who live week to week or month to month; and said he hopes Council finds the money some other way as he is sure there are a Iot of ways to find the money. 13. Stephanie Columbo, Spokane Valley: said the blanket tax on all the utilities seems excessive; if you're trying to replace the phone tax,she suggests Council pick one;maybe start lower and build up;said it seems excessive and high and a little bit of a blindside to just throw it in there and have it kind of kept more executive than for the public; said she appreciates the opportunity to speak;that she feels that as the Mayor calls the names for people to come speak and they aren't coming up to speak, they left because it was crossed out;that the public hearing part for this was going to be next week, and said she' like it to be kept open.Mayor Higgins said that is not correct. She said someone went to speak earlier and the Mayor said that will be on the 15'x'. Mayor Higgins said he did not say that. She said it seemed like it earlier. 14. Judy Rigby, from the Greenacres area: said she has been assigned by some leaders in her area to visit older senior people,most of them single,and now a lot of then barely making it through,making their own payments, or even get groceries; if the taxes go up it will be serious and will put more problems on the government because they will have to provide something; said there must be ways to cut things back and be more efficient so we don't have to do this; said she doesn't agree with this and thinks it is wrong; and said everything else is raising, and social security has gone down. 15. Andy Kautznan, from the Greenacres area: said when he moved here in 1990 his property tax stayed around $100 a month for several years, and now he's up to about$125.00 a week; and said he is"chasing the same thieves he did many years ago" and that nothing has changed except his taxing; said he had to save up for years to do the sewer,which he paid for;said it seems we are spending more than we are making, and that lie sees other ways to save; said there are a lot of costs we could change; and it would be nice to do a different policy from everyone else who is spending and spending. 16. David Columba, from the Greenacres area: said first of all that this is the first lye's heard of this; and whoever's in charge of making sure that notifications are put out needs to be fired because this is getting ridiculous; as far as the roads are concerned,said he sees the same pieces of road year after year being torn up and being paved over; sees perfectly good concrete being torn up and paved over with blacktop, which he said is junk;said he hurt himself over seven years ago;said he was walking when they started the Sullivan Bridge and he asked what is going on because someone is padding their pockets with that; said he would have had a lot more to talk about had he known about this sooner and although it is, it was explained to him that this red section crossed out,that you would have had a lot more people stay whether it was meant for this or not because he said he knows several people that would have probably stayed from the last thing; next, if all these taxes go through; said lie understands it needs to be done, obviously we were just talking about how horrible the roads are, but they need to tax the people building these houses, and the roads can't take any more and the apartments they are trying to put in and the roads can't take anymore; they need to start holding the people accountable that is doing the work because lie said lie is driving over brand new sections of road and said he is bottoming out his four-wheel car; said it is ridiculous;the work is done very shoddy now; said his dad used to be in road construction so he knows a little about where the money goes and how things should be done, and even he said that a lot of these guys should be ashamed that are laying these roads; said the work is being done poorly or wrong as these roads should last a lot longer than they are; and said lie hopes that they open this up again for public comment and get some notification out to people, because you'll have an even more packed house as a lot of people will not want this to happen;and said lie is definitely opposed to this. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 14 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 17.Frank Roberts, Spokane Valley: said he counted 108 business cards in the office; said that would mean that you have 108 supervisors and heads of departments and said why can't we look at streamlining; said he is on a fixed income and if he doesn't have the money to pay for something,then he has to look at ways to trim his budget to meet those needs,and that Council should do likewise,especially when Council came out years ago and said that they wouldn't tax the public,and now all of a sudden;and said he knows Council doesn't have to put it to a public vote but it would be nice if the people Council represented and had a vote in this. 18. Richard Allen, Spokane Valley: said he just learned about this;said he lives by Felts Field,the old road where they didn't touch and the new road where they did,the new road is crappy and wavy; and if you look at the old road, it's straight; said if they were more efficient in what they were doing, maybe cut some of the CEO's high wages and things like that; maybe even bring back the chain gang; get some free labor to cut some of those costs down; said he didn't hear specifically whether it was 6% over all the utilities, or each would be 6%;that wasn't clarified; and if there are downfalls or deficits, what was that caused by; he asked were they doing too much more than they wanted or were they not getting enough revenues; said a lot of things lie didn't see; said he thinks they need to be more efficient with what they are doing and spending the money wiser, because it's not their money it's the citizen's money entrusted to Council to do the best job they can. 19. Robert Odell, Spokane Valley: said he got a letter from the water company about this meeting; said when he started work to build up his retirement,he started at$1.83 an hour working for a power company; and now things have gone up and his retirement was built on low wages and the inflation has taken what his retirement would be;said he was a farmer and farming wasn't too good and his wife had to go to college to get an education, and she became a secretary; and just before that she was in an accident and got back injuries and since then she had to be on disability; so lie's going to have to pay for this tax from wages that were made back 20-30 years ago; said it seems there should be some other way to get the taxes and make sure the people in these condos pay their share because they use more roadways then he does and on the Ponderosa, it's getting larger and needs another entrance going to the south and pretty soon it will be running into Hallett Road,so there should be a crossing there. 20. Ben Wick, Spokane Valley: said he applauds Council's efforts in trying to take on the transportation and street funding; said he thinks there are other alternatives; said he previously served on the Transportation Committee and served as Chair of the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and participated in numerous meetings in Olympia, and they invited the senators to see our projects when we were applying for grants; while in Olympia seeking grants,there was a lot of discussion and questions if we did a TBD (Transportation Benefit District); he said they wanted to see if we used what they had provided us for transportation funding for those projects in order to score well for grants; he said he thinks options such as the TBD could be more advantageous to our City; he said that when we had those discussions before as a region,the County promised more money to the City of Spokane Valley than what would be generated in the City of Spokane Valley;and he said that would be a way to leverage more dollars from outside the area;said he sees that as a grant more for matching funds;also with the last gas tax increase that occurred in the state legislature, we were actually notified that they had the votes ahead of time, and we were almost going to get our$19.5 million for the grade separation project, but we couldn't get one of our legislators to go sign onto the bill or vote for the package;he said when we brought this up and discussed it at our City Council, we couldn't even get a letter of support from our City Council from the majority of our Council to try to go forward to give support to our legislators to support the package to get the money; so there are other ways and opportunities to go forward with this; and said he'd be happy to share some of those insights. 21,Lynn Plaggemeier,Spokane Valley: said he's grateful to be here tonight and has been educated by many of those speaking tonight; that in looking at this utility tax, people work hard,have large homes, and when Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 15 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 it comes to utility taxes,you are taxing us again; he said property values out of 144 cities,now we are 14th from the bottom; another hidden tax he said, is a hidden tax with the blue waste disposal cans; said homeowners get the bill, but you talk to an apartment dweller and they don't pay that;with the number of apartments that we have in this city per capita, said there is a tremendous impact in transportation, road projects,but we have a line item like 311 preservation of roads,we should know what is maintenance,what is repair, and what is capital; and Council should start looking at having an impact fee on schools as well as on apartments;when we have to rebuild, widen roads,put in traffic circles and lights,who is paying for them?He said the poor property owners are,the renters aren't;and the discrepancy between a tax on a two- bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom house is astronomical and no one is looking at that; another quick way to raise some money he suggested, is everybody in the city government should immediately take a 10%tax cut and he suggested getting rid of unnecessary personnel like community planners. 22. Adam Taylor, Spokane Valley: said he works in social services and finance and was wondering if Council understands the aged population who rely on social security benefits now; said there was no COLA (cost of living allowance) in social security benefits for 2015; said next year they are looking at a "big" .02%; said last year Medicare premiums went up 15%, next Medicare trustees are calling for a 22% increase;lie asked Council to please keep this in mind if Council enacts this,and if Council does enact this, to please also enact a measure to allow people for a respite against these taxes for those who can ill-afford them. There were no other public comments. For the record, City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that she received the following comments concerning the proposed utility tax: an e-mail from Janice Austin opposed to the utility tax, an e-mail from Kathryn Cote opposed to the utility tax; an e-mail from Randall Stevenson opposed to the utility tax, an e-mail from Margaret Mortz opposed to the utility tax, a letter from Carla Barajas opposed to the tax,and a letter from Brenda Grassel opposed to the tax. Mayor Higgins then closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. At 8:53 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-018 Adopting Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations —John Holtman, Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 16-018 repealing the existing Comprehensive Plan and certain development regulations and adopting the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and associated development regulations, to a second reading. Director Holtman explained that if Council chooses to move this forward to a second reading, that tonight he wants to make sure any changes previously discussed have been covered, as well as discuss any changes Council might want based on tonight's hearing;he said a lot of tonight's information is similar to what was heard during the Planning Commission's public hearings, but there was some additional information heard tonight, which staff noted, and which will be discussed tonight; he said staff would also like to take the opportunity tonight for any input from Council which hasn't been discussed previously. Mr.Holtman directed Council's attention to the matrix included in tonight's packet materials, which includes some of the items we know need to be changed based on previous feedback. Mr. Basinger mentioned that during previous discussions with Council, it was noted that Council asked for continued discussion on small residential dwellings, adding that staff also seeks Council direction concerning that topic.Mr. Holtman noted that as part of the previous Council discussions October 25,there was some changes to that section in A and B where they talked about small residential structures,and there were some discrepancies with the building code so staff is planning to clean that up; he said that tonight staff would like to see what direction Council would like to pursue concerning that section C, supportive housing; he said Council heard tonight from Ian Robertson that they are supportive of items that would Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 16 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 provide flexibility; that staff has looked at that and believe that the type of project they referenced likely fits into the cottage housing section, which would leave us with the supportive housing provision; he reminded Council that the Planning Commission recommended that he removed and taken through the process separately in order to provide additional feedback; for example, if a church group would create a transitional step, or support or be responsible for a housing development that would be a transitional development trying to get homeless or other individuals to transition from the streets to this project, with the goal of them hopefully being able to be self-sufficient. Mr. Hohman said we heard a lot of testimony and a some discomfort concerning whether that is something we want for this community; and said staff looks to Council for direction. Councilmember Pace said he thinks a lot of comments about high density housing would apply to the supportive housing,and his understanding is if we take that out as the Planning Commission recommended, cottage homes and smaller dwellings would still be there and would meet the needs of the Fuller Center for their projects as they try to get people to own their own homes;and therefore he suggested taking supportive housing out and don't even bring it back. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he disagreed; said it needs to be removed from tonight's passage, but that it needs to go back through the Planning Commission, get the public to talk about that specifically; and then it if comes back with a recommendation to eliminate it,then Council can discuss that at the time. Councilmember Munch said he agreed with Deputy Mayor Woodard to remove it until we have more information, but not necessarily discard the idea. Councilmember Wood said he agreed with Councilmember Pace.By a show of hands, Councilmembers desiring to remove it but take it up further with the Planning Commission included Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Coimcihnembers Haley and Munch. Concerning the neighborhood commercial, Deputy Mayor Woodard said that there were a couple of pieces brought up, but the one at Bowdish and Broadway— if that would hinder someone from using part of their property; said part of the reason he'd look at Neighborhood Commercial on dead corners, would be to try to get them used in a way not previous used; said he'd hate to be a hindrance to finally having something developed on a piece of land there. To clarify, Mr. Hohman said that is probably an inadvertent change; that it would be a downzoning for that particular property so we could restore that individual's rights on that piece of property if that is Council's direction. Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Mr. Holtman said that staff would bring that multi-family designation back on that piece as the requested. Concerning the other neighborhood commercial property that Mr. Wick spoke to, Mr. Basinger said that has been adjusted and are now in good order, as the old presentation contained an outdated snapshot.Concerning the church property at North Pines,Deputy Mayor Woodard asked for clarification that that piece went through the Planning Commission which recommended not to do that;and Mr.Basinger further clarified that the Planning Commission recommended that piece go through the annual amendment process;Deputy Mayor Woodard said he agreed with that recommendation. Further,Deputy Mayor Woodard noted the piece by the Chester store for a nursery,and lie asked if there is a way for that residential zoning,a lot of which is the flood plain,that a text amendment could put that into a permitted use for properties maybe of that size;and said lie personally does not want to see that re-zoned. Mr. Hohman said there is a way for staff to craft some guidance regulation that would go through the Planning Commission. Councilmember Munch said he did not agree on the church property because the reason it was taken up is because the property owner wasn't able to petition this year, so we didn't want to cause them such a long delay; but said lie agrees with Deputy Mayor Woodard on the nursery property. Mayor Higgins said lie thought Council had already agreed with that and Mr. Hohman confirmed that was the consensus from the 25th meeting to look to implement a mixed use zoite on that property; and he asked if that remains as Council's view on that property. Council concurred. To reiterate, Mr. Hohman said staff will look at the nursery property as a code text amendment. Mr. Hohman asked Council if there were any other Planning Commission recommendations Council wanted to treat differently from Council's direction provided thus far. Councilmember Pace asked about the Sprague and Barker area and staff confirmed they have already made note of that. Deputy Mayor Woodard interjected and asked if anyone made a note when lie asked the question on the consistency Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 17 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 between the comp plan and the development regulations, and Mr.Hohman said he would address that in a minute. Going back to the Barker and Sprague, Councilmember Haley asked if that other piece would still be multi-family, and Mr. Hohman acknowledged that was what Council agreed previously; after hearing the testimony and receiving an e-mail from the property owner of that multi-family property that requested that he maintain that entitlement;and asked if Council wanted to handle that any differently from what has been stated so far; and there were no other suggested changes on the Planning Commission recommendations. Regarding Deputy Mayor Woodard's suggestion,Mr.Holman said the issue in question is that throughout this process, most of the regulatory items should be kept in the development code, but Mr. Woodard found a reference to density within the land use chapter,chapter 4,and has requested that we retain regulatory items in the actual development code and not in the comprehensive plan, and said staff appreciates Deputy Mayor Woodard catching that. There was Council consensus to keep those separated. Mr.Hohman noted that he heard during testimony a concern of the size of the garages for the cottage homes, and that it seems that 250 square feet might be a little small considering pickup trucks and other vehicles; and that staff can research that and propose a size that might be more reasonable to accommodate trucks. Council concurred. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he heard in testimony something about us being a complaint-driven city; and said that we are not a complaint-driven city, but we do have an enforcement group.Mr.Hohman said that is within his department and within his responsibilities;that about six or seven years ago,the City on a code enforcement item,was predominantly complaint driven, but we haven't been so for a number of years since that time;that when staff is in the community and sees an issue, garbage, or other clear violations of our city code,that issue is brought forward and put through the C.A.R.E.S.(Citizen Action Request online Entry System) process to determine if it is a violation; but that we are not solely complaint-driven. Mr. Hohman noted that in the matrix, there are several items included from WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), some changes requested by SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) and STA(Spokane Transit Authority), and some from Avista, and said staff wants to make sure those changes are appropriate from Council's viewpoint, and said from a staff point, they all are relatively minor and would help increase the quality of the document. Deputy Mayor Woodard brought attention to SRTC#5,the Transportation Element,policy T-P 1,which states that the City intends to"continue to pursue funding for the Bridging the Valley(BTV) program to reduce rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency access, eliminate vehicle waiting times, reduce noise, and improve traffic flow" and that"The priority of BTV [Bridging the Valley] projects continues to be evaluated by regional decision makers, especially in light of limited transportation funding resources and the need to secure commitment from the railroads;" Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if they are trying to state that we don't address those issues;he said from a regional standpoint we are not getting any help; so if that is what they are stating,Deputy Mayor Woodard said he disagrees; he said grants have been reduced, and if we aren't going to look for solutions for our citizens, the answer is not in the regional as they have too much to take care of now and can't handle their own; and said he does not agree that we cannot do things on our own. Mr. Basinger said that he feels SRTC's main concern is, that at one time with the Bridging the Valley where we had the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Railroad lines coming together;that that has gone by the wayside in terms of that bigger Bridging the Valley plan that went all the way to Idaho; so we are planning to re- emphasize that we still see the importance of making sure we can get over or under the Burlington Northern lines wherever we need to,and we want to make sure our document supports that; and said that SRTC was just trying to give a little more focus. Mr.Hohman stated that it appears we are good to incorporate those where necessary and there were no objections from Council. Toward the end of the matrix, Mr. Hohman noted that Avista has asked for some minor changes;and noted that staff found some things in Title 19,and upon further review found that we should bring forward a provision for parking in the neighborhood commercial, and said we are looking at exempting any parking requirements up to 3,000 square feet, (the size of the development), but we would have to continue to require ADA (American with Disabilities Act) standards; and asked if those sounded reasonable to include. There were no objections from Council. Mr. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 18 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 Hohman also noted to have a provision for reducing parking requirements up to 25% for development located near transit services,in order to provide more flexibility.Councilmember Munch said for a business under 3,000 square feet, since we would not require parking spaces on their lot, he asked how that would work on Appleway. Mr. Hohman explained that most of the neighborhood commercial would be on a different street, and said the thought process was, there should be some on-street parking available. Councilmember Haley asked for the rationale in reducing parking requirements up to 25% for a development located near transit services,and asked if staff is assuming that people who reside there would only ride the bus. Mr. Basinger said the idea was that there could be some who would ride the bus so we could lessen the amount of parking requirements needed. Mr. Holunan said this has been modified from several years ago where the standards were relatively high; so it took a lot of area and a lot of parking spaces; and what we did was look at the ratios and dropped them to the lowest requirements around that other jurisdictions had, to make it so there is a minimum, but no maximum, and on most projects, the developer almost always chooses to add more which is a good position for us to be in. Mr. Hohman asked that now that we have gone through the matrix list, are there any other changes Council wishes to discuss and make prior to a second reading.There were no further suggested changes.Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. ATT ST L.R. igg:n •'�^°'. 1 firistine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 19 of 19 Approved by Council: 12-13-2016 SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting SUBJECT: Trans 01 "atio'- and Infrastructure Utilit Tax Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT � t( i) ar� � � S'foir, kit V ) / ___jin -t, ri--671Apfrialfe)xcl “5--ip ,41,_----7-• 1,/.2_ts • N ` V- 1 ii / ON, a 5'f C bjr .-) r0A +v Q. v6.a 11_ L 7( J1 L L i J 1, 1 pck' ,P,t, ! C �� �„ U. ,�� . > 7 UP,,,,, VrilL,t r9,, ,, 170 AO-ill f , ,-2_,., ,, ,..:-',..44..., 74-4. /0-it fiAE fj al7(itc K ,., col cy)i)X ezA4 Ode° .____,71 ApieLiel_ � r 01 /76&- ----iiilik/2_41' 4-e/(z/u/ct ' ',61 c___L / _ , „...„, ,(‘)/Ave_ k>, Po w-Lco ---kk_ci-\,(1_ V eLt((ii, 4 1 ort-ro R ei,L.( 0' ul - 11 -• D 1--,,(2-- __, .6 XEy Sr : a aR ( . a-ys .-� eeei7cve S' "/(72- -- 72_ t-C.s & L N c< vs CC,'CV\ GL i.,--37--"-N Di al 14 `/ ' I d' ice/ / • -s. 0 1014 Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting SUBJECT: Trans )ortation and Infrastructure Utilit Tax Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT /(//e/Y 5 ,k ,vim /Je �il .��/.'Ufi ti Please note that once information is entered on this for,n, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting SUBJECT: Trans )ortation and Infrastructure Utilit Tax Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence Pi- 64-fie PLEASE PRINT I/ 1, 00\rc\o,,,i y v 40-4.,-k 11-1-)c rcdv'V ej , L Cyylimuk-------- _.-12,.) ( ) Please note that once information is entered on this for))), it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure, SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting POINOWIM1 1 1 =. I ' MTEM Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT L cb P--c MJ SF,knne kie.Rey Please note that once infoinialion is entered on this firm, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting Cif3Slirq-24-6:- SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT Gotkria-a _ " ' s' Y1.11-Y,l&A) (IN Ze SP .)V?'/Ie (cad/42104J) 4y0 /./ /14 00(NACC_ Prkginail, Sc)10V(AJA0 r/ 4-1\4•0\ ! o e_ ' °t I 11 16. 4)r, --• , 01/ ,41.4 7-0 p,i-Rz_ VAL,L, a t . mitt' / IOW /2/, '!42- ?}W (.7&-oxle Co . •. .'")0 4, a Vo-11e f Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT al-,/t,5'pe9 P/7/ "Vtlitivt,M4) Ape/4761 -je'i r , r 4 'n,/ hi- b V(1 ' ,',ie K k iri Sr Se o< V,,i1 re-y L ov) mqn s'i,X0.-sc V:1/6" /0/P tCIL Sc=HAMA4OfC -q, ( \ 11 i rte: C. .a. .I A ,eS ,Xb fic- ( try' (7 ....------ 2/6T-- 4 ij / tx S 0iN JJ(J1MQCL,Ja ": 1 ,Mr,4-7 _c pd . ..6 e veirvti Ce-e-t (2.67,4-e-,e 1-i4 - ;0-141 ne,Y fiaLfit I, r ''' .. - - i4,66- ,VCAI so i/v e ii 1 vi S d A/ ,pd2-4.4)e 114/A0 P--(-&6a,.,-;//T,,//e,,,,-.? 5,i,-)g__ k'b ---diimYT,aive ii rel.Kt‘i cY/1461-/2-4.- „,5-y9& vi 7 /36 2-Z) / . g — Mfg Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. Meeting SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT nAW rn 1 L7t)/ SP©w!' AlE V L#71 Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. it-NCITY WI\ONN pone ,igio•OValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers cc: Mark Calhoun, City Manager; John Hohman, Community& Economic Development Director; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk ar//f Date: November 18, 2016 ��II//JJ Re: Additional Materials from November 8, 2016 Public Hearing Attached please find the documents related to the November 8,2016 Public Hearing before Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan: 1. November 8, 2016 letter from the Inland Northwest Fuller Center for Housing, signed by Ian Robertson; letter handed to the City Clerk as part of his comments at the November 8 public hearing. 2. Three pages from Dennis Crapo,handed to the City Clerk as part of his comments at the November 8 public hearing. 3, November 7, 2016 e-mail from Susan Scott, received by the Clerk and noted as part of the record at the November 8, 2016 public hearing. 4. November 4, 2016 e-mail from Charles Southern, received by the Clerk and noted as part of the record at the November 8, 2016 public hearing. 5.November 8, 2016 e-mail from Addy Mathison,received by the Clerk and noted as part of the record at the November 8,2016 public hearing. 6. November 8, 2016 e-mail from Timothy Blake, received by the Clerk and noted as part of the record at the November 8,2016 public hearing. 7. November 2, 2016, two-page e-mail from Wayne Vinson, received by the Clerk and noted as part of the record at the November 8, 2016 public hearing. (Mr.Vinson was also present and spoke at the hearing.) The Inland 14415 E Sprague, Suite 2, Spokane Valley,WA 99216 Northwest , 'r Fuller Center 509.252-0233. inFullerCenler.org for Housing A November 8, 2016 OE E� f r Mr. Mayor, City Council Members: t II I '``t. We the people should leave out none of the people... as it relates to _ I`'1 the American dream of home ownership and economic development. . As you update the Comprehensive Plan, we look for ways that the working poor will be able to own their own home in our city. Home ownership in the U.S. is lower today than it has been since the 1960s. United Way published the "ALICE Report" for the Pacific Northwest. ALICE is an acronym for Asset-Limited, Income-Constrained, Employed. The working poor. In Spokane Valley, United Way identified 13,730 families struggling to meet the basic five necessities of life: housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation. That's 37% of our city's families. 16% are living below the national poverty level, and 21% are in the ALICE category. These are our children, our grandchildren, families already in Spokane Valley, children attending our schools, working at minimum wage jobs: care givers, assistant nurses, restaurant workers, store clerks. They don't need a 3,000 square foot home, and cannot afford to spend 50% of their income on rent. Let's put a face on the working poor. Here is Dusty Hester and her son, Tyler. Dusty is employed by a large company on this block of Sprague Avenue. Minimum wage until this last month. She is living in a Spokane Valley "poorhouse," paying $350 a month for a single room. She shares a kitchen with seven other women. They also share two single-stall toilets. Tyler cannot stay with his mother because the house is "female only," so here is couch-surfing with friends. Dusty has been approved to own a "humble home." Her son will be able to live with her, and she will own the home after six or seven years. HUD reports that average rent in our county for a two-bedroom house is $773, and $1,105 for a three-bedroom house. A working poor family of four make a mortgage payment of $400 for a "humble home" instead of $1,100 rent, that's like a $700 monthly pay raise, or $8,400 annual increase in pay. That money is likely to be spent locally, which is good for business, and it increases our tax base. We can do a lot of infilling, instead of creating more urban sprawl. The working poor need capital not charity. We want to help those who want to help themselves. Henry Ford paid workers Igo. ' . , cVet.'y" 4 + ip,._ $5 a day, twice prevailing ;" ,i a" 4 +.�, . .t z4` - ,' wage, so people could ' . ,' ..,z• Alb �4 w afford to buy the products '",' ' , r• ;" . �' they made. r■.' '.. We the people should ; 1 leave out none of the -� people. We want others to liouNrw� I i I w— 0.... ,, , enjoy the American dream I ltl., l',. i if a of owning wealth- �+'ll ,•'.4r producing assets... like a '"'.• ,� home of their own. " Ian Robertson • (509) 389-3211 tjIIc1JIC1 IJ.ILU F LI\IVII I IL.✓ruv✓I% �v--- ,ther requirements may apply, including but not limited to, parking, landscaping, stormwater, and engineering requirements. Where only one SVMC provision is cited for a given use, such provision shall apply to the use for all = -6-'-6 • 6- . , d " esident al .o+e �-ommercialx'and Industrial Zone Supplemental Use Category/Type stricts Conditions Prohibited uses, within a zone district9ra .f ignatel with a blank coil.i R- Rd R- R= MF-1111F- fl Explanation for the zoning dist i�;t b1 e\jet r +1 71 1 T 1�CE6n1frg �i1 (Ord. 14-fl l's r� bJ 19.120.050 Permitted i,i e matrix, ..��r Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and I du ria, Zone Supplemental Use Category/Type Districts Distri Conditions R< lidF;- R= MF-MF- MUCCMU GOO NCC RCP/OSI-1I-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Agriculture and Animal 111 Animal processing/handling P SVMC 19.40.150. Animal raising and/or keeping SSSS S S S S Keeping of swine is prohibited Animal shelter S P P SVMC 19.60,080(B)(6) Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S SVMC 19.40.150(C) Produce may be sold pursuant to RCW Community garden SSSS S S S S S 36.71.090 as adopted or amended Greenhouse/nursery, P P P P commercial See zoning districts for Kennel S S S S S P P conditions Marijuana production S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Orchard, tree farming, P P commercial Riding stable C P P Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P P P Repeater facility PPPP P P PPPP P P Telecommunication wireless SSSS S S S S CCSSS S S Chapter 22,120 SVMC antenna array hktp:!/www.codepublishing.comNVArSpokaneValley! 2110 P(71VHS (//11-4/0/ C) L ,� r I r . _ a • f I' / 7 / I • 1 y 1 i • t [ ---14 -- ,� T 1 �y 1 t I I I 1 z : I r / -- t f r. r r .ems r7) r..... I ry-C iia,' /. 4-• r,`Y cn — HP J6 nn — C 1 I , 1 . .N.‘ , ' NI ; _ NI \ .'- -\‘ - Lll 7=-)M1\.\-c,' - - . ' '\\N\1/4 \i‘-`.. 4,\,.: ' 1-• V l'-'4-4.]-7- ',:`?(Ka\-\(.\\,.\-) 4iss ki: N'' , i i ,,-, ,,..-6 ... :e ' N, , 1 \ V-1 . tiVN _ _ ).* \\;{-51--J 1--7->- ,._;:f 1) ---t---..//1 i is:, N--,,,---, \ 44 bi7 11171c y'''0' ,'..--.X\\''V/\:\"(\,A. h i 1 \N s k ci_L___8-1..-,\!),>\.>„•::\>;<,, ,‘,..(\j„, ..__._.,.,_/__:/ „...7,e),1, __ ;_, * lei��I _ _ :IN .;:4;14041 t r/.' . Z. - l;' - . 7. NSI.\\ I , (4 / - 17'' „/ -S‘,>4 - N, r-r-, ______T , 7.,, <,-- -)r=i--_ 7/ 1 /.., ,.._ 7, k - 4!,---,,,,7,\---.\--7------- I 1----1,177,-tir\-\`-.-•,;,/,/, --)-- /, ,,-..- . _ 4 -., . .,,,,„,- -, lict.\ . , N_. 1 ''4 -1-1-)/-1 :1-_-2 /-,/ //i': ._:: i_c_- ��1of S L_ _(,\,'C-( - 1 LI_J ILT.- 1(1)- 15-ii,;tic-----1,i 1 L ' . . T,''''' .,.. 17-111_,:lii-. <\...V-----\--- --.-1-- rpdicli-_-7L I'L--- ... ----',40k7:-: . ,. ...9..:7:7 ;_ 1 .f_ ' . I� _ — E-_-_ __ 1`CL1-D S •- ~-_' r„,,,,,-._:, 1 [--,--_ ,fir ',:..r--tftt__ 14.- El‘ f_ ,1 , . 14 q _ri_ 1 L-1 it,/ i ' ' C i Z;.iii• : :-I • P _ r i /::_c am_ - . ..y- 1 ‘ '`\ - H [ -1:firm., ..H:::- , .,__ .-.H , <,,-, i---$.\-\ \ ____-_-----,..____- !:.!:1::1: :,, .::.-,:v.-, ; 1 ,\! „../:),,,..(t,---,__ . .;._. - ....,- I 1 I. i 6 i 1 L*> _LI�L_ '2 M � LJ-, Q ' _ S.vladis:on_Rd i—Y}- % ,7. Chris Bainbridge From: Sue Passmore Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 2:12 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Comp Plan Public Hearing - Supportive Housing From: Sue Passmore On Behalf Of mayor/councilmembers Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 1:48 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@spokanevalley.org>; Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>;John Hohman <jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Subject: FW: Comp Plan Public Hearing-Supportive Housing From: Lark Dock Inc [mailto:info@larkdock.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 1:43 PM To: mayor/councilmembers<mayor councilmembers@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Comp Plan Public Hearing-Supportive Housing Dear Mayor Higgins and Councilmembers; I regret I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the Comp Plan scheduled for 11/8/2016 but would like to submit the following comments for your consideration. In the matter of 19.41.100 Development standards -small residential dwellings, in particular Section C. supportive housing, I would ask that you following the Planning Commission's recommendation to delete this portion of the plan for further consideration through a future code text amendment. I understand this concept has been in the works a long time and is designed for a noble purpose. All the more reason to ensure its success through careful review. Barring that, and due to the maximum density of 15 dwellings per acre, it does not see appropriate as an allowed use in the R-3 zoning district. I believe this would require an adjustment to the permitted use matrix. Sincerely, Susan Scott Spokane Valley, WA 1 Chris Bainbridge From: Deanna Horton Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:45 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Barker Road Zoning Deanna From:Janice Southern [mailto:2southerns@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:44 PM To: Deanna Horton <dhorton@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Barker Road Zoning To the Spokane Valley City Council Members; My name is Charles Southern. I would like to address the Baker road zoning issue. I will be unable to attend the city council meeting on November 8, 2016 as my daughter is having surgery in Tacoma and I will be taking care of her and my grandchildren. I own parcels 55173.1019 and 55173.1020 on Barker road which are currently zoned multi family. I would like my current zoning to stay as it is now and not be down zoned. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Charles Southern 5523 S. Conklin Rd. Greenacres WA 99016 • i Chris Bainbridge From: Deanna Horton Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:47 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Rezone of Barker/Sprague lot Deanna From: Taffy Hunter [mailto:mommyetb@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:04 PM To: Deanna Horton<dhorton@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Rezone of Barker/Sprague lot Dear City of Spokane Planners, My name is Addy Mathison. I am 10 years old. I live across the street from where you want to rezone the field. I am in grade 4. I have 4 brothers and 1 sister. I am afraid that bad people will live in the apartments that could be built. My main concern is that it wouldn't be safe for kids if they are playing in the front yard. I already have nightmares about people taking me. Nobody would get good sleep anymore because it would be noisy and there would be more traffic. There will be lots of litter and no privacy. I love to see the view from my window and apartments would block nature. I am concerned the animals will run out of habitats and that none of the grass will grow. Maybe instead of building apartments you could build me a playground. There is not one single playground near my house. Thank you for hearing about my worries. Hopefully, you will take this into concern. Addy Mathison 18820 E Sprague Ave Greenacres, WA 99016 Chris Bainbridge From: Deanna Horton Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:49 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Rezone of Barker/Sprague lot Deanna From: Taffy Hunter [mailto:mommyetb r@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:15 PM To: Deanna Horton <dhorton@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Fw: Rezone of Barker/Sprague lot Dear Council, My name is Timothy Blake and i have autism. I am 11 and I live directly across the street from where you are trying to rezone. I don't want apartments to be build in front of my house because there will be too many people for our neighborhood and bully's too. My concerns are there would be more traffic and it would be unsafe for children like me because there would be bad people. Also, the environment would be terrible for me to grow up in. I have auditory processing disorder which means I'm very sensitive to sound and it would cause more sound and pollution. My favorite thing to do is to go swing on the swing-set in my back yard. More pollution and sound would cause the beautiful outdoors to be ruined and swinging wouldn't be relaxing. It would be a much smarter idea to add in a park because the neighborhood has no parks. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Sincerely, Timothy Blake Address, 18820 E Sprague Ave 1 Chris Bainbridge From: Chris Bainbridge Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:31 AM To: John Hohman; Mike Basinger; Mark Calhoun Cc: Deanna Horton; Erik Lamb Subject: FW: Rezone Barker RD Please note below message which was sent to mayor and councilnlembers Christine (Chris) Bainbridge Spokane Valley City Clerk 509-720-5102 From:vinway [mailto:vinway@kataan.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 7:07 PM To: mayor/councilmembers<mayor_councilmembers@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Rezone Barker RD Mr. Mayor and City Council It's ONE OF YOUR GOALS and policies of the council is to protect the character of Spokane Valley's Residential neighborhoods is it not? Maintaining and protecting existing and future residential neighborhoods? This new comprehensive plan has proposed a zone change for me at 117 N. Barker to a Corridor Mix Use. From Apple way to Sprague on Barker, Barker to Greenacres RD. I strongly apposes this change, As the city council has already said this is not ready this type of change, at this time and dose not fit the area. As the city council voted this down about a year ago, Sprague and Barker rezone. Nothing has changed or is about to change in this area. It does not seem the comprehensive plan individuals took any of this into concentration. Just for the record we have a traffic problem, over crowding of schools, the closest shopping is 2 miles away. Emergency res-ponderers have a hard time getting down Barker•RD. Bus stop is at Apple way and Barker on the North Wast corner. This going to worse with all the development on south Barker RD. As for future use of the land along Apple way ave. East or West of Barker that is the old railroad line which is a walk way now/the Apple way trail. So the only building that is going up in this area maybe mini strip malls. Only after you get read of the Alleyway trail and even at that there will be very little parking. In short there is will be no big development in this area for years and years. There is no need to rezone this property at this time. i Please keep this area the same at medium density residential. w'•"/''''Lets make both West: Greenarces RD to Barker RD, Bow RD to Sprage and East of Barker the same Medium Density residential and this includes that High Density property between Apple way and Sprague East of Baker RD.nxx �x It is the right thing to do... YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT. Wayne Vinson 117 N. Barker RD Spokane Valley WA 99016 2