The URL can be used to link to this page

2019, 06-18 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, June 18, 2019 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION ITEMS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA: consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 18, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $2,705,654.79 b. Payroll Approval for Payroll ending May 31, 2019: $523,738.54 c. Approval of May 28, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting Executive Session d. Approval of May 28, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Format e. Approval of June 4, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting Executive Session f. Approval of June 4, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format 2. Second Reading Ordinance 19-007, Amending Addressing Standards — Karen Kendall [public hearing previously held: No Public Comments] 3. Resolution 19-009 Setting Planning Commission Hearing for a Privately -Initiated Street Vacation (Broadway Ave) — Karen Kendall [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Pines Grade Separation Project Preferred Design Selection — Gloria Mantz [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk — Gloria Mantz [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above. Public comments will be taken on the above action items where indicated, at the time those items are discussed. When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. NON -ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 6. Joss Weiss, Lobbyist with Gordon Thomas Honeywell End of Legislative Session Report Discussion/Information 7. Chad Riggs Re -opening 10th Avenue 8. Lori Barlow Proposed Code Text Amendment 2018-0006 Affordable Housing 9. Adam Jackson Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Potential Grant Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda, June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 2 10. Adam Jackson Pavement Management Ad -Hoc Discussion/Information Commission 11. Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 12. Mayor Higgins Council Check in Discussion/Information 13. Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: al consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER 05/29/2019 05/30/2019 06/03/2019 06/05/2019 06/05/2019 06/05/2019 06/06/2019 LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 8188-8198 47705-47746; 6956653; 6956788; 6972162 47747-47752 8199-8214 47753-47772 47773-47791 6685; 6687; 6689; 6701-6703; 6705; 6720; 47792 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $2,195.50 $2,223,902.03 $13,820.12 $2,629.00 $94,163.45 $11,008.02 $357,936.67 $2,705,654.79 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001- General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 00I.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.040.041. Engineering 001.040.042. Economic Development 001.040.043. Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Serv. 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Eco. 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preser. 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Capital Outlay Other Funds: 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 -- Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment. Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 05/29/2019 12: 04:13 P M Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 8188 5/29/2019 007241 BRANSON, DEBBIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREEN/ 159.00 Total : 159.00 8189 5/29/2019 007108 FAMILY PROMISE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/: 210.00 Total : 210.00 8190 5/29/2019 007243 GO BEYOND CONSULTING PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT F 210.00 Total : 210.00 8191 5/29/2019 007039 GOLD SEAL MECHANICAL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/: 210.00 Total : 210.00 8192 5/29/2019 000979 IRS ENVIRONMENTAL OF WA INC PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 212 52.00 Total : 52.00 8193 5/29/2019 007242 JOHN, LINDA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUI 210.00 Total : 210.00 8194 5/29/2019 007244 MAZHAN, MARK PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM!: 500.00 Total : 500.00 8195 5/29/2019 007245 MCCORMICK, LANAE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 109 14.50 Total : 14.50 8196 5/29/2019 004147 STUBBORN GIRL PRODUCTIONS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT F 500.00 Total : 500.00 8197 5/29/2019 007246 UPS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 110 10.00 Total : 10.00 8198 5/29/2019 007024 YOCUM, CHERYL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 120.00 Total : 120.00 11 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 2,195.50 11 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,195.50 Page: 1 vchIist 05/30/2019 8:15:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47705 5/30/2019 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 47706 5/30/2019 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 64376 64378-A Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 Description/Account Amount STREET SWEEPING STORM DRAIN CLEANING 102676 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES 47707 5/30/2019 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 237988 239176 18525 PARCEL 55061.9065 19-175-S 47708 5/30/2019 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 47709 5/30/2019 007247 BR LAND GROUP LLC 47710 5/30/2019 004110 BURKES KLE!NS DKI 47711 5/30/2019 002562 CD'A METALS 467154 467158 471474 47712 5/30/2019 007240 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 64307250 47713 5/30/2019 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 437978 443228 47714 5/30/2019 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 614055 47715 5/30/2019 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.040.041.558 303.000.276.595 001.040.043.524 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.018.016.518 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : Total : CIP 0276: ROW ACQUISITION Total : CODE ENFORCEMENT- BOARD -UI Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI Total : EMPLOYEE DOT PHYSICALS 101.042.000.542 TRAFFIC SERVICES 101,042.000.542 TRAFFIC SERVICES 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL RE-313-ATB90514153 311.000.252.595 R E-313-ATB90514168 311.000.269.595 Total : Total : Total : 0252: CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER' CIP 0269: GENERAL PROJECT MG! 53,903.27 57,646.22 111,549.49 121.23 121.23 30.37 30.37 60.74 2,357.50 2,357.50 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,242.17 1,242.17 214.32 216.09 74.41 504.82 208.00 208.00 1,898.87 6,733.16 8,632.03 214.45 214.45 69.39 122.81 Page: —1'� vchlist 05130/2019 8:15:O6AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: --) --'— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47715 5/30/2019 000734 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 47716 5/30/2019 002920 DIRECTV INC 47717 5/30/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 47718 5/30/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 47719 5/30/2019 000007 GRAINGER 47720 5/30/2019 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 47721 5/30/2019 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 47722 5/30/2019 001296 H.D. FOWLER CO [NC 47723 5/30/2019 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 47724 5/30/2019 005353 INTERMOUNTAIN MATERIALS (Continued) 36240155425 531501 531502 531503 531504 531505 531507 49867 49884 49887 49888 9179395836 917986772 121951 900506 15136099 1200184299 1200192110 1200192824 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.513 001.040.041.543 309.000.268.595 303.000.273.518 303.000.276.595 314.000.223.595 10659 311.000.252.595 Description/Account Amount Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT Total : Total : Total : WEBSITE SERVICES - ADVANTAGE Total : SERVICE #2-300 - 2003 EXPLORER Total : CIP 0268: APPLEWAY TRAIL Total : 0273 - DESIGN SERVICES 0276 - RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES 0223 -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Total : 192.20 66.99 66.99 34.50 19.50 55.50 22.50 57.67 149.31 338.98 142.60 63.45 65.45 168.30 439.80 44.17 82.59 126.76 10,000.00 10,000.00 78.90 78.90 226.69 226.69 10,059.83 5,018.90 4,326.32 19,405.05 0252 - MATERIALS TESTING 2,515.94 Page: — vchlist 05/30/2019 8:15:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47724 5/30/2019 005353 005353 INTERMOUNTAIN MATERIALS 47725 5/30/2019 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 47726 5/30/2019 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 47727 5/30/2019 007157 MASTERGRAPHICS AEC, LLC 47728 5/3012019 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. 47729 5/30/2019 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 47730 5/30/2019 001546 NORCO INC 47731 5/30/2019 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 0125094 (Continued) S P O I N 3298534 1-10688 I-15969 PAY APP 7 0538-927664 0538-927691 5792-105618 30199592833 30273752870 2862-336304 2862-336342 2862-336347 2862-336354 2862-336375 2862-336377 2862-336560 2862-336565 2862-336583 2862-336668 2862-336678 2862-338272 2862-338305 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.040.041.543 402.402.000.531 303.303.123.595 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 Description/Account Amount Total : 2019 TIP MAINTENANCE & UPDATE Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI Total : BLUEBEAM - 2 LICENSES 1 LICENSE FOR BLUEBEAM EXTRE Total : 0123 -CONSTRUCTION Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI Total : SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT, SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI 2,515.94 15, 759.29 15, 759.29 268.90 268.90 1,384.47 679.36 2,063.83 17,632.60 17,632.60 142.46 46.81 207.78 397.05 327.69 40.12 367.81 71.01 30.33 36.39 4.31 6.06 -71.01 36.94 11.00 18.50 52.21 11.57 82.74 77.74 Page: vchlist 05/30/2019 8:15:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47731 5130/2019 004621 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC (Continued) 47732 5/30/2019 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 47733 5/30/2019 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 199036 001.040.041.543 COPY PAPER: CPW 46051 46052 46053 46054 47734 5/30/2019 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 51568 47735 5/30/2019 002520 RWC GROUP 171991 47736 5/30/2019 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC INVC080104 47737 5/30/2019 006273 T -O ENGINEERS INC 170209-9469 47738 5/30/2019 001294 TPCB 47739 5/30/2019 006847 VALLEY MACHINE 23291 47740 5/30/2019 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 67480 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 311.000.252.595 CERTIFICATION RENEW 101.042.000.542 47741 5/30/2019 000158 WELCH COMER & ASSOC. INC 51060001-RR6 51060001-RR7 101.000.000.542 311.000.269.595 Total : Total : 2019 STREET MAINTENANCE 2019 STREET MAINTENANCE 2019 STREET MAINTENANCE 2019 STREET MAINTENANCE Total : CUBICLE NAMES REPAIR SERVICE: #207 SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT 0252 -SURVEY SERVICES Total : Total : Total : Total : CERTIFICATION RENEWAL: RYAN I Total : SERVICE: SNOWPLOWS POSTAGE SERVICES 303.000.249.595 0249 -DESIGN SERVICES 303.000.249.595 0249 -DESIGN SERVICES Total : 367.79 126.87 126.87 859.90 21,411.06 104,052.58 97,544.51 223,868.05 65.34 65.34 8,444.79 8,444.79 441.05 441.05 3,312.80 3,312.80 315.00 315.00 225.00 225.00 2,653.06 Total : 2,653.06 Total : 599.44 560.90 1,160.34 47742 5/30/2019 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 2055954 101.042.000.543 SERVICES: MAINTENANCE SHOP 217.80 Page: vchlist 05/30/2019 8:15:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47742 5/30/2019 007231 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPA (Continued) Total : 217.80 47743 5/30/2019 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 0000038740 303.000.287.595 0287 -SIGNAL EQUIPMENT 17,164.41 0000038777 303.000.287.595 0287 -SIGNAL EQUIPMENT 1,425.32 Total : 18,589.73 47744 5/30/2019 007156 WIDENER & ASSOCIATES 206404 303.000.265.595 0265 -ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS SUPI 2,171.42 Total : 2,171.42 47745 5/30/2019 002651 WOODARD, ARNE EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 196.10 Total : 196.10 47746 5/30/2019 001163 ZIGGY'S 1009 719145 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT 21.67 Total : 21.67 6956653 5/30/2019 005314 US BANK 1392885 204.204.000.592 LTGO REFUNDING BONDS 2014 101,050.00 Total : 101,050.00 6956788 5/30/2019 005314 US BANK 1392839 204.000.000.592 LTGO BONDS 2016 120,625.00 Total : 120,625.00 6972162 5/31/2019 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290201548 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT BILLING MAY 2019 1,535,279.00 Total : 1,535,279.00 45 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 2,223,902.03 45 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,223,902.03 Page: �� vchlist 06103/2019 1:01:32PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 7 -r- Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47747 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 47748 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 47749 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 Apr 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 Mar 2019 8557 May 2019 8557 May 2019 8573 May 2019 8573 May 2019 8573 May 2019 8573 May 2019 8573 May 2019 9713 May 2019 9713 May 2019 9713 May 2019 9713 May 2019 9713 May 2019 9713 May 2019 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.040.042.558 001.090.000.518 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.033.000.518 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 Description/Account Amount SHAMUSS SPOKANE AUTO SHOW SPOKANE AUTO SHOW EVENTBRITE CREDIT: AWC GSC MEALS ON WHEELS GSC MEALS ON WHEELS GREATER SPOKANE INC GSI EVENTBRITE STARBUCKS COFFEE GREATER SPOKANE INC GREATER SPOKANE INC GONZAGA UNIVERSITY CREDIT: GREATER SPOKANE INC CREDIT: GREATER SPOKANE INC HILTON HOTELS CREDIT: GREATER SPOKANE INC - ONE WASHINGTON CIRCLE HOTEI TAYLOR COMMUNICATIONS Total : CRAIGSLIST CRAIGSLIST CRAIGSLIST EVENTBRITE ZOOM OREILLY PAW POLETECH INT'L CODE COUNCIL EVENTBRITE CAMPBELLS LODGE Total : 65.55 21.00 40.00 269.58 -1,600.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 134.79 36.88 35.00 40.00 43.52 -40.00 -40.00 685.56 -40.00 4,084.38 669.65 4,525.91 25.00 25.00 25.00 717.32 14.99 807.31 8.16 225.00 360.00 135.00 717.32 209.06 Page: tea. vch fist 06103/2019 1:01:32PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: S -2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47749 6/3/2019 001606 001606 BANNER BANK 47750 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 47751 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 47752 6/3/2019 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 5214 May 2019 6368 April 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 6368 May 2019 8599 May 2019 8599 May 2019 8599 May 2019 8599 May 2019 8599 May 2019 8599 May 2019 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.518 001.018.014.514 001.013.015.515 001.033.000.518 001.018.016.518 101.042.000.542 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount EXPEDIA DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES DELTA AIRLINES HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS HILTON HOTELS HILTON HOTELS HILTON HOTELS Total : Total : VALLEYFEST AVTECH ACM MRSC AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE VALLEY GLASS CRAIGSLIST GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY AM HARDWARE DOLLAR STORE HILTON VANCOUVER HOME DEPOT STAPLES AC1 MECHANICAL RSD Total : Total : 1,654.54 246.00 578.00 578.00 578.00 578.00 578.00 578.00 250.00 266.76 266.76 266.76 214.44 214.44 214.44 5,407.60 51.50 199.95 75.00 35.00 90.17 25.00 400.00 251.56 1,128.18 10.89 -0.35 93.10 3.80 -34.85 223.99 296.58 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 13,820.12 Page: vchlist 06/05/2019 9:16:09AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: G -9— Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8199 6/5/2019 007174 BOYD, ANNIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 360.00 Total : 360.00 8200 6/5/2019 007255 CHRISTINA, JOHN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/: 210.00 Total : 210.00 8201 6/5/2019 007249 HAWTHORNE, MIRANDA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MB 75.00 Total : 75.00 8202 6/5/2019 006282 INTERNATIONAL BIBLE CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEQ 75.00 Total : 75.00 8203 6/5/2019 007260 JAMES, SARAH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8204 6/5/2019 007248 LANCE GUREL FOR SPOKANE VALLEY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8205 6/5/2019 007259 NEGATIVE SPLIT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEQ 300.00 Total : 300.00 8206 6/5/2019 007250 NELSON, ANDREA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY Pi 75.00 Total : 75.00 8207 6/5/2019 006625 PALPALATOK, CARLA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8208 6/5/2019 007258 SCHOFIELD, BRIANA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 8209 6/5/2019 007256 SCOTT, KATHERINE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 240.00 Total : 240.00 8210 6/5/2019 007257 SMITH, SUSAN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 8211 6/5/2019 006644 STOLLEY, MELISSA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 469.00 Page: �1� vchlist 06/05/2019 9:16:09AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: --� Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8211 6/5/2019 006644 006644 STOLLEY, MELISSA (Continued) Total : 469.00 8212 6/5/2019 006165 SUN CITY CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PAR' 75.00 Total : 75.00 8213 6/5/2019 007251 WELLER, ANNA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8214 6/512019 007099 WOMACK, MICHELLE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 300.00 Total : 300.00 16 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 2,629.00 16 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 2,629.00 Page: �'J vchlist 06/05/2019 1:13:25PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47753 6/5/2019 000197 ACRANET 10795 001.018.016.518 BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EMP 314.00 Total : 314.00 47754 6/5/2019 006767 ATLAS INTEGRATED 2019-12475 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 500.00 Total : 500.00 47755 6/5/2019 007114 CARDINAL INFRASTRUCTURE LLC 1510 001.011.000.511 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,500.00 Total : 6,500.00 47756 6/5/2019 000101 CDW-G SLF5763 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON -CAF 305.82 Total : 305.82 47757 6/5/2019 000322 CENTURYLINK 5-19-19 to 6-19-19 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL PHONES 270.61 MAY 2019 001.076.000.576 2019 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14- 567.06 Total : 837.67 47758 6/5/2019 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 79982864 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 1,215.85 79985094 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 863.72 79986037 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE 3050 MICRO 231.89 79986274 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 139.58 79986275 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 658.51 79986276 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 368.09 79986277 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 187.76 79988685 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 3 YR WORKS1 2,288.54 Total : 5,953.94 47759 6/5/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 532200 532202 47760 6/5/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 49909 49913 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : 22.50 27.65 50.15 75.20 30.60 105.80 47761 6/5/2019 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 121950 001.040.042.558 BASE INVESTMENT/ECONOMIC DE 21,500.04 Total : 21,500.04 Page: vchlist 06/0512019 1:13:25PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47762 6/5/2019 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 47763 6/5/2019 007157 MASTERGRAPHICSAEC, LLC 80713585 1-15572 1-17161 47764 6/5/2019 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, HRA PLAN 10196029 47765 6/5/2019 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 47766 6/5/2019 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 47767 6/5/2019 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 47768 6/5/2019 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 47769 6/5/2019 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 47770 6/5/2019 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 47771 6/5/2019 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 47772 6/5/2019 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 20 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 312489292001 314096070001 316152400001 APRIL 2019 199286 IN104147 APRIL 2019 5282019 9830403616 10693 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.076.305.575 TELECOM SERVICES 001.040.041 543 001.040.041.543 Total : REVD EXTREME RENEWAL MAINT REVU EXTREME (1-49— Total : 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION Total : 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.302.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total : 001.016.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 001.018.014.514 COPY PAPER: FINANCE 001.040.043.558 MAY 2019 COPIER COSTS 001.016.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F Total : 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS Total : 001.033.000.518 MAY 2019 CELL PHONE/DEVICE CF 001.040.042.558 2019 VISITOR GUIDE: CITY OF SPC Total : Total : Total : Total : 1,349.77 1,349.77 1,784.88 814.59 2,599.47 400.00 400.00 317.52 191.33 37.38 546.23 44,393.68 44,393.68 208.54 208.54 1,403.30 1,403.30 679.59 679.59 1,130.00 1,130.00 2,886.45 Total : 2,886.45 2,499.00 2,499.00 Bank total : 94,163.45 Page: �2� vchlist 0610512019 4:13:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley /1,_5 Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47773 6/5/2019 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 47774 6/5/2019 000841 BCI CREATIVE INC 47775 6/5/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 47776 6/5/2019 007253 EXECUTECH 47777 6/5/2019 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 47778 6/5/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 47779 6/5/2019 003718 INLAND PUBLICATIONS INC 47780 6/5/2019 001002 M & L SUPPLY CO INC 47781 6/5/2019 000881 OXARC INC 47782 6/5/2019 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 47783 6/5/2019 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE A-294198 14322 529902 CSV Refund May 2019 49834 67198 S100384632.001 30648857 V042900 0000003964 47784 6/5/2019 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 58504 47785 6/5/2019 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 801098008 Fund/Dept 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 309.000.296.594 001.000.000.321 001.076.301.571 309.000.296.594 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 309.000.296.594 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK; Total : CP WEB HOSTING PKG: ANNUALP Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : ADVERTISING FOR PARKS AND RE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 169.00 169.00 211.59 211.59 45.75 45.75 13.00 13.00 1,413.75 1,413.75 150.40 150.40 400.00 400.00 59.06 59.06 17.47 17.47 179.30 179.30 2,34921 Total : 2,349.21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: WORT' Total : 75.14 75.14 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTI 42.14 Page: -�t� vch l ist 06/05/2019 4:13:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47785 6/5/2019 003532 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOI (Continued) 47786 6/5/2019 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED 47787 6/5/2019 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 47788 6/5/2019 007254 TRM SERVICES INC 47789 6/5/2019 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 47790 6/5/2019 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 47791 6/5/2019 004961 ZOME INC 19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 19 Vouchers in this report SPI90141-IN 489966853 491212981 BLD -2019-1265 May 2019 11202719 11207272 11207273 ZDM-49085 Fund/Dept 309.000.280.594 402.402.000.531 001.033.000.518 001.040.043.322 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount 0280-GEOTECH Total : Total : SUPPLIES FOR MAINT FACILITY SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL Total : PERMIT REFUND: BLD -2019-1265 Total : UTILITIES: MAY 2019 42.14 502.50 502.50 135.36 32.20 167.56 164.00 164.00 4,026.80 Total : 4,026.80 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SHIRTS FOR STAFF AT CENTERPL Total : 84.72 552.78 1.20 638.70 382.65 382.65 Bank total : 11,008.02 Total vouchers : 11,008.02 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 06/06/2019 11:48:12AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6685 6/5/2019 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben86969 001231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 119,B39.39 Total : 119,839.39 6687 6/5/2019 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben86971 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,843.71 Total : 2,843.71 6689 6/5/2019 006345 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING Ben86973 001.231.20.00 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING: 163.33 Total : 163.33 6701 6/5/2019 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben86975 501.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 36,845.40 Total : 36,845.40 6702 6/5/2019 000682 EFTPS Ben86977 309.231.12.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 36,784.44 Total : 36,784.44 6703 6/5/2019 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS. 457 PLf Ben86979 311.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 9,262.71 Total : 9,262.71 6705 6/5/2019 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC P1 Ben86981 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 676.26 Total : 676.26 6720 6/5/2019 000682 EFTPS Ben86985 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 2,045.01 Total : 2,045.01 47792 6/5/2019 300120 AWC Ben86967 311.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN: PAYMENT 138,409.27 Ben86983 001.231.16.03 DENTAL PLAN (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 11,067.15 Total : 149,476.42 9 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 357,936.67 9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 357,936.67 Page: �� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 31, 2019 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 314,373.83 $ 10,265.00 $ 324,638.83 Benefits: $ 187,076.72 $ 12,022.99 $ 199,099.71 Total payroll $ 501,450.55 $ 22,287.99 $ 523,738.54 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Council Meeting Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:30 p.m. City of Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Haley Councilmember Peetz Councilmember Thompson Councilmember Wick Councilmember Wood Councilmember Woodard Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All Councilmembers were present. 1. Executive Session: Potential Acquisition of Real Estate (RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)1 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss potential acquisition of real estate; and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 5:31 p.m. At 5:38 p.m. Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting: 05/28/2019 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR MEETING, FORMAL FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington May 28, 2019 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Bill Helbig, City Engineer Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Mathew Larson of Advent Lutheran Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wood: no report. Councilmember Peetz: said she attended the Parks & Recreation Open Space Workshop where they talked about what people want to see regarding parks; attended the Coconuts Tanning Salon 15t11 anniversary; visited six lemonade stands for lemonade day; attended the Northwest Motor Sport Grand opening; went to the Blissful Whisk Bakery grand opening; and attended the Amazon groundbreaking this morning. Councilmember Woodard: said he attended the Let Freedom Ring event through Greater Spokane Inc., (GSI) which honored all branches of the enlisted military; went to the Family Promise Un -gala which successful fundraiser event raised about $87,000; attended several booths for lemonade aid days; went to the Chamber's Transportation Committee meeting where our City staff presented the latest information on the Pines undergrade of the BNSF Railroad, said staff did a good job presenting to a full house; attended the PACE (Partners Advancing Character Education) awards; and that he attended the American Legion Memorial Day ceremony at Pines Cemetery. Councilmember Thompson: said she also attended the Pines Cemetery memorial, which she said was a very moving event; participated on the Opioid Task Force meeting through the Board of Health, and said they are looking at legislation that passed for the opioid bill to help with treatment and recovery. Councilmember Wick: reported that he also attended the PACE awards, and that he sponsored a student from Summit School; went to some Lemonade Day booths; he extended congratulations to Chamber of Commerce CEO Lance Beck on the birth of his new baby girl; attended a Memorial Day breakfast hosted by the Rotary Club; mentioned the BUILD grant, formerly the TIGER grant, kickoff and said this is a very competitive grant program, and said no one has asked SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT for a letter of support; went to the Visit Spokane meeting where they talked about tourism and the TPA (Tourism Promotion Area) and the different things they now have to do to attract events and conventions, and that they are working on incentives to bring people to Spokane Valley as it seems all the incentive areas are for downtown Spokane; he mentioned there is talk about the idea of increasing the TPA $2.00 per night hotel/motel tax to $5.00 per night, but more research is needed, adding that Liberty Lake has their own TPA and the idea of having our own TPA might be something to examine. Deputy Mayor Haley: said she also attended the Parks & Recreation open space meeting; went to several booths for lemonade day; attended the Lilac Festival Gala where the grand marshal mentioned appreciation for the community in treating our military so well; and attended her first Justice Task Force meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he did a ride -along with Deputy Chamberlain, during which there was an accident where a school bus hit a bicycle rider, said the bike rider was riding up the wrong side of the street on a rainy cold day; said he visited the victim in the downtown emergency room and he seemed okay; said he attended a GSI Board meeting; visited some booths on lemonade day; participated in the PACE awards and mentioned the third grade McDonald Elementary School class he visits monthly; attended a Transportation Committee meeting; went to a Clean Air Board meeting downtown, where that agency had a tree planted in recognition of their 50th anniversary; and that he attended a Citizens Alliance for Property Rights annual dinner where a representative from the Legal Foundation spoke about the current administration's move to alleviate some parks. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2019 Budget Amendment -Chelsie Taylor After Mayor Higgins explained the process, he opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Finance Director Taylor went over the proposed amendments, noting the removal of the sidewalk snow removal equipment as that will be discussed at a future meeting. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered and he closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. 2. First Reading Ordinance 19-006, 2nd Amendment to 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to advance ordinance #19-006, amending the 2019 budget, to a second reading. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on May 28, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,247,523.38 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 15, 2019: $371,730.12 c. Approval of May 14, 2019, Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 4. Second Reading Ordinance 19-004, Comp Plan Amendments — Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 19-004, Comprehensive Plan Amendments as proposed. Mr. Basinger briefly went through his PowerPoint explaining the amendments, and noting that this ordinance approves all the Comp Plan Amendments (CPAs) except it denies CPA -2019-0001 and CPA -2019-0003, as per the direction given by Council at this Ordinance first reading. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. Second Reading Ordinance 19-005, Comp Plan Zoning Map — Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 19-005, Official Zoning Amendments, as proposed. Mr. Basinger said that this is the ordinance that changes the maps according to the amendments as just approved in ordinance 19-004. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6. First Reading Ordinance 19-008 Duplex Density Ordinance — Lori Barlow It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 19-008, denying Code Text Amendment 2018-0005 as proposed. Ms. Barlow explained that although Council amended its Governance Manual to include not taking public comments on items that have already had a public hearing, since this amendment was in process at the time, it was determined Council would hear public comment only during the first reading. In going through the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Barlow explained that the Planning Commission decision was a unanimous vote to recommend denial; further she explained that Council instructed staff to bring forth this ordinance to deny the requested amendment. Ms. Barlow stated that staff met with the proponent several times, including prior to the application submittal and several times after the application was submitted, and tried to work through some misunderstandings of interpretation. Councilmember Wick asked if when a code text amendment comes to the Planning Commission, does the Commission have the ability to change it and must Council accept or reject based on the submission. Ms. Barlow stated that the Commission does have the ability to change it; that they are a recommending body so it could be submitted to Council as originally submitted by the applicant, or with modifications, and then sent to Council with a recommendation to accept or deny. She added that throughout the process staff highlighted some inconsistencies in the language that were in conflict with our Code, and there were some grave concerns about the implications with some of the proposal as noted in the background material; that what was suggested to the Planning Commission was that if they had a desire to move it forward with an approval, that they provide some direction to staff to work on some specific language to correct some of the inconsistencies and provide more guidance. Ms. Barlow said that throughout the discussion, there was no real interest expressed by the Commission for that suggestion; and ultimately after the public hearing and Commission deliberation, the Commission forwarded their recommendation to Council to deny; she added that Council has complete discretion in this matter to deny, approve or modify as Council deems appropriate. Councilmember Peetz said that during the last discussion, Ms. Barlow had mentioned that the applicant had drafted with this good intentions, and asked about going back and re -wording this. Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Ms. Pete Miller, Spokane Valley: said she is happy to hear that Council has complete discretion to keep working on this; said that she is including her last e-mail for the record that was sent to the Planning Commission, Planning Department and to the City Council in which they withdrew, at that time, the requirements for cottage development. She said she sent this e-mail prior to the staffs last presentation to the City Council and unfortunately, it was not shared with Council at that time; she also included in the public record request the number of duplex permits as opposed to single family home permits. She stated that it shows the City of Spokane Valley at 50.7% duplex permits, City of Spokane at 9.9% duplex permits, and Spokane County at 1.2% duplex permits; said the 50.7% is not caused by attrition as previously stated by staff; it is also caused by homeowners in our R3 zone surrounded by rentals packing their bags and moving; she asked what is the matter with this City Council and staff when you seem to be unable to understand how the current code impacts adjacent homeowner property value, peace of mind and sense of well-being and security; said the residents in the R3 zone don't seem to be included in the planning process and that exclusion in itself could be considered an abuse of power; said that at least, that's the way she sees it; said the City of Spokane, City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County all plan according to the Growth Management Act; they don't have this problem, so why do we; said the Growth Management Act is a GUIDELINE; it may not necessarily be law all the time; it states it is a guideline; and it's for counties and for municipalities; said the GMA is not responsible for this fiasco, the City Council is; and if Council believes duplex housing or duplex rental is affordable housing in this market, if Council believes that 50.7% duplex development is acceptable, [3 -minute time expires; Mayor permits her briefly continue] said to Council that if you can't see the current damage, if you can visualize the future in a down economy, a vibrant City of Spokane Valley based on current housing tends in the R3 zone and fewer vested property owners, then Council doesn't deserve to be sitting where they are sifting. Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: she questioned how this fits into the Growth Management Act; said it was okay when it was developed; said when the R-4 and R-3 zones were put together, it `screwed' the valley, or at least the R-3 people; said she thinks the staff has a racket going on, said it costs $1850 to do a text amendment, that $350 goes to the state, and she asked where does the rest of the money go; said the comp plan is only supposed to be done once a year, and she asked how many times has this one been done; said she was told it was only to be done in October, or thereabouts, but we keep amending it; said Ms. Barlow was asked some questions at the Planning Commission and she never brought back the answers to those questions, like how many jobs will be brought to the valley from the industrial area; said it seems there are only two areas in the valley: the R-1 or the R-2 which is the Ponderosa and she asked who is protecting that area because someone is; said the citizens vote in councilmembers and she'd be the first one to go to bat for any member of Council, but said this is wrong what Council has done; said people ask how do we get it back; said the answer is easy: Council makes an amendment and puts the R-4 back where these things go; said the accessory dwellings that are in her neighborhood that's going to be turned into an apartment. Mr. Mark Zielfelder, Spokane Valley: said people are upset as this is happening all across the valley; said he lives on Herald and there is a proposed development coming in probably next year, of 12 houses across the street from him, as well as Catholic Charities trying to change the zoning so they can build a facility in there; he read that "the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and the protection of the environment;" said he thinks it affects all these things; that he and others put their `blood, sweat and tears' into these homes and put every penny into their homes, and to have all the rentals come in; said there have been quite a few older people leave either through retirement or death and have been replaced by renters and said the renters don't care like homeowners do; said he doesn't think that is right; said there are certain places where these buildings need to be built and the already established neighborhoods is not the appropriate place as there is already a crumbling infrastructure that isn't being maintained; regarding his street, said he spoke with representatives from Modern Electric and there are 1930s concrete asbestos pipes in the ground; said the City won't replace that before they put in this development; said there needs to be better planning and more updating before developments go on; that we are doing this in the wrong order and the updates need to be established; and said people need a chance to be heard more than they are and thinks three minutes isn't fair. Ms. Nancy Purcell, Spokane Valley: asked that Council consider the duplex density ordinance; said if Councilmembers were to drive around the valley, they would notice 'now leasing' signs on many developments, but very few single family homes for sale; said that realtors will tell you it is a seller's market, but the duplexes being built overtaxes the infrastructure including schools, roads and parks; and as with the current effort, they allow no room for a yard for children to play; said developers have no responsibilities for the problems created; said she has been to meetings with developers, and residents living in the area were told they could object but it would do no good; said residents are told that a landowner can do what they choose with their property as long as they are within the zoning requirements, and unless Council makes change to the zoning, there is little a resident can do except watch their home's value decrease; that by the time people find out about a project, it is well on its way; she said that Ms. Barlow indicated on May 14, 2019, that she believes the increase in duplexes is tied to the economy, not to the fact that the City Council changed the zoning code in 2017 combining R3 and R4, which opened up a great deal of the valley for more dense development; that by the charts Ms. Barlow presented, duplex permits went from 37 in 2017 to 142 in 2018, the year following the code change; which she said is over three times in one year; that single family residential building permits during that same time went from 129 in 2017 to 138 in 2018; if the change in the number of duplexes being built was truly being driven by the economy, single family residential permits would also have had a significant increase considering the lack of single family homes for sale in the valley; she said that valley residents will tell you that part of the appeal of moving to the valley was larger lots as opposed to the City of Spokane, and she said this is no longer true; that with the change in zoning in 2017, it would appear that no consideration was given to the character of neighborhoods that were primarily established, except for an acre or two; with the change, development is running rampant; said she understands the need for housing, she believes the valley should be encouraging Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT single family dwellings and home ownership, rather than duplexes and rentals that have no vested interest in the area; and she asked Council to please consider this proposed change in density requests. There were no other public comments. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned three e-mails, which she said have also been sent to Council and which will be part of this record, adding that she feels there is some confusion about supporting the ordinance which is really supporting a denial of the proposal; that the e-mails were from Ann Curry who is concerned about the issue of duplexes and uncontrolled growth; another from Kevin Blood who has the same concerns; and a third e-mail from Kieran Sprague, whose e-mail is not clear if they are for or against the proposal. Council discussion ensued including comment from Councilmember Wick suggesting this go back to the applicant to re -phase as some of the concern was how to implement this; and to perhaps give more guidance to the Planning Commission to come up with recommendations. Councilmember Thompson said she hesitates if that's the right direction to go back to the applicant; said she wants more single family housing and is not sure how to get clarification on how best to move forward. City Attorney Driskell said the last time this came up, Council expressed interest in having more discussion about duplex density, which can occur, or Council could instruct staff to bring back options to talk about; said he is hesitant to change the requested amendment in ways that perhaps were never intended. Deputy Mayor Haley said she would prefer that rather than rework a code text amendment, to further examine the issue of density; and several other Councilmembers agreed. Mayor Higgins reminded Council that a positive vote on the motion will defeat this proposal as the ordinance denies the proposal, and approving the Ordinance which denies the proposal, doesn't mean it will or can't ever come back; adding that starting over again knowing all we know, might be a better approach. Vote by acclamation on the motion to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 19- 008, denying Code Text Amendment 2018-0005 as proposed: In Favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Haley, and Councilmembers Thompson, Wick, Woodard, and Wood. Opposed: Councilmember Peetz. Motion carried. City Manager Calhoun said he anticipates hearing from Council on this topic during the Advance Agenda item. 7. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Browns Park — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Browns Park 2019 Improvements Project to Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc., in the amount of $991,050.18 and authorize the City Manager to .finalize and execute the construction agreement. After Parks & Recreation Director Stone explained the project and the bids received, as noted in his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Ms. Shari Robinson, Spokane Valley: said she drives by Browns Park often; is a wonderful park and she fully supports this project. There were no other comments. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Travel Insurance for Councilmembers — Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve a change to Governance Manual Chapter 2, §E relating to trip insurance as. follows: `Airline or other trip insurance is discouraged, but may be permitted when circumstances give rise to a belief that expensive travel plans may need to be altered. The determination of whether to purchase travel insurance shall be made by the City Manager." After City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the issue as noted on his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 9. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement, Decant Facility — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Agreement for the Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility Canopy project, between the City of Spokane Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to finalize and execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 10. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement, Sprague Stormwater — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Agreement for the Sprague, University to Park Stormwater Project, between the City of Spokane Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to .finalize and execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: started talking about the canopy project and asking what it costs taxpayers, and Mayor Higgins reminded him that the opportunity passed for comments on the previous agenda item. Mr. Harding then explained that he wanted to know how much each of these would cost; that he is confused why the state requires us to do something and we have to pay for it. There were no further comments. Mayor Higgins explained that there is no requirement from the state, as we made an application for the grant mentioned and Engineer Helbig confirmed Mayor Higgins statement, and further explained the costs for these items; he said that as the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) guidelines become more stringent, we apply for grant funds that will help us enhance the water quality. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 11. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement, Appleway Stormwater — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Agreement. for the Appleway Stormwater Improvements, Farr to University project, between the City of Spokane Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to finalize and execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:21 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After mentioning the basics, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said that she had never been before a Hearing Examiner before; said she would ask that the people who speak under this process do so under oath; she said that lying is perjury and a Class B felony; said there is a development in her neighborhood and it seems the valley is telling her she didn't appeal in time; and she asked, how does one appeal something after it started or if the person doesn't know what is going on, and she asked how to fix this and how to fix an accessory building; said people started off to put in an office or storage, and then they amended their development to either an office or storage, and now, while the property owner originally indicated that the garage would only be home, office and storage, they have recently contacted the City regarding whether it is possible to amend the permit and construction would be allowed under the City Code to allow the structure to be an accessory dwelling unit; she said she wants to know how they got a permit to even run a business out of there, a construction business; she showed a paper and said this is for car hauling, and it is dated for 2017, still active, said they are buying cars and there are seventeen connected with this property; said they are not supposed to be working out of there but they do; she said they got their permit in October 2017 it is now May 2019; she said the building isn't finished because their employees come here to meet and then leave so they are not working on the building; she said the day the hearing was held, the employees were busy. Regarding the City's Code Enforcement Officer, Ms. Howard said that in the Code Enforcement officer's report, the Code Enforcement Officer included that "traffic violations are not a code enforcement issue and needs to be reported to law enforcement." Ms. Howard said the Code Enforcement Officer told people they could park on the street; however, half of her (Ms. Howard's) neighborhood is all no parking. [3 -minute time expires; Mayor permits her to briefly continue] Ms. Howard explained that this past Saturday, so 'they could get even with me' they threw a big party and they were all in the no parking; with what the Code Enforcement Officer is supposed to do, said she has two addresses, 11611 East Carlisle, and 11604 East Carlisle; she said that 11617 burnt down and nothing has been done; and talking about the amendment for Ms. Pete Miller, she asked Council to please work with Ms. Miller as she put a lot of time into this. Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Erik Johnson, Spokane Valley: said this is regarding EGR-2018-003, specifically Bldg -2019-0463; said he e-mailed Council and the City Engineer on this project of ten duplexes which went in next to him on his property on Valleyway; said he has been in the civil engineering industry for over twenty years; said the building practices on this are in great question; that the first lot being built which is the lot next to him, the developer put in nine ecology blocks along the fence line using them for a retaining wall; and has retained two to four feet of dirt with two feet of dirt being exposed; that recent storms have contributed to a lot of erosion already and he re -stated that this is right next to his property line; said this needs to be a bigger conversation; that if we are going to allow all these duplexes, we have to have some standards on building practices; said he has never seen anything as hokey as this retaining wall; said he spoke with City staff and in quoting staff, stated "we let the developer choose what is best for them in the development." Mr. Johnson said he watched these people move dirt for over two months, with off-road dump trucks, bulldozers, with what the City called a civil set, which is four sheets: a cover sheet, an erosion sheet, and two street sheets; he said there is not one grade of any path of how drainage will be handled once full development is complete; he said that just because it's not in the Code doesn't mean it should be permitted; developers love to copy other developers and they find ways to cut corners. Ms. Shari Robinson, Spokane Valley: said she doesn't know if there is a way to amend about how the public is notified about large development; said we currently have signs but as you drive by them, you can't see them or you miss them; she suggested maybe passing out cards to the residents; said she is also excited to learn that University is going to have bike lanes between 16th and 32nd; said that in speaking with Councilmember Woodard, she was told it won't be like on 32nd as it will still have four lanes of traffic; said there is a hazard for children leaving South Pines Jr. High and said she witnessed several children riding bikes from 22nd across University; said you can't see the kids coming across four lanes and she suggested flashers similar to the ones on Appleway Trail. Ms. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said we had this issue with R -3/R4 serving individual builders, individual homes; said she also wanted to address the multi -family zoning that was umbrella -ed where you combine multifamily 1, 2, 3 or whatever can fit under the umbrella, and the person who owns the property can build as much as they can on that with a 50' height restriction, which she said is as far as it can go; she asked when will this City slow down with this growth; said we can barely manage what we have; that we don't have enough police officers; she asked why it has to be constant building, especially going up across the street from a middle school that still doesn't have a cross -walk; she said Broadway is outrageously fast and no one slows down for those flashing lights; said she wants to hear that the City will address multi- family development issues; she again stated her proposal to put something in place to charge each apartment dweller a yearly fee, or charge the builder who makes these as they don't pay the taxes; she mentioned that every Thursday there are dump trucks and garbage trucks on our roads that only the taxpayers pay to maintain; and giving builders exceptions or incentives doesn't do the rest of the residents any service. Mr. Bob West, Spokane Valley: concerning the suggestion of a crossing for the new Jr. High on Broadway, said he has seen kids running across the street and there is no crossing; said he hasn't been to all of the schools but it is his understanding that is the only school that has a problem; said this issue hasn't come up on the Advance Agenda and hadn't been mentioned but it would be nice to address this before there is an accident. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 12. Regional Veterans Services — Heather Drake, Operations Manager Spokane County Regional Veterans Services Center Operations Manager Ms. Heather Drake went over some of the services provided by the Veterans Center including extended outreach and advocacy and claims, benefits and employment services; she also noted the importance and value of strategic public/private partnerships, and the impact of outreach, partnership and community education. Council thanked her for her informative presentation. Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 13. Spokane County Library District Update — Aileen Luppert, Managing Librarian Spokane County Library District Managing Librarian Aileen Luppert, and Librarian Diane Brown went over some of the many facets of the Library District, including statistics on such things as library visits and number of items checked out; program attendance for children and for adults; they mentioned digital interaction and sharing of numerous digital resources; they also mentioned the cultural passes for such places as the Family Museum and Spokane Symphony at the Library; and that their strategic directions include engagement, stability, and connectedness. Council thanked them for their informative presentation. 14. Annexation — Erik Lamb, Mike Basinger Deputy City Attorney Lamb and Economic Development Manager Basinger explained that Council had requested information regarding annexation; and through their PowerPoint, explained the process and considerations needed when undertaking annexations; that annexation may only occur within the adopted Urban Growth Area; that although there are several options, the two primary methods are election, voter initiated and City Council initiated, or direct petition; and that factors to consider include such things as land use and zoning, whether residents are interested in being annexed, annexation versus ownership, and financial impacts to the City of annexing or not annexing. 15. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wick mentioned the density discussion brought up earlier; that he would like to discuss duplexes, townhouses, and cottages and their rate of development versus single family. Council concurred. Councilmember Wick also mentioned the upcoming Farmers Market and of the idea of Councilmembers taking shifts at a City Booth. Council also concurred on that suggestion. Mr. Calhoun noted he has been talking with Mr. Stebbins of the JAKT Foundation about having a City booth; and for Councilmembers participating, suggested a sign-up sheet so as not to have a quorum. Councilmember Wick mentioned affordable housing and the rebate from the state tax regarding legislation that was recently approved. Mr. Calhoun noted that our lobbyist Gordon Thomas Honeywell will be addressing House Bill 1406 when they visit June 18. Councilmember Wick further mentioned discussing construction quality relative to tonight's public comments. Mr. Calhoun stated that Building Official Jenny Nickerson and/or Development Services Coordinator Greg Baldwin are working with Mr. Hohman on this issue. Mayor Higgins suggested that topic be deferred until we see what transpires. Council agreed. 16. Department Reports The Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun mentioned there will be a second public meeting regarding the Midilome Pavement Project, on June 5 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at Chester Elementary School; he also noted the evening June 11 Council meeting is cancelled as Council and staff will be holding the annual budget workshop June 11 in Council Chambers beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending about 3:30 p.m. Mr. Calhoun noted the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Annual Conference will be in Spokane this year June 25-28, and we are therefore cancelling the June 25th Council meeting; and if needed, can meet Monday, June 24th. Mr. Calhoun said he hopes to make a definitive decision on the June 24th meeting the week before. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 05-28-2019 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Council Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:00 p.m. City of Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Haley [arrived 5:45 pm] Councilmember Peetz Councilmember Thompson Councilmember Wick Councilmember Wood Councilmember Woodard Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Haley. It was moved by Councilmember Woodward, seconded and unanimously agreed to temporarily excuse Deputy Mayor Haley. 1. Executive Session: Potential Acquisition of Real Estate (RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately fifty minutes to discuss potential acquisition of real estate; and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 5:03 p.m. At 5:53 p.m., Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting: 06/04/2019 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington June 4, 2019 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Mike Stone, Parks & Rec. Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Adam Jackson, Planning/Grants Engineer Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Erica Amsden, Senior Engineer Rob Lochmiller, Senior Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2020-2025 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jackson explained that the City is required to hold a public hearing and adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years, and that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is required for REET expenditures as well as for grant eligibility; he briefly went over the 14 projects slated as closeout projects for 2019-2020, the five bridge and grade separation projects, the 15 intersection improvement projects, the 17 reconstruction/preservation projects, the five City-wide projects, and the seven sidewalk, trail, and stormwater projects. In viewing slide #7, Mr. Jackson noted that the Park Road sidewalk project is not shown as that is part of project #53, Park Road Improvements-Valleyway to Tent, and is built into that project as an option. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered and Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. 2. Resolution 19-008 Adopting the 2020-2025 Six Year TIP — Adam Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Resolution 19-008 adopting the 2020-2025 Six Year TIP as presented. Mr. Jackson said he is available for questions. There was brief Council discussion concerning having adequate REET funds to cover any city match required for these projects. City Manager Calhoun explained that each year as part of the budget development process, the Finance Department runs five-year projections on REET funds, including what we know, and what we think is coming for the next five years; he said to the best of our ability we make sure the TIP is constrained by our financial reality, and this is an ongoing exercise by the Finance Department. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Study Session: 06-04-2019 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. CONSENT AGENDA: consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 4, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $274,017.37 b. Approval of May 15, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Special meeting c. Approval of May 21, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. 4. Second Reading Ordinance 19-006, Second Amendment to 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 19-006 amending Ordinance 18-024 which adopted a budget. for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, as subsequently amended by Ordinance 19-003. Finance Director Taylor gave a brief explanation of the items included in this 2019 budget amendment. As there was a previous public hearing on this issue, no public comments were solicited. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Ordinance 19-007 Amending Addressing Standards — Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance Ordinance 19-007 to a second reading as proposed. Building Official Nickerson, standing in for Ms. Kendall, gave a brief overview of the addressing standards and that this action would amend the Municipal Code by adding a new chapter 22.135, and add definitions in Appendix A; and she also explained some of the addressing functions. Councilmember Thompson asked about the sometimes confusing repetitive names for streets, for example Main Street and Main Court. Mr. Hohman explained that all the detail on street naming is contained within the street standards; but that a court is like a cul-de-sac; a drive, road or avenue is public, and a lane is a private road which the City does not own or maintain; that we try to stay on the grid and streets are already determined through development and continue with new development; and he suggested if citizens are confused, to please direct them to staff for assistance. As there was a previous public hearing on this issue, no public comments were solicited. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: BUILD 2019 Grant Potential — Adam Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for the BUILD FY 19 program.for the Pines Road./BNSF grade Separation Project. Mr. Jackson explained that BUILD stands for `Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development,' said applications are due July 15 with award announcements set for on or before November 12, 2019; that if awarded, BUILD funding must be obligated by September 30, 2021 and that the obligation requires the City to have a signed and executed grant agreement in place with USDOT by that deadline. Mr. Jackson said staff recommends applying for the grant for the City's Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project; and assuming a $29 million total cost, a minimum 20% non-federal match of $5.8 million would be required. Council/staff discussion ensued regarding the importance of showing the impact of this project on the intersection and the rural community; mention of possible regional partners' competing projects; whether SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) has been approached for a letter of support; that the likely funded project would be one that is most ready; and the deferred status of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board's previous award. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 7. Pines Grade Separation Project Design Alternatives — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz Senior Engineer Amsden introduced City Engineering Manager Mantz, and HDR Senior Project Manager/Vice President Kurt Reichelt, and HDR Project Manager Scott Marshall. As noted in the Council Study Session: 06-04-2019 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Amsden explained the location of the project, existing conditions, project purpose, project funding, steps to acquire funding, and alternatives evaluation for Phase 1 design. Mr. Marshall then went over the alternative evaluation for alternative 1 and alternative 2, along with those pros and cons, and he explained a depiction of how to accommodate trucks on the roundabout. Ms. Mantz went over the list of previous Council presentations and the various dates and types of public outreach, and ended by stating that staff seeks Council consensus to advance to alternative 2 with a roundabout. After brief discussion, all Councilmembers concurred to advance to alternative 2 with a roundabout. It was noted this is scheduled for a motion consideration at the June 18, 2019 Council meeting. 8. Appleway Trail Project, Evergreen to Sullivan Update — Rob Lochmiller, Gloria Mantz, Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone introduced City Engineer Manager Mantz, Project Engineer Lochmiller, and Mr. Jeremy Clark with David Evans and Associates. Ms. Mantz explained the project, adding that because other agencies were not able to obligate federal funds this fiscal year, the funding for this project became available in 2019 rather than in 2020 when it was programmed. Mr. Lochmiller went over the trail components, landscaping, trailhead parking, and restroom; followed by an explanation from Mr. Clark of the crossing treatment evaluation HAWK signal at SR -27, and traffic crossing devices. Ms. Mantz went over the estimated cost and budget, after which there was discussion about how to bid the project, including whether to include the receptacles and/or restroom in the base bid, or have them as alternates. Mr. Calhoun suggested having a base bid with two alternates: park amenities as one and the restroom as the second and that we can discuss financing the alternates if necessary, and therefore won't run the risk of having to reject an entire bid. Council agreed. Mayor Higgins called for a five-minute recess at 7:15 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:20 p.m. 9. Point in Time Count 2019 — Gija Danzig, Homeless & Rehousing Program Manager City of Spokane staff Ms. Tij a Danzig, along with and Mr. Kelly Keenan, Director of Community Housing Services Department went through their presentation on the "Point in Time Count 2019" which is a point - in -time census of the homeless population in Spokane. Ms. Danzig explained that this count effort is one where the City of Spokane strives to use data and knowledge in order to improve the lives of vulnerable citizens throughout the region; and that the data provides a snapshot that captures circumstances and situations of homeless people; she said the count date was January 24, and the count focused on two main categories of people experiencing homelessness: sheltered during the night of the count, and unsheltered during the night of the count. Ms. Danzig went over their methodology of the 1,309 people surveyed; she showed the data and demographics broken out various groups of people such as those in general; and then by race, ethnicity, male and female veterans, chronically homeless, families, minor youth, young adults, and 55 and older adults; she also showed charts of the primary reasons and reasons in general for homelessness for the unsheltered homeless; and went over the top ten reasons for homelessness; she shared some of the successes such as 8% fewer families than in 2018, as well as a 28% decrease in veteran homelessness since 2017. Ms. Danzig also went over some of the challenges, such as 30% of those surveyed were experiencing homelessness for the first time; she also noted the Homeless Crisis Response System is exiting more people into permanent housing each year over the last three years. There was Council discussion how we contribute financially to this issue; and about the top ten reasons for homelessness and mention of the need for affordable housing, with Mr. Keenan stating that they took a hard look at what is and is not working and where to direct resources; said the landlords, whether nonprofit or for-profit, are one of the most critical partners as the goal needs to be stable, permanent, independent housing. Council thanked Ms. Danzig and Mr. Keenan for their informative presentation. Council Study Session: 06-04-2019 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson mentioned crosswalks and people not using them or using the signal as it should be used, as well as people jaywalking; said this likely isn't an advance agenda item, but perhaps there could be a crosswalk emphasis patrol. 11. Council Check-in — Mayor Higgins There were no additional Council comments. 12. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun mentioned the upcoming June 11 budget workshop, which is the first look at the 2020 budget; said the meeting/workshop will start at 8:30 a.m. and go until about 3:30 p.m.; and as we will be holding the day -long meeting June 11, the June 11 p.m. meeting has been cancelled. Mr. Calhoun also noted the upcoming AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Conference in Spokane June 25 through 28, and said since most Councilmembers will be attending, we will also cancel the June 25, 6 pm meeting, and we have scheduled a special meeting Monday, June 24, beginning at 6 pm. Mr. Calhoun noted the upcoming Farmers Market inaugural event is this Friday, June 7 at CenterPlace, with a ribbon cutting at 5:15 p.m.; said the Mayor will be giving a welcoming address, and we are working to have a booth set up for Councilmembers to participate; he said there is a sign-up sheet with City Executive Assistant Marci Patterson so we don't run the risk of having more than three Councilmembers present at any given date; and that we are updating some brochures and handouts for Council; said the event will be held Fridays from June 7 through September 13, for a total of fifteen Fridays. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:13 pm ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 06-04-2019 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation n executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Ordinance No. 19-007 — Proposed Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) - CTA -2019-0001 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040 and RCW 36.70A.106 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 7-3-2018 - Admin report on Street Addressing Standards; 5-21-19 - Admin report; and 6-4-19 — First Ordinance Reading for City initiated code text amendment. BACKGROUND: Since incorporation, the protocol related to the assignment of street addresses for parcels and buildings in the City of Spokane Valley has been consistent with the protocol implemented in Spokane County. In 2012, E911, a group of representatives tasked with the operation of the Emergency Services Communication System, and other stakeholders initiated discussions with addressing authorities throughout Spokane County with the goal of creating a regional addressing standard that would complement newly acquired Computer -Aided Dispatch Systems (CAD) within the fire and law enforcement departments. In 2015, the Draft Public Safety Road Naming and Physical Addressing Standard was created by the addressing committee and presented to addressing authorities throughout Spokane County for consideration. City of Spokane Valley staff participated in two Joint Addressing Authorities Committee Meetings on September 17, 2015, and October 13, 2015. Addressing authorities were given the opportunity to review and discuss the Draft Public Safety Road Naming and Physical Addressing Code. Initially, the draft language gave addressing authority to the E911 Director, which created an additional layer of review and removed local control of this part of the process. This concerned staff because increases in permit review timelines would not be consistent with our streamlined process or our customer service -focused approach to permitting. Furthermore, it was determined that the City of Spokane Valley addressing protocol did not conflict with the Draft Public Safety Road Naming and Physical Addressing Code. The City recognized the need to formalize procedures and standards that align with the current addressing protocol. The City's proposed standards mirror the adopted standards in the region for consistency but the language is arranged in a way which is consistent with other regulatory language within the SVMC. The City is the last of the local jurisdictions to adopt addressing standards. On March 28, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a study session. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 11, 2019 to consider the amendment. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the proposed code text amendment be approved. On April 25, 2019, the Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to City Council with a 6-0 vote. OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance 19-007 with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. CTA -2019-0001 RCA for Ordinance First Reading page 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 19-007 adopting a new Chapter 22.135 and amend Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance No. 19-007 B. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation with Exhibit 1: Proposed language adding chapter SVMC 22.135 and Appendix A C. PC Meeting Minutes 3/28/2019 D. PC Meeting Minutes 4/11/2019 E. PC Meeting Minutes 4/25/2019 F. Staff Report CTA -2019-0001 with exhibits CTA -2019-0001 RCA for Ordinance First Reading page 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 19-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADDING CHAPTER 22.135 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ADDRESSING STANDARDS, AND AMENDING APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) relating to zoning and land use regulations, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, City staff have proposed an amendment to the SVMC to create a new chapter 22.135 SVMC for the purpose of formalizing addressing standards for the City and amending Appendix A — Definitions; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2019, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on March 22 and 29, 2019, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2019, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2019, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, Planning Commission findings, and Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2019 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, new chapter 22.135 SVMC, and Appendix A, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to add chapter 22.135 SVMC, establishing the procedural standards to assign addressing for property identification within the City of Spokane Valley and add associated definitions in Appendix A. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance 19-007 Page 1 of 8 DRAFT amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. CF -G3 Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services. CF -P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment establishes procedural standards to reduce conflicts and inconsistences through addressing. Addressing is integral to the function of emergency responders, utility purveyors providing service, and citizens receiving parcel deliveries services, or general wayfinding. 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F). Section 3. Adoption. Title 22 is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 22.135 Addressing Standards" as follows; ADDRESSING STANDARDS Sections: 22.135.010 Purpose. 22.135.020 Applicability. 22.135.030 Administration. 22.135.040 Addressing Grid Systems. 22.135.050 Addressing Standards. 22.135.060 Change in Street or Address Status. 22.135.070 Multiple Units. 22.135.080 Final Plat Addresses. 22.135.090 Display of Address. 22.135.100 List of Established Street Names, Assigned Addressing, and Mapping. 22.135.110 Deviations from Literal Compliance. 22.135.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of chapter 22.135 SVMC is to establish a uniform method for naming streets and assigning street addresses for real property and structures within the City. B. The goals of chapter 22.135 SVMC are as follows: 1. Facilitate expedient emergency response by medical, law enforcement, fire, rescue, and any other emergency services. Ordinance 19-007 Page 2 of 8 DRAFT 2. Regulate the display of property address numbers and provide for accurate street name signage, installation, and maintenance thereof. 3. Provide property owners, the general public, emergency responders, and government agencies and departments with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property and/or structures. 22.135.020 Applicability. A. Chapter 22.135 SVMC applies to addresses for real property and structures situated within the City. The City may name or rename streets pursuant to the adopted Spokane Valley Street Standards, and assign or reassign addresses as necessary to further the purposes of chapter 22.135 SVMC. B. These provisions shall apply to the assignment of addresses to all new buildings or properties. C. All non -conforming addresses may be changed to conform to the standards set forth in chapter 22.135 SVMC. 22.135.030 Administration. The City Manager shall administer the provisions of chapter 22.135 SVMC, except as otherwise provided for herein. The City will coordinate with Fire Districts serving the subject area to be addressed. 22.135.040 Addressing Grid Systems. A. The City shall participate in the use of the addressing grid system described as follows: 1. Sprague Avenue divides the City into north and south addresses. 2. Division Street divides the east and west addresses. All directional designations are referenced as east because no part of Spokane Valley is located west of Division Street in Spokane All directional designations are referenced as east. 3. On streets running north and south: a. Addresses north of Sprague Avenue shall have even numbers on the east side of the street and odd numbers on the west side of the street; b. Addresses south of Sprague shall have even numbers on the west side of the street and odd numbers on the east side of the street. 4. On streets running east and west: a. Addresses shall have even numbers on the south side of the street and have odd numbers on the north side of the street. 5. The appropriate directional designation or abbreviation (e.g., "North" or "N.") is part of the address and follows the number. For example, the first lot south of Sprague Avenue on the east side of a street named "City Street" would have a street address of "10 S. City Street" or "10 South City Street." 22.135.050 Addressing Standards. A. Each property owner who has addressable property within the City and has not been assigned an address has a responsibility to apply to the City for a physical address for that property. Ordinance 19-007 Page 3 of 8 DRAFT B. Application for each address assignment prior to the issuance of a building permit (temporary addresses) shall include, at a minimum, a site map showing any proposed or existing structures, driveways, and approach locations. C. The numbering of addressable properties or structures along each street shall begin at the appropriate grid point of origin and continue in sequence. No address along a street shall be out of sequence in relation to the adjacent addresses. D. Each block along a street may have up to 100 address numbers. The hundred series shall change upon crossing a street intersection or in the best possible alignment with the established address grid if applicable, with the exception of intersecting driveways and/or alleys. The hundred series along a public street shall not change upon crossing a private street unless deemed necessary by the City Manager for continuity of address sequencing. E. Private streets wholly contained within plats shall be assigned the hundred series as if they were public streets. Except for loops and circles, two uniquely named streets may not intersect more than once (e.g., Main Street should not intersect Cherry Lane at 201 East Main Street, and also intersect Cherry Lane at 401 East Main Street). Loops and circles shall be reviewed on an individual basis and require approval by the City Manager. F. Addresses along a street shall have even numbers on one side of the street and odd numbers on the other side of the street pursuant to SVMC 22.135.040, as now adopted or hereafter amended. G. Individual address numbers shall be assigned to fit within the block range of the street segment to which the address is assigned (e.g., a new address that is assigned to the 200 block of Main Street shall be assigned a number between 201 and 233). Individual addresses shall be assigned to be consistent with adjacent blocks of the same north -south or east -west orientation. H. Addresses accessed via a shared driveway shall be assigned based on the point of origin of the driveway from the connecting street and shall be sequential. L Addressable property or structures shall be assigned based upon the street from which vehicular access to the property or structure is obtained, with the following exceptions as determined by the City Manager: 1. Commercial and public facility structures may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. 2. Residential structures on corner lots may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. J. Fractional addresses shall not be used (e.g., no "101'/2 East Main Street"). K. Address numbers shall not contain any non -numeric characters (e.g., no "118a"). L. Addresses on individual parcels shall comply with the following: 1. The street number shall range from one to five numbers. 2. No address shall have two or more zeros in a row at end of address unless referencing the location of a utility or communication facility. 3. The last two digits of street numbers shall not exceed 33. A deviation may be requested pursuant to SVMC 22.135.030. Ordinance 19-007 Page 4 of 8 DRAFT 22.135.060 Change in Street or Address Status. If a public or private street is altered, the City Manager shall review the alteration and may assign a corrected street name and/or address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. If the access to an individual address is altered, the City Manager shall assign a corrected address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC (e.g., the owners of 201 East Cherry Lane change the location of their access from Cherry Lane to Houk Lane necessitating an address on Houk Lane). 22.135.070 Multiple Units. A. Duplex units shall be assigned a separate and unique address for each unit. B. Accessory dwelling units shall be assigned a unit designation with reference to the same address as the primary dwelling and shall follow the addressing standards in SVMC 22.135.070. C. Manufactured home parks which contain dwelling units fronting on a public or private street(s) shall be assigned one address for each dwelling unit. Manufactured home parks which contain dwelling units fronting on an unnamed private access street(s) shall be assigned one address for the entire property, and a secondary address assigned for individual spaces by the manufactured home park owner subject to approval by the City Manager (e.g., "9801 East Appleway Blvd., Space 1"). D. Multiple unit complexes shall be assigned one address for the property based upon the street from which vehicular access to the structure is obtained, except as otherwise provided herein. If necessary, the City Manager may assign an address based upon the street the main entrance faces (e.g., "1124 North University Street, Space 10). If additional parcels are added to an existing development, and access is taken through the existing development, a "0 Address Unknown" will be assigned to the new parcel to aid in emergency response. E. Structures within multiple unit complexes shall be assigned a building designator for each structure, as opposed to a unique address (e.g., "123 East Main Street, Building A"), unless an exception is granted by the City Manager. The building designators shall be generally arranged in a counter- clockwise rotation from the point of entry. F. When secondary addresses are assigned to multiple unit structures with individual building designations, the unit designator shall include the building designation (e.g., "123 East Main Street, Apartment A200" or "123 East Main Street, Building A, Apartment 200"). G. When secondary addresses are assigned to buildings with multiple floors, all above -ground units shall be assigned a three digit number (or higher) where the beginning number shall represent the floor upon which the unit is located (e.g., first floor units would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 1, "Apaitment 101", tenth floor units would be assigned four digit numbers beginning with 10, "Apaitment 1001"). H. Units within below -grade stories shall include the alphabetical characters "LL" to indicate lower level, and then be assigned a three digit number where the beginning number shall represent the floor upon which the unit is located (e.g., all units in the first level below grade would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 1, "Apartment LL101", units on the second level below grade would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 2, "Apartment LL201"). L If a remodel of a multiple -unit structure alters the number or configuration of units, the addresses of units within said structure shall be updated to remain in compliance with chapter 22.135 SVMC. J. If a remodel of a single -unit structure creates a multiple -unit structure, the address units within said structure shall be updated to remain in compliance with chapter 22.135 SVMC. Ordinance 19-007 Page 5 of 8 DRAFT K. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual multifamily dwellings (including apartments and condominiums), the units shall use the unit designator for apartment (Apt) or unit (Unit). L. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual dwellings/spaces in manufactured home parks, the units shall use the unit designator for space (Spc). M. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual commercial suits or tenant spaces within a commercial structure(s), the units shall use the unit designator for suite (Ste). N. All other multiple -unit structures not previously described shall contain a unit designator which most closely identifies the unit's location and which is in accordance with current Postal Addressing Standards. 22.135.080 Final Plat Addresses. Temporary addresses assigned during the preliminary plat review shall be indicated on the final short plat, plat, or binding site plan drawings. The permanent physical addresses shall not be issued prior to recording the approved final short plat, plat, or binding site plan. 22.135.090 Display of Address. A. On currently -existing structures, or hereafter erected, the owner of the property or structure shall conspicuously place the correct address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. Addresses shall be displayed on all new and existing buildings. Letters, numbers, or symbols shall meet the following standards: 1. The posted address shall be metal or other durable material. 2. The numbering/lettering shall be at least four inches in height, and one-half inch in stroke width. In cases where conditions adversely affect the visibility and/or legibility of the numbers, additional numbers, larger numbers, or other modifications may be required in coordination with the City and Fire Districts serving the subject area to be addressed. 3. The posted address shall contrast with its background. 4. The address shall be placed on the structure plainly legible and visible from the street on which vehicular access is provided to the property or structure. 5. Addresses shall be visible from all directions of travel. B. Structures located in excess of 100 feet from the street fronting the property shall display the address on a sign, monument, or post not less than three feet, or greater than seven feet above the ground and located at the entrance to the property from the nearest street. The structure shall display additional posting at the structure location. C. If two or more addressable structures share a common primary access, and any one of the addressable structures is located more than 100 feet from the street designated in the assigned address, the addresses for each structure shall be posted at the intersection of the shared access and the named street on a sign or post not less than three feet or more than seven feet above the ground, and each structure shall display additional posting at the structure location. D. Address numbers, signage, location, and sizing shall be maintained by the responsible property owner. The fire districts, in coordination with the City, may require modifications to chapter 22.135 if deemed appropriate for fire and life safety. Ordinance 19-007 Page 6 of 8 DRAFT 22.135.100 List of Established Street Names, Assigned Addressing, and Mapping. Public and private streets and addresses within the City shall be maintained in a publicly viewable database which may be part of a larger database for all or a portion of Spokane County. The City may participate in any regional committees, organization, or entity to maintain, manage, review, or have control over such database. 22.135.110 Deviations from Literal Compliance. Applicants may request minor deviations from any requirement in chapter 22.135 SVMC. The applicant shall identify the requested deviation, including the basis for the request, to the City in writing. The City Manager may grant minor deviations in instances where complete compliance would create an obvious practical problem, provided the deviation still adequately addresses the property for location by emergency service providers and to promote the other purposes of chapter 22.135 SVMC. The City may consult with fire districts/other impacted agencies in approving deviations. Section 4. Amendment. SVMC Appendix A is hereby amended as follows; Addressing: Includes the following: • Address: A property location identification with the following format: address number, directional prefix, street name, street type, building designator, and secondary address (e.g.,"123 E Main St., Apt. 456"). The following elements are required: address number, street name, and street type. The following elements may be optional: directional prefix, building designator, and secondary address. • Address number: The numeric designation for an addressable parcel, structure, or unit. • Addressable: A property required to be assigned an address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. • Addressable property, addressable structures, addressable sites, addressable lots, or addressable units: The habitable or legally occupied structure on a parcel, but may also include other structures or sites as determined necessary by the City Manager. • Addressing grid system: The address number and directional system in a particular area such as a grid system or block system. • Building designator: A single character alphabetic descriptor for a single building within a multiple unit complex (e.g., " 1221 E. Sprague Avenue, Bldg. A"). • Directional prefix: A single or double character alphabetic descriptor preceding a street name consisting of any combination of the cardinal directions of North, South, East, and West which are generally used in specific street naming schemes (i.e., N, S, E, W). • Multiple units: The presence of two or more addressable structures, addressable sites, or addressable units on a single parcel. • Multiple unit complex: An apartment, condominium, or business complex where there exist multiple buildings on a single site, and two or more buildings include multiple units. • Multiple unit structure: A single structure which contains two or more units. • Street name: The word or words either existing, or in the case of new or renamed streets, which Ordinance 19-007 Page 7 of 8 DRAFT are approved by the City used in conjunction with a directional prefix and/or a street type to identify a public or private street. • Temporary address: An address assigned for the purpose of installing phone/electrical service or other utility on a parcel of land prior to an application for a building permit. Temporary addresses are subject to change at the time of building permit application. • Unit: A specific dwelling or commercial space amongst a larger group of dwellings or commercial spaces (e.g., apartment, suites. etc.). • Unit designator: An abbreviated word used in conjunction with a secondary address to describe the character of the unit, and will be in accordance with current USPS Published Standards. Section 5. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 22 SVMC and Appendix A not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of June, 2019 ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 19-007 Page 8 of 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2019-0001— Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA -2019-0001 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC, adding Chapter 22.135 establishing the procedural standards to assign addressing for property identification within the City. Addressing definitions would also be added to SVMC Appendix A. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on April 11, 2019. The Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: CF -G3 Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services. CF -P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment establishes procedural standards to reduce conflicts and inconsistences through addressing. Addressing is integral to the function of emergency responders, utility purveyors providing service, and citizens receiving parcel deliveries services or general wayfinding. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2019-0001 Page 1 of 2 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2019- 0001 as proposed. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA -2019-0001 Approved this 25' day of April, 2019 lanni g Commission Chairman ATTEST Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2019-0001 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 Chapter 22.135 ADDRESSING STANDARDS Sections: 22.135.010 Purpose. 22.135.020 Applicability. 22.135.030 Administration. 22.135.040 Addressing Grid Systems. 22.135.050 Addressing Standards. 22.135.060 Change in Street or Address Status. 22.135.070 Multiple Units. 22.135.080 Final Plat Addresses. 22.135.090 Display of Addresses. 22.135.100 List of Established Street Names, Assigned Addressing, and Mapping. 22.135.110 Deviations from Literal Compliance. 22.135.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of chapter 22.135 SVMC is to establish a uniform method for naming streets and assigning street addresses for real property and structures within the City. B. The goals of chapter 22.135 SVMC are as follows: 1. Facilitate expedient emergency response by medical, law enforcement, fire, rescue, and any other emergency services. 2. Regulate the display of property address numbers and provide for accurate street name signage, installation, and maintenance thereof. 3. Provide property owners, the general public, emergency responders, and government agencies and departments with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property and/or structures. 22.135.020 Applicability. A. Chapter 22.135 SVMC applies to addresses for real property and structures situated within the City. The City may name or rename streets pursuant to the adopted Spokane Valley Street Standards, and assign or reassign addresses as necessary to further the purposes of chapter 22.135 SVMC. B. These provisions shall apply to the assignment of addresses to all new buildings or properties. C. All non -conforming addresses may be changed to conform to the standards set forth in chapter 22.135 SVMC. 22.135.030 Administration. The City Manager shall administer the provisions of chapter 22.135 SVMC, except as otherwise provided for herein. The City will coordinate with Fire Districts serving subject area to be addressed. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft v2 March 5, 2019 Page 1 6 22.135.040 Addressing Grid Systems. A. The City shall participate in the use of the addressing grid system described as follows: 1. Sprague Avenue divides the City into north and south addresses. 2. Division Street divides the east and west addresses. All directional designations are referenced as east because no part of Spokane Valley is located west of Division Street in Spokane. All directional designations are referenced as east. 3. On streets running north and south: a. Addresses north of Sprague Avenue shall have even numbers on the east side of the street and odd numbers on the west side of the street; b. Addresses south of Sprague shall have even numbers on the west side of the street and odd numbers on the east side of the street. 4. On streets running east and west: a. Addresses shall have even numbers on the south side of the street and have odd numbers on the north side of the street. 5. The appropriate directional designation or abbreviation (e.g., "North" or "N.") is part of the address and follows the number. For example, the first lot south of Sprague Avenue on the east side of a street named "City Street" would have a street address of "10 S. City Street" or "10 South City Street." 22.135.050 Addressing Standards. A. Each property owner who has addressable property within the City and has not been assigned an address has a responsibility to apply to the City for a physical address for that property. B. Application for each address assignment prior to the issuance of a building permit (temporary addresses) shall include, at a minimum, a site map showing any proposed or existing structures, driveways, and approach locations. C. The numbering of addressable properties or structures along each street shall begin at the appropriate grid point of origin and continue in sequence. No address along a street shall be out of sequence in relation to the adjacent addresses. D. Each block along a street may have up to 100 address numbers. The hundred series shall change upon crossing a street intersection or in the best possible alignment with the established address grid if applicable, with the exception of intersecting driveways and/or alleys. The hundred series along a public street shall not change upon crossing a private street unless deemed necessary by the City Manager for continuity of address sequencing. E. Private streets wholly contained within plats shall be assigned the hundred series as if they were public streets. Except for loops and circles, two uniquely named streets may not intersect more than once (e.g., Main Street should not intersect Cherry Lane at 201 CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 2 6 East Main Street, and also intersect Cherry Lane at 401 East Main Street). Loops and circles shall be reviewed on an individual basis and require approval by the City Manager. F. Addresses along a street shall have even numbers on one side of the street and odd numbers on the other side of the street pursuant to SVMC 22.135.040, as now adopted or hereafter amended. G. Individual address numbers shall be assigned to fit within the block range of the street segment to which the address is assigned (e.g., a new address that is assigned to the 200 block of Main Street shall be assigned a number between 201 and 233). Individual addresses shall be assigned to be consistent with adjacent blocks of the same north - south or east -west orientation. H. Addresses accessed via a shared driveway shall be assigned based on the point of origin of the driveway from the connecting street and shall be sequential. Addressable property or structures shall be assigned based upon the street from which vehicular access to the property or structure is obtained, with the following exceptions as determined by the City Manager: 1. Commercial and public facility structures may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. 2. Residential structures on corner lots may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. J. Fractional addresses shall not be used (e.g., no "101 Y East Main Street"). K. Address numbers shall not contain any non -numeric characters (e.g., no "118a"). L. Addresses on individual parcels shall comply with the following: 1. The street number shall range from one to five numbers. 2. No address shall have two or more zeros in a row at end of address unless referencing the location of a utility or communication facility. 3. The last two digits of street numbers shall not exceed 33. A deviation may be requested pursuant to SVMC 22.135.030. 22.135.060 Change in Street or Address Status. If a public or private street is altered, the City Manager shall review the alteration and may assign a corrected street name and/or address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. If the access to an individual address is altered, the City Manager shall assign a corrected address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC (e.g., the owners of 201 East Cherry Lane change the location of their access from Cherry Lane to Houk Lane necessitating an address on Houk Lane). 22.135.070 Multiple Units. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 3 6 A. Duplex units shall be assigned a separate and unique address for each unit. B. Accessory dwelling units shall be assigned a unit designation with reference to the same address as the primary dwelling and shall follow the addressing standards in SVMC 22.135.070. C. Manufactured home parks which contain dwelling units fronting on a public or private street(s) shall be assigned one address for each dwelling unit. Manufactured home parks which contain dwelling units fronting on an unnamed private access street(s) shall be assigned one address for the entire property, and a secondary address assigned for individual spaces by the manufactured home park owner subject to approval by the City Manager (e.g., "9801 East Appleway Blvd., Space 1"). D. Multiple unit complexes shall be assigned one address for the property based upon the street from which vehicular access to the structure is obtained, except as otherwise provided herein. If necessary, the City Manager may assign an address based upon the street the main entrance faces (e.g., "1124 North University Street, Space 10). If additional parcels are added to an existing development, and access is taken through the existing development, a "0 Address Unknown" will be assigned to the new parcel to aid in emergency response. E. Structures within multiple unit complexes shall be assigned a building designator for each structure, as opposed to a unique address (e.g., "123 East Main Street, Building A"), unless an exception is granted by the City Manager. The building designators shall be generally arranged in a counter -clockwise rotation from the point of entry. F. When secondary addresses are assigned to multiple unit structures with individual building designations, the unit designator shall include the building designation (e.g., "123 East Main Street, Apartment A200" or "123 East Main Street, Building A, Apartment 200"). G. When secondary addresses are assigned to buildings with multiple floors, all above- ground units shall be assigned a three digit number (or higher) where the beginning number shall represent the floor upon which the unit is located (e.g., first floor units would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 1, "Apartment 101", tenth floor units would be assigned four digit numbers beginning with 10, "Apartment 1001"). H. Units within below -grade stories shall include the alphabetical characters "LL" to indicate lower level, and then be assigned a three digit number where the beginning number shall represent the floor upon which the unit is located (e.g., all units in the first level below grade would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 1, "Apartment LL101", units on the second level below grade would be assigned three digit numbers beginning with 2, "Apartment LL201 "). If a remodel of a multiple -unit structure alters the number or configuration of units, the addresses of units within said structure shall be updated to remain in compliance with chapter 22.135 SVMC. J. If a remodel of a single -unit structure creates a multiple -unit structure, the address units within said structure shall be updated to remain in compliance with chapter 22.135 SVMC. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 4 6 K. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual multifamily dwellings (including apartments and condominiums), the units shall use the unit designator for apartment (Apt) or unit (Unit). L. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual dwellings/spaces in manufactured home parks, the units shall use the unit designator for space (Spc). M. When secondary addresses are assigned to individual commercial suits or tenant spaces within a commercial structure(s), the units shall use the unit designator for suite (Ste). N. All other multiple -unit structures not previously described shall contain a unit designator which most closely identifies the unit's location and which is in accordance with current Postal Addressing Standards. 22.135.080 Final Plat Addresses. Temporary addresses assigned during the preliminary plat review shall be indicated on the final short plat, plat, or binding site plan drawings. The permanent physical addresses shall not be issued prior to recording the approved final short plat, plat, or binding site plan. 22.135.090 Display of Address. A. On currently -existing structures, or hereafter erected, the owner of the property or structure shall conspicuously place the correct address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. Addresses shall be displayed on all new and existing buildings. Letters, numbers, or symbols shall meet the following standards: 1. The posted address shall be metal or other durable material. 2. The numbering/lettering shall be at least four inches in height, and one-half inch in stroke width. In cases where conditions adversely affect the visibility and/or legibility of the numbers, additional numbers, larger numbers, or other modifications may be required in coordination with the City and Fire Districts serving the subject area to be addressed. 3. The posted address shall contrast with its background. 4. The address shall be placed on the structure plainly legible and visible from the street on which vehicular access is provided to the property or structure. 5. Addresses shall be visible from all directions of travel. C. Structures located in excess of 100 feet from the street fronting the property shall display the address on a sign, monument, or post not less than three feet, or greater than seven feet above the ground and located at the entrance to the property from the nearest street. The structure shall display additional posting at the structure location. D. If two or more addressable structures share a common primary access, and any one of the addressable structures is located more than 100 feet from the street designated in the assigned address, the addresses for each structure shall be posted at the intersection of the shared access and the named street on a sign or post not less than CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 5 6 three feet or more than seven feet above the ground, and each structure shall display additional posting at the structure location. E. Address numbers, signage, location, and sizing shall be maintained by the responsible property owner. The fire districts, in coordination with the City, may require modifications to chapter 22.135 if deemed appropriate for fire and life safety. 22.135.100 List of Established Street Names, Assigned Addressing, and Mapping. A. Public and private streets and addresses within the City shall be maintained in a publicly viewable database which may be part of a larger database for all or a portion of Spokane County. The City may participate in any regional committees, organization, or entity to maintain, manage, review, or have control over such database. 22.135.110 Deviations from Literal Compliance. Applicants may request minor deviations from any requirement in chapter 22.135 SVMC. The applicant shall identify the requested deviation, including the basis for the request, to the City in writing. The City Manager may grant minor deviations in instances where complete compliance would create an obvious practical problem, so long as the deviation still adequately addresses the property for location by emergency service providers and to promote the other purposes of chapter 22.135 SVMC. The City may consult with fire districts/other impacted agencies in approving deviations. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Chapter 22.135 Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 6 6 Appendix A Addressing: Includes the following: • Address: A property location identification with the following format: address number, directional prefix, street name, streettype, building designator, and secondary address (e.g.,"123 E Main St., Apt. 456"). The following elements are required: address number, street name, and street type. The following elements may be optional: directional prefix, building designator, and secondary address. • Address number: The numeric designation for an addressable parcel, structure, or unit. • Addressable: A property required to be assigned an address pursuant to chapter 22.135 SVMC. • Addressable property, addressable structures, addressable sites, addressable lots, or addressable units: The habitable or legally occupied structure on a parcel, but may also include other structures or sites as determined necessary by the City Manager. • Addressing grid system: The address number and directional system in a particular area such as a grid system or block system. • Building designator: A single character alphabetic descriptor for a single building within a multiple unit complex (e.g., " 1221E. Sprague Avenue, Bldg. A"). • Directional prefix: A single or double character alphabetic descriptor preceding a street name consisting of any combination of the cardinal directions of North, South. East, and West which are generally used in specific street naming schemes (i.e., N, S, E. W). • Multiple units: The presence of two or more addressable structures, addressable sites, or addressable units on a single parcel. • Multiple unit complex: An apartment, condominium, or business complex where there exist multiple buildings on a single site, and two or more buildings include multiple units. • Multiple unit structure: A single structure which contains two or more units. • Street name: The word or words either existing, or in the case of new or renamed streets, which are approved by the City used in conjunction with a directional prefix and/or a street type to identify a public or private street. • Temporary address: An address assigned for the purpose of installing phone/electrical service or other utility on a parcel of land prior to an application for a building permit. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Appendix A Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 1 2 Temporary address are subject to change at the time of building permit application. • Unit: A specific dwelling or commercial space amongst a larger group of dwellings or commercial spaces (e.g., apartment, suites. etc.). • Unit designator: An abbreviated word used in conjunction with a secondary address to describe the character of the unit, and will be in accordance with current USPS Published Standards. CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) Appendix A Draft 032119 March 21, 2019 Page 2 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall March 28, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Karen Kendall, Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton, absent excused Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Walton were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the March 28, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the March 14, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VL COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen reported that she attended the State of the City and the presentation given from the viewpoint of the citizens and business owners was great. Commissioner Johnson attended the Gathering of the Community at the Islamic Center of Spokane for the mourning of the 51 innocents killed in Christchurch, New Zealand. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Council meeting and spoke on the topic of the gathering at the Islamic Center. He felt extremely welcome and the event was enlightening, it was enjoyable to see so many people come together. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: CTA -2019-0001, a City initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 adding a new Chapter 22.136 Addressing Standards. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation to the Commission explaining the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 22 by adding Chapter 22.135 Addressing Standards and incorporating definitions into Appendix A. Chapter 22.135 establishes procedural 03-28-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 addressing standards to assign property identification within the City. A determination of non -significance was issued on March 22, 2019 and notice of public hearing was posted on March 27, 2019. Ms. Kendall summarized a comment received stating it related to the numbering sequence, but staff concluded that changing the addressing sequence would cause an inconsistency in protocol and could potentially be confusing. The City's current sequence has been in existence prior to the City incorporation. The City's addressing range is 1-33 with no need for a greater range. However, should the need occur an exception is built into the code. Ms. Kendall continued that since incorporation the City has assigned addresses consistent with Spokane County's policy adding that inconsistencies in other jurisdictions have highlighted the need for regional standards. Ms. Kendall gave examples of uses that receive addressing identification which are single family residences, apartment complexes, cell towers and utilities. Ms. Kendall continued that this change will establish a uniform method of addressing, will facilitate expedient emergency responses, and regulate the display of addresses providing predictability. Ms. Kendall highlighted three types of addressing lots. Single family lots receive a single property identification adding that with the increasing popularity of accessory dwelling units(ADU), the City is proposing to address each dwelling on the property with a unit designation. This will include one street address and a unit designation such as A for the primary residence and B for the ADU. This will notify emergency responders that there may be more than one residence on the property and will ensure accurate parcel deliveries. Ms. Kendall explained that duplexes are assigned a separate and unique address for each unit. Apartment complexes are addressed with one street designation, a letter designating the building and an individual unit designation. Lastly, Ms. Kendall described multi -tenant buildings explaining the first number represents the floor followed by the unit designation. Ms. Kendall concluded with the placement of property identification numbers. Address numbers should be legible and visible from the street from all directions, made of durable material and have a contrasting background. Ms. Kendall concluded that she, the City's Building Official Jenny Nickerson and The City of Spokane Valley Fire Marshall Greg Rogers were available for questions. Commissioner Johnson asked if painted on addresses were appropriate. Fire Marshall Rogers stated as long as the address colors are contrasting they would be appropriate. Commissioner Johnson asked how individuals would be notified of this change. Building Official Jenny Nickerson advised that any existing addresses that would be made non- conforming with this proposal may remain as is with the exception of those found to be a safety hazard for emergency response. Ms. Nickerson advised those units would be contacted by staff to update their addresses to meet the current standards. Commissioner Rasmussen asked how property owners that have not been assigned addresses are notified? Ms. Nickerson advised that during the permit process all applications received are reviewed to ensure they meet the addressing standards and are accurately posted. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the addressing of vacant lots. It was discussed that vacant parcels do not receive addresses until they are developed. There was some discussion on vacant lots with no addressing and how it may interfere with emergency response. Mr. Rogers explained that there is little impact and likened it to having an emergency on the freeway. The caller has to give a general description as to their location. Mr. Rogers added that with the new 911 systems your location will be more accurately pinpointed when using a cellular device. Commissioner Rasmussen asked why the City doesn't address vacant lots and it was concluded that per building and fire code buildings and structures receive addresses, properties do not. 03-28-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Ms. Nickerson spoke to the public comment received regarding number sequencing. Ms. Nickerson noted that SVMC 22.135.050(L)(3) clarifies the last two digits of street numbers shall not exceed 33 however a deviation may be requested. Ms. Nickerson added that SVMC 22.135.050 does indicate each block may have up to 100 address numbers. Ms. Nickerson concluded those two sections, as written, address the public comment regarding sequence allowing for deviation should it be necessary while still in keeping with the City's parameters. Mr. Rogers thanked the staff for their time and thanked the Commission for their work in helping create a structured format to continue for generations to come. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:21 p.m. The vole on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ames Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 11, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Karen Kendall, Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Phillips was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the March 28, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meeting where the discussions focus was surrounding human rights. He stated he would be giving a presentation during the good of the order section next Commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Council meeting where they discussed a street vacation that the Commission will be reviewing in the coming weeks. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reminded the Commission of an upcoming Short Course trainings. Ms. Barlow advised that the City continues to look for training opportunities for the Planning Commission members and encouraged them to attend. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Heating: CTA -2019-0001, a City initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 adding a new Chapter 22.136 Addressing Standards. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:06 p. m. 04-11-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation to the Commission reviewing the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 22 adding Chapter 22.135 Addressing Standards and incorporating definitions into Appendix A. Ms. Kendall summarized the process and spoke on the topic of the public comment received at the March 28, 2019 Study Session related to the City's numbering sequence. Staff concluded that changing the addressing sequence would cause an inconsistency in the City's protocol. Ms. Kendall added that no additional comments have been received. Ms. Kendall stated that since incorporation the City has assigned addresses consistent with Spokane County policies. Ms. Kendall continued that addressing inconsistencies in other jurisdictions have highlighted the need for regional standards. This change will establish a uniform method of addressing, will facilitate expedient emergency responses, and regulate the display of addresses providing continuity and predictability. Ms. Kendall added that all street naming is currently adopted within the City's Street Standards and nothing is being added. Ms. Kendall explained that addressing will provide identification of real properties and structures and applies to new buildings and properties. Should existing addresses be made non -conforming with this proposal those properties would be updated if found to be a safety hazard for emergency response, redevelopment, or requested by the owner or occupant. Ms. Kendall concluded the importance of addressing is to identify properties for the purpose of emergency response, utility service and parcel delivery. Having no one who wished to testify, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2019-0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Walton thanked the staff for the presentation and the detail provided. He believes strongly in the need for uniform standards to help maintain public safety and accurate parcel delivery, adding that it is greatly appreciated. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:14 p.m, The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Jo son, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 25, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley, absent - excused Karen Kendall, Planner Robert McKinley Michael Philips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kelly, Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA -2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA -2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: STV -2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Ms. Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road, Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation. Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, that there is not an application on file at this point, and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies, and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii. Study Session: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms, Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51% is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes. Page 4 of 6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10 -acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find trough this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church, school, and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschrnitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what "share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian. areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner, requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max, they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres. Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land, The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Id I I P ,„S'74'/I/Z.0/7 ames Johnson, Chairman Date signed 4A-e-12-eLA--\„ ) Robin Hutchins, Secretary Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2019-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: March 21, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: April 11, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendment is a City -initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) adding chapter 22.135 SVMC establishing the procedural standards to assign addressing for property identification within the City. Addressing definitions will be added to SVMC Appendix A. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapter 22.135 SVMC and SVMC Appendix A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner. REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Agency Comments. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment March 4, 2019 SEPA — DNS Issued March 22, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 22, 2019 & March 29, 2019 BACKGROUND: Since the City's incorporation in 2003, the protocol related to the assignment of street addresses for parcels and buildings in the City has been consistent with the regional protocol implemented in Spokane County. Street numbers begin at the intersection of Division Street and Sprague Avenue in the City of Spokane. Street names have followed the grid designations as the area has developed over the years. The City works closely with local fire districts for consistency and proper documentation to ensure emergency responders are able to quickly locate all parcels within the City. Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2019-0001 Several years ago, a developer working near downtown Spokane and in Liberty Lake did not follow the historical protocol and, in a few instances, emergency responders had difficulty locating the properties to provide emergency services to residents in need. In 2012, E911 and other stakeholders initiated discussions with addressing authorities throughout Spokane County with the goal of creating a regional addressing standard that would complement newly acquired Computer -Aided Dispatch Systems (CAD) within the Fire and Law Enforcement Departments. In 2015, the Draft Public Safety Road Naming and Physical Addressing Standard was created by the addressing committee and presented to addressing authorities throughout Spokane County for consideration. City of Spokane Valley staff participated in two Joint Addressing Authorities Committee Meetings on September 17, 2015 and October 13, 2015. Addressing authorities were given the opportunity to review and discuss the Draft Public Safety Road Naming and Physical Addressing Code. Initially, the draft language gave addressing authority to the E911 Director, which created an additional layer of review and removed local control of this part of the process. This concerned staff here because increases in permit review and issuance timelines would not be consistent with our streamlined process, and inconsistent with our customer service approach. A meeting was held with Bryan Collins, Chief of the Spokane Valley Fire Department (SVFD) and Police Chief Mark Werner to discuss the merits of adopting the draft standards. It was agreed that, while the existing procedures have not resulted in any problems, it would be beneficial to adopt a version of the regional standard. Local jurisdictions such as Spokane County, City of Spokane, Liberty Lake, Cheney and Deer Park have adopted versions of the regional standards. ANALYSIS: The addressing standards formalize procedures that align with the City's current addressing protocol. The City's standards mirror the adopted regional standards for consistency. The proposal is tailored to the City of Spokane Valley regarding addressing authority going to the City Manager or designee in coordination of the Fire Districts and United States Postal Service (USPS). The City addresses new lots created through platting actions, vacant lots at time of permitting, owner -initiated address changes, and City -initiated address changes to correct errors and provide better emergency responses. The City's addressing standards are proposing two new components to further align with the regional addressing protocol. The City recognized the need to assign a unit designation for properties with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). This indicates to first responders which unit to respond to and allows each resident the ability to have unencumbered postal deliveries. The second addition to the standards is assigning temporary addressing. This ensures property identification for emergency responders during site construction and allows utility companies to install services in appropriate locations. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: CF -G3 Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2019-0001 CF -P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment establishes procedural standards to reduce conflicts and inconsistences through addressing. Addressing is integral to the function of emergency responders, utility purveyors providing service, and citizens receiving parcel deliveries services or general wayfinding. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA -2019-0001 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has received two agency comments to date. The City updated the draft language to fix a grammatical and formatting error. In addition, staff added language to Section 22.135.020 of the new Addressing Standards to address comments from Spokane County Information Technology Department, representing the Public Safety GIS staff. b. Conclusion(s): Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to add addressing standards is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT I. Karen Kendall From: Chad Riggs Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:06 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) Ok. I found one misspelled word. The word "form" should be "from". H. Addressable property or structures shall be assigned based upon the str- form w' ich vehicular access to the property or structure is obtained, with the following - s as determined by the City Manager: 1. Commercial and public facility structures may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. 2. Residential structures on corner lots may be assigned an address based upon the street the main entrance faces and not necessarily the access street. Fractional addresses shall not be used (e.g., no "101'% East Main Street"). J. Address numbers shall not contain any non -numeric characters (e.g., no "1-18a"). K. Addresses on individual parcels shall comply with the following: 1. The street number shall range from one to five numbers. 2. No address shall have two or more zeros in a row at end of address unless referencing the location of a utility or communication facility_ 3. The last two digits of street numbers shall not exceed 33. A deviation may be requested as per SVMC 22.135.030. 22.135.060 Change in Street or Address Status. If a public or private street is altered, the City Manager shall review the alteration and may assign a corrected street name and/or address consistent with the provisions of chapter 22.135 SVMC. tithe access to an individual address is altered, the City Manager shall assign a corrected address consistent with the provisions of chapter 22.135 SVMC (e.g., the owners of 201 East Cherry Lane change the location of their access from Cherry Lane to Houk Lane necessitating an address on Houk Lane). CIA -201P -Non (Addis n_ Stancarth) Chapter 22.136 Drag v2 Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. 1 Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggsaspokanevalley.org 1 `larch 5. '_019 Pan _ 6 Spokane This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:55 PM To: Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) Are you sure?!? O From: Chad Riggs Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:54 PM To: Karen Kendall <kkendall@spokanevallev.org> Subject: RE: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) Hi Karen, DE does not have any comments for CTA -2019-0001. Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. I Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley. WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggsna,spokanevallev.org, Spokane :.0 Valley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:49 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.bvus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <irowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org>; 'Chris Johnston' <criohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; 'Chris Knudson' <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Christina Janssen (City of Millwood)' <planning@millwoodwa.us>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake ' <LKey@libertylakewa.gov>; 'City of Spokane Tirrell Black' <tblack@spokanecity.org>; 'Colin Depner' <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>;'Comcast' <bryan richardson@cable.comcast.com>; 'Consolidated Irrigation District #19'<consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; 'Deborah Johnson' <SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov>; 'Derek Lilleberg (Conoco Phillips)' <Derek.Lilleberg@p66.com>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <dist1@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>; 'Felts Field - Ryan Sheehan' <rsheehan@spokaneairports.net>; 'Hutchinson Irrigation District'<hutchinsonid16@gwestoffice.net>; 'Inland Power & Light' <connien@inlandpower.com>; 'Irvin Water District' <irvinwater@windwireless.net>; 'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; 'Larry Ostwald (Conoco Phillips)' <Larry.E.Ostwald@p66.com>; 'Leslie King (Leslie.King@dfw.wa.gov)' <Leslie.King@dfw.wa.gov>; 'Marty Long' <mlong@scfd8.org>; Mike Stone 2 <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Modern Electric Water Co. ' <transmittals@mewco.com>; 'Modern Irrigation District' <info@modirr.org>;'orchardaveirrigationdist6@comcast.net'<orchardaveirrigationdist6@comcast.net>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>; 'Spokane County Planning & Building' <jpederson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanecleanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@sookanetribe.com>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict' <inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1' <HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power'<kwells@verawaterandoower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation ' <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>; 'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecv.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District' <Timothy.Morgan@wvsd.org>; 'Araceli Tapuro' <araceli.e.tapuro@usps.gov>; 'Bob Hardin' <Bob.L.Hardin@usps.gov>; 'Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric'<cwafstet@mewco.com>; 'Christine' <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; 'David Robles' <david.g.robles@usos.gov>; 'Degon' <JDegon@spokanecounty.org>; 'Dosch, Ryan A' <RDOSCH@spokanecounty.org>; 'Edward Freeman' <edward.s.freeman@usos.gov>; 'Frank Moulton' <fmoulton@sookanecounty.org>; 'Humphries, Guy B' <Guy.B.Humphries@usos.gov>; 'James Schiller' <James.C.Schiller@usos.gov>; 'Jodi Safarik' <jsafarik@spokanecounty.org>; 'Leonard Warren (Metro PO' <leonard.e.warren@usps.gov>; 'Lindsay Anderson' <LDAnderson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Maureen Ades (Co Utilities' <mades@spokanecounty.org>; 'PublicSafety'<PublicSafetyGlS@spokanecounty.org>; 'Tina Fisher (USPS' <tina.c.fisher@usos.gov>;'Veronica Soules (Avista' <veronica.soules@avistacorp.com>; 'Vicki Williams (Comcast' <vicki whitt-williams@cable.comcast.com>; 'Vickie Brown (CCC' <vrbrown@spokanefire.org>; Connor Lange <clange@sookanevalley.org> Cc: Taylor Dillard <tdillard@sookanevalley.org>; Greg Stauffer <gstauffer@spokanevallev.org> Subject: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) All, Please review the attached SEPA checklist and proposed language adding Chapter 22.135 to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) establishing the procedural standards to assign Addressing for property identification in the City. In addition addressing definitions will be added to SVMC Appendix A. Submit written comments via email or mail using the contact information below. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead SEPA agency for the environmental review of the above referenced City initiated Code Text Amendment. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: March 19, 2019 Best regards, Karen Kendall 1 Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5026 1 kkendall@spokanevallev.org Spokane Walley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 3 Karen Kendall From: Frost -Andersen, Kirsten <KFROST@spokanecounty.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:21 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) Hi Karen, ran this by several of the Public Safety GIS staff here at the County and below are the comments I received in return: 1) They have not included the road naming section of the standards at all. They are just adopting the addressing standards. While the addressing standards are great and helpful and we certainly want to encourage adoption, it does nothing for the issues that arise from poor road naming, which are often more critical than the addressing, and at the very least are the base for the addressing. So no codification of disallowing duplicate road names, maintaining road names for their entire length, etc. I looked briefly at their existing municipal code thinking maybe they already had some road naming standards, but did not find anything. 2) Formatting issue... 22.135.050 Addressing Standards D. Each block along a street may have up to 100 address numbers. The hundred series shall change upon crossing a street intersection or in best possible alignment with the established address grid if applicable, with the exception of intersecting driveways and/or alleys. The hundred series along a public street shall not change upon crossing a private street unless deemed necessary by the City Manager for continuity of address sequencing. Private streets wholly contained within plats shall be assigned the hundred series as if they were public streets. This is the start of a new concept. It should be E. and all subsequent sections bumped up one letter. Except for loops and circles, two uniquely named streets may CTA -2019-0001 (Addressing Standards) March 5, 2019 Chapter 22.135 Draft v2 Page 3 I 6 not intersect more than once (e.g., Main Street should not intersect Cherry Lane at 201 East Main Street, and also intersect Cherry Lane at 401 East Main Street). Loops and circles shall be reviewed on an individual basis and require approval by the City Manager. E.F. Addresses along a street shall have even numbers on one side of the street and odd Thanks for letting us provide a review! We're exciting the City of Spokane Valley is adopting the regional standards! Kirsten Frost Andersen IT Supervisor Spokane County Information Technology Department kfrost@spokanecounty.org .., , 0.,,i1...Iti: s: i r•iii,.,,:t,:: � R`�qu ,t11,:41111 � 1i,..i1111� 174"m, Spokane County 1 From: Karen Kendall [mailto:kkendall@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:49 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <jrowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Johnston, Christopher R. <CRJohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; Knudson, Chris <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Christina Janssen (City of Millwood)' <planning@millwoodwa.us>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake ' <LKey@libertylakewa.gov>; Black, Tirrell <tblack@spokanecity.org>; Depner, Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; 'Comcast' <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>;'Consolidated Irrigation District #19'<consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>;'Deborah Johnson' <SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov>; 'Derek Lilleberg (Conoco Phillips)' <Derek.Lilleberg@p66.com>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <distl@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>;'Felts Field - Ryan Sheehan' <rsheehan@spokaneairports.net>; 'Hutchinson Irrigation District' <hutchinsonid16@qwestoffice.net>; 'Inland Power & Light' <connien@inlandpower.com>; 'Irvin Water District' <irvinwater@windwireless.net>; 'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; 'Larry Ostwald (Conoco Phillips)' <Larry.E.Ostwaid@p66.com>; 'Leslie King (Leslie.King@dfw.wa.gov)' <Leslie.King@dfw.wa.gov>; 'Marty Long' <mlong@scfd8.org>; Mike Stone <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Modern Electric Water Co. ' <transmittals@mewco.com>; 'Modern Irrigation District' <info@modirr.org>; 'orchardaveirrigationdist6@comcast.net' <orchardaveirrigationdist6@comcast.net>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>; Pederson, John <JPederson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanecleanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority' <kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.com>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict' <inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1' <HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@verawaterandpower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation ' <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>;'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District' <Timothy.Morgan@wvsd.org>; 'Araceli Tapuro' <araceli.e.tapuro@usps.gov>; 'Bob Hardin' <Bob.L.Hardin@usps.gov>; 'Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric' <cwafstet@mewco.com>; McMahon -Chase, Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; 'David Robles' <david.g.robles@usps.gov>; Leifer, Jessica <JLeifer@SpokaneCounty.org>; Dosch, Ryan A. <RDOSCH@spokanecounty.org>; 'Edward Freeman' <edward.s.freeman@usps.gov>; Moulton, Frank <FMOULTON@spokanecounty.org>; 'Humphries, Guy B' <Guy.B.Humphries@usps.gov>; 'James Schiller' <James.C.Schiller@usps.gov>; Safarik, Jodi L. <JSAFARIK@spokanecounty.org>; 'Leonard Warren (Metro PO' <leonard.e.warren@usps.gov>; Anderson, Lindsey <LDAnderson@spokanecounty.org>; Ades, Maureen <MAdes@spokanecounty.org>; Public Safety GIS <PUBLICSAFETYGIS@spokanecounty.org>;'Tina Fisher (USPS' <tina.c.fisher@usps.gov>; 'Veronica Soules (Avista' <veronica.soules@avistacorp.com>; 'Vicki Williams (Comcast' <vicki_whitt-williams@cable.comcast.com>; 'Vickie Brown (CCC' <vrbrown@spokanefire.org>; Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Taylor Dillard <tdillard@spokanevalley.org>; Greg Stauffer <gstauffer@spokanevalley.org> Subject: SEPA Request for Comments - File No. CTA -2019-0001 (City Initiated Code Text Amendment) All, Please review the attached SEPA checklist and proposed language adding Chapter 22.135 to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) establishing the procedural standards to assign Addressing for property identification in the City. In addition addressing definitions will be added to SVMC Appendix A. Submit written comments via email or mail using the contact information below. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead SEPA agency for the environmental review of the above referenced City initiated Code Text Amendment. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: March 19, 2019 2 From: Eliason, Joelie To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:52:51 AM Attachments: imaae002.pnq image003.pnq imaae004.pnq Thank you for the response, Karen (sorry I called you Kendall in my first email). I would like to describe my interest in this particular code change and I appreciate your time in reviewing my thoughts on the matter. I am a resident of Spokane Valley, so I have a vested interest in SVMC changes. I work for the City of Spokane (COS) and addressing is one of my duties. The COS also, historically, limited the numbering to below 50 for the last two digits of the address. This numbering scheme has created addressing issues as the COS continues to change and grow or as zoning changes. Some the issues are a result of re -platting or segregation to create smaller parcels within an existing platted area. There are times when a zoning or land use change from single family to two-family or more has caused an address crunch as duplexes are replacing dilapidated homes. I was encouraged by Public Safety GIS and Spokane County E911 to utilize the whole numbering system (01-99 — we try to reserve 00 for intersections) to better indicate the location of an emergency call; i.e. address numbers in the 01-50 range (west half of the block) will be closer to the west intersection and numbers in the 51-99 range (east half of the block) will be closer to the east intersection. This may allow for a reduction in emergency response time when seconds may count as some of the systems dispatch to the nearest intersection. Thank you again, Karen, for considering my thoughts on the matter. I am glad to see that a thorough addressing code is proposed and will provide guidance as Spokane Valley continues to grow. Best of luck! Sincerely, Joelie Eliason Joelie Eliason City of Spokane Engineering Technician IV Development Services Center 509.625-6385 fax 509.625.6822 jeliasonna spokanecity.ora spokanecity.ora Know wuhatss below. Gall before you dig. From: Karen Kendall <kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:17 AM To: Eliason, Joelie <jeliason@spokanecity.org> Subject: RE: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Thank you for the question, Joelie. Historically the Valley has been addressed consistent with our proposed standards. The numbering provides consistency and predictability. There are rare cases we may increase the numbering as it is deemed fit. Hope this helps. Best regards, Karen Kendall 1 Planner (509) 720-5026 1 kkendall@saokanevallev.orc This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Eliason, Joelie[mailto:jeliason@sookanecitv.org] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:40 PM To: Karen Kendall <kkendall@sookanevallev.org> Subject: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Good afternoon Kendall, I was reviewing the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 22 regarding addressing in Spokane Valley. I am curious about why the last two digits of street number shall not exceed 33 (22.135.050.L.3). Is there a particular reason to limit the addresses from 1-33? Thank you, Joelie Eliason Joelie Eliason 1 City of Spokane 1 Engineering Technician IV Development Services Center 509.625-6385 1 fax 509.625.6822 jeliasonPspokanecity.or• 1 spokanecity.org F.A �5 i15 f LACE US Know wuhatss below Gall before you dig. From: Eliason, Joelie To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:52:51 AM Attachments: imaae002.pnq image003.pnq imaae004.pnq Thank you for the response, Karen (sorry I called you Kendall in my first email). I would like to describe my interest in this particular code change and I appreciate your time in reviewing my thoughts on the matter. I am a resident of Spokane Valley, so I have a vested interest in SVMC changes. I work for the City of Spokane (COS) and addressing is one of my duties. The COS also, historically, limited the numbering to below 50 for the last two digits of the address. This numbering scheme has created addressing issues as the COS continues to change and grow or as zoning changes. Some the issues are a result of re -platting or segregation to create smaller parcels within an existing platted area. There are times when a zoning or land use change from single family to two-family or more has caused an address crunch as duplexes are replacing dilapidated homes. I was encouraged by Public Safety GIS and Spokane County E911 to utilize the whole numbering system (01-99 — we try to reserve 00 for intersections) to better indicate the location of an emergency call; i.e. address numbers in the 01-50 range (west half of the block) will be closer to the west intersection and numbers in the 51-99 range (east half of the block) will be closer to the east intersection. This may allow for a reduction in emergency response time when seconds may count as some of the systems dispatch to the nearest intersection. Thank you again, Karen, for considering my thoughts on the matter. I am glad to see that a thorough addressing code is proposed and will provide guidance as Spokane Valley continues to grow. Best of luck! Sincerely, Joelie Eliason Joelie Eliason City of Spokane Engineering Technician IV Development Services Center 509.625-6385 fax 509.625.6822 jeliasonna spokanecity.ora spokanecity.ora Know wuhatss below. Gall before you dig. From: Karen Kendall <kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:17 AM To: Eliason, Joelie <jeliason@spokanecity.org> Subject: RE: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Thank you for the question, Joelie. Historically the Valley has been addressed consistent with our proposed standards. The numbering provides consistency and predictability. There are rare cases we may increase the numbering as it is deemed fit. Hope this helps. Best regards, Karen Kendall 1 Planner (509) 720-5026 1 kkendall@saokanevallev.orc This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Eliason, Joelie[mailto:jeliason@sookanecitv.org] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:40 PM To: Karen Kendall <kkendall@sookanevallev.org> Subject: Proposed amendment to the SVMC Title 22 Good afternoon Kendall, I was reviewing the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 22 regarding addressing in Spokane Valley. I am curious about why the last two digits of street number shall not exceed 33 (22.135.050.L.3). Is there a particular reason to limit the addresses from 1-33? Thank you, Joelie Eliason Joelie Eliason 1 City of Spokane 1 Engineering Technician IV Development Services Center 509.625-6385 1 fax 509.625.6822 jeliasonPspokanecity.or• 1 spokanecity.org F.A �5 i15 f LACE US Know wuhatss below Gall before you dig. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 19-009 setting public hearing for Street Vacation 2019- 0003. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code; RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79 RCW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The owners, Sonrise Land and Pomajevich Investments, Char -Don & Associates and DKelly Developments, LLC, have requested the vacation of the northwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Thierman Road. The area of right-of-way is improved and approximately 2,987 square feet. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located on the northwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Thierman Road and adjacent to three parcels (35132.1320, 35132.1308 and 35132.1310). In August of 1985 the owner at the time conveyed property to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for work on Interstate 90. WSDOT conveyed the unused right-of-way to Spokane County one month later (September 1985). A utility easement, was granted to the City and WSDOT to cover the traffic signal system equipment on the corner of Broadway Avenue and Thierman Road in April of 2016. OPTIONS: Approve Resolution No. 19-009 setting the date for a public hearing on the proposed street vacation; or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Resolution No. 19-009, setting July 25, 2019 as the date for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on Street Vacation application STV -2019- 0003. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Resolution No. 19-009 Spokane OValley Broadway and Thierman Street Vacation STV -2019-0003 Council setting public hearing by Resolution 19-009 June 18, 2019 Application Submittal Process O' Q Pi : N •7 Study Session �' N 7-11-19 5 ,� Public Hewing c 7-25-19 •: Findings of Fact ,� 8-8-19 Pm Administrative Report dates TBD Ord. 1st Reading 7-6 dates TBD Ord. 2nd Reading •� dates TBD Decision Conditions satisfied Staff Review Record Ordinance and Record Czt 5 4J 023 'A2 0.J czt r 124 2 1St Phase of street vacation 2nd Phase of street vacation Broadway Ave. FJ ,ce cl° \„6(4° te \ \ \ \ E G61' STREET VACATION Park Road Pit Bcoan,haY Proposal ¶diacent parcels APN 35132,1308 J APN 35132.1320 f f t APNI 35132.131 / a►' / §% I •`PJ Broadway Ave. — STREET VACATION Details of Street Vacation DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION APPLICATION STV -2019-0003 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010 AND SVMC 22.140.020; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation Application (File # STV - 2019 -0003) from property owners Sonrise Land and Pomajevich Investments, Char -Don & Associates and DKelly Developments, LLC to vacate the northwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Thierman Road. The area of right-of-way is improved and approximately 2,987 square feet. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located on the northwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Thierman Road and adjacent to three parcels (35132.1320, 35132.1308 and 35132.1310); and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the time when a street vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof; and WHEREAS, chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) establishes regulations and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as a "street vacation"); and WHEREAS, SVMC 22.140.030 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested street vacation to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV -2019-0003. The required public hearing for Street Vacation Application STV -2019-0003 shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission on July 25, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as is feasible, in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 18th day of June, 2019. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 19-009 Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV -2019-0003 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project Design Alternative GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • Administrative report, Bridging the Valley, May 7, 2013 • Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included both the Barker Road and the Pines Road Grade Separation Projects (GSP) — June 23, 2015 • Adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included the Pines Road Grade Separation Project (GSP) — • Motion to acquire Pinecroft property - January 10, 2017 • Council passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 TIP, February 28, 2017. • Administrative report seeking Council consensus to move forward with project design - March 28, 2017 • Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2018-2023 Six -Year TIP, which included the Grade Road GSP - May 23, 2017 • Motion passed to select a Consultant for Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project, Phase 1 Design Contract - July 11, 2017. • Admin Report on Design Alternatives — October 17, 2017. • Motion consideration to apply for Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) federal grants, March 27, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, FY2017, (CRISI #1) grant, May 22, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant, June 5, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, FY2018, (CRISI #2) grant, August 21, 2018. • Admin Report on Design Alternatives — December 4, 2018 • Admin Report on Design Alternatives — June 4, 2019 BACKGROUND: Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for engineering design services for the Pines Road GSP in 2016. HDR Engineering and DEA (Consultants) were selected to design the project in May 2017. On July 11, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award the engineering services contract to the Consultants. The design will be completed in two phases. In the first phase, the Consultant analyzed and compared two alternatives in terms of cost, right-of-way needs, impacts to existing properties, constructability, safety, and other pertinent project elements so the City can select an alternative. In the second phase, the Consultant will advance an alternative to design. Based on the engineering evaluation, staff is recommending that Alternative 2 with a roundabout be advanced to design. Staff discussed the two alternatives at a public meeting on October 4, 2017 and at two public meetings on April 18, 2019. In addition, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce facilitated a project discussion with their members on December 13, 2018 and with their transportation committee on May 23, 2019 where staff presented the two alternatives and two intersection control types. Staff also met individually with representatives from the Spokane Valley Police Department, Spokane Valley Fire Department, East Valley School District, and in April 2019, met with Matt Ewers of IEDS Logistics who represents the freight industry. These stakeholders indicated that they support Alternative 2 with a roundabout because it has flatter grades than Alternative 1. East Valley School District also prefers Alternative 2 because it moves the intersection away from the school. In addition, staff had additional discussions with BNSF on May 15, 2019 to ensure they did not have any objections with either alternative. Furthermore, staff met with Senator Mike Padden and Representatives Matt Shea and Bob McCaslin in May 2019 to discuss the project and the upcoming staff recommendation to Council. The state legislators did not voice any concerns with staff recommendation of Alternative 2 with a roundabout. Staff presented an Administrative Report to Council on June 4th asking for consensus to move forward with a motion consideration to advance the design of Alternative 2 with a roundabout. At the meeting, City Council gave unanimous support to bring forward this motion consideration. WSDOT has since signed off on the interim Basis of Design, approving Alternative 2. OPTIONS: 1) Advance the design of Alternative 2 with a roundabout, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance the design of the project using Alternative 2 alignment with a roundabout as intersection control. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City has budgeted $3.2 million of city funds for the project. The City received a STBG grant for $1.9 million that partially funds the right of way phase and was recently awarded a $1,246,500 CRISI 2 grant that will be used in the design phase. The project also has an inactive $3.3 million FMSIB grant that the City can choose to activate or apply for a larger amount. Alternative 2 is a less expensive alternative estimated at $26 million as compared to Alternative l's estimate of $29 million, assuming 2023 construction. Staff continues to apply for grants to bridge the funding gap. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE — Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Project Timeline June 18, 2019 July 2017 — Engineering Evaluation of Two Alternatives (Phase I Design) Council Updates — Alternative Evaluation October 17, 2017 December 13, 2018 June 4, 2019 Public Outreach October 4, 2017 Public Meeting December 13, 2018 Chamber of Commerce Transportation Meeting April 18, 2019 Morning Public Meeting April 18, 2019 Evening Public Meeting May 23, 2019 - Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee 2 Spokane .Valley Project Timeline June 18, 2019 Stakeholder Outreach Spokane Valley Police Department Freight Industry Representative Spokane Valley Fire Department East Valley School District BNSF Coordination Since 2017 Meetings with State Legislator 3 Spokane .Valley Alternatives June 18, 2019 v � l J 1. :. -fes, +11s ' n. ij 44I Gh I= ILII I y51.9 EAU PKW 4•tc T/�• '� S'F . 5 '• yF ..�� t 5k ,ry A I 1��l _ i +10 - N. l`./ I f ll. - _.wI '_ -'—*.--- rir i J •' ``�� aid •�a5' -i_�� t. \ ^>2 y\ (= \\ IENTARY 1..i\ ?\\�` \�'\ \a \\ , \ : / \ »-,\ '\ / . - _ \ \« « 1-\� \�� ` � � - » :f.' \ ---e% 4,-:- < $°` / \\ ` \\�-�..\ » \\\\ y y' _ - , ` 2\ �\ z -,-- e, 4: �© [ \ /''> , � * ` ' ' � {� , \ � \ \ \ H / �•' ,eF / t — "'-' } l _ems- Y- r�� • 41rix V aria f' ¢- �a - .!Ex 11P%Yi _ i k Alternative 1 4 Alternative 2 Spokane .Valley Staff Recommendation June 18, 2019 Based on the Phase I Alternative Analysis: Advance to Design Alternative 2 Alignment Roundabout Intersection Control Spokane .Valley 6 Next Steps June 18, 2019 Negotiate Scope of Work for Phase II Design with HDR Motion Consideration to Execute Amended Design Contract with HDR Begin Final Design of Selected Alternative Continue to Pursue Funding to Breach Potential Gap ROW Acquisition— Anticipated 2020/2021 Spokane .Valley Questions June 18, 2019 Jy }� L-Isi4 �4 is.�� ..T ' 4Gh I I, EAU PKWY — - .—_--T-. pyo '� 'F Sfi, yF t -� V ../.• ii A I 11111 `l iq . - N. 4 l`./ I ll I /)f 64y51w9 «.— 4 • �`�� aid •� � Re6. II EN, `l l .._ 1._ 1ENTAXY :HOOT - ! k1� • V . _'1^'''''a1 1, a\ a1 4. ' % ,_ .\ ' t a 1• i Cr ----' N. CNEkRY V, it r 5 '� .gP �/ tom' f •' k Y- :1.iY r�� . • 41rix V f ' ¢ - II I eEX — 1 L ,. .J.�Ta..J 1ha4 7 Spokane .Valley CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Bid Award - Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk (McDonald to Evergreen) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • June 28, 2016: Council passed Resolution 16-009, adopting the 2017-2022 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project. • February 28, 2017: Council passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 Transportation Improvement Plan • February 20, 2018: Administrative Report Discussing Project • June 4, 2019: Council passed Resolution 19-008, Adopting the 2020-2025 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes the project. BACKGROUND: The Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk Project (McDonald to Evergreen) will provide a sidewalk on the north side of Wellesley from McDonald to Evergreen. In 2016, the City applied for, and was awarded, a Safe Routes to School Program grant. The grant application states that the project will provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, and ADA compliant ramps at crossings. Wellesley Avenue is a minor arterial. Per the City street standards, the minimum travel width for minor arterials is 44 feet. To the east of the project, Wellesley Avenue is 44 feet wide with adjacent sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. This segment of Wellesley is striped as a two-lane street, with bike and parking lanes on both sides. Within the project limits, the pavement width is approximately 36 feet with two12 foot lanes and five-foot paved shoulders on both sides. A pavement widening on the north side will be required to provide the required travel width and to match the street section to the east of the project. Unfortunately, the initial estimate for this project did not anticipate pavement widening. Staff presented several alternatives to Council in 2018 for providing pedestrian access along this project. Council directed staff to improve Wellesley Avenue per the Street Standards by widening the pavement approximately 3.5 feet, install curb and gutter and an adjacent sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. Separated sidewalk cannot be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. The estimated budget for this alternative was estimated at $576,000. As the project design progressed, the stormwater division identified several stormwater improvements within the limits of the project. These improvements will be covered with monies from Funds 402 and 403. While in design, the City was notified by a property owner that a rock wall located within the right-of-way had historic value. To comply with NEPA, the City hired an archeologist to conduct a cultural resource report. During this process, the City learned that the property owner had applied to have his property and the rock wall listed in the historic register. To avoid delays, the project was redesigned to avoid removal of the rock wall. The current estimated project budget and cost are shown below: Project Costs Preliminary Engineering Construction Total Estimated Costs $ 67,667 $ 800,620 $ 868,287 Project Budget City Fund 301 City Fund 402 City Fund 403 Federal Grant Total Budget $ 213,867 $ 84,260 $ 167,860 $ 402,300 $ 868,287 The project was designed in house and advertised on May 24, 2019. Bids will be opened on June 14, 2019, and as such, inclusion of the Bid Tabulation and recommendation for award is not available at time of Council Agenda publication. OPTIONS: Move to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or take other appropriate action RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk Project CIP #265 to and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impacts will be discussed with Council at the meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: The Bid Tabulation and award recommendation will be provided to Council at the meeting. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : End of Legislative Session Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Lobbyist Josh Weiss and Trevor Justin from Gordon Thomas Honeywell, will brief Council on the 2019 Legislative Session, end of session report. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; 2019 Interim Plan 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION END OF SESSION REPORT CITY OF SPOKANEVALLEY GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 2019 SESSION OVERVIEW 1 05 -day long legislative session: FINISHED ON TIME Primary objective: adopt operating, capital, & transportation budgets:ALLTHREE BUDGETS ADOPTED Record number of bills introduced: 2,206, with a high passage rate (22%) Democrats in control of House & Senate SpokaneValley had a very successful legislative session BUDGET SUMMARY 2019 Operating Budget Final budget totals $52.4 billion ■ New investments in behavioral health, public employee salary benefit increases a There were five new revenue sources to fund investments, including B&O modifications, REET modifications, out of state sales tax refund mechanism 2019 Capital Budget ▪ Capital Budget totaled $4.9 billion a Investments in local government projects and grant/loan programs, mental health facilities, K- 12 construction, state agency construction projects 2019 Transportation Budget ▪ Shortfall in gas tax revenue ■ Continued to fund scheduled projects in Connecting Washington; not many new projects a Transportation Package: discussions began this year but were stalled because of $30 car tab initiative (1-976) on ballot this year LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Browns Park — Capital Budget Request Pines Road / BNSF Grade Separation Project: Phase 2 —Transportation Budget Request Barker to Harvard Interchange Funding —Transportation Budget Defend Local Control Protect Local State -Shared Revenues Protect Business by Reforming State Regulatory Burden Support Prohibition of Recreational Marijuana Home Growing and Retention of Local Authority Condominium Liability Reform Increased Funding for the Basic Law Enforcement Academy Prevailing Wage Calculations BROWNS PARK The City received $536,000 in the 2019-2021 capital budget Funding to help pay for a new playground, new restroom, and neighborhood picnic shelter Briefed City's delegation prior to session; confirmed a willingness to ask for funding Submitted request for $520,000; entire delegation supported $520,000 included in Senate budget, however $536,000 was included in the House budget Final budget includes $536,000 PINES ROAD / BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT: PHASE 2 The city requested $2.9 million in funding for the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project Briefed the delegation — all were supportive Delegation submitted request to transportation leaders $2.9 million included in the House budget; no funding included in the Senate budget Final budget did not include funding for this request Resume efforts next year; prepare for continued transportation package discussion BARKER TO HARVARD INTERCHANGE FUNDING City supported acceleration of the Barker to Harvard Interchange Funding Funding initially included in the 2015 Connecting Washington Package City of Liberty Lake priority SpokaneValley joined the effort House budget proposal did not address issue; Senate budget included acceleration Final budget included acceleration of funding City of Liberty Lake to pay for project costs above $20 million DEFEND LOCAL CONTROL The city supports local authority and opposes the state legislature from restricting or interfering with local decisions Increasing Urban Residential Density — House Bill 1923 (Rep. Fitzgibbon) Final legislation encourages — rather than requires — cities to take action to increase density (menu of options) Legislation passed; signed by the Governor on May 9th Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — Senate Bill 5812 (Sen. Palumbo) / House Bill 1797 (Rep. Gregerson) Original legislation would have preempted city authority to regulate ADUs; bill amended to grandfather cities that had already taken action Did not pass Land Use Petitions — House Bill 1781 Bill would have made a series of changes, including expanding notice requirements for cities and counties Did not pass ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Protect Local State -Shared Revenues Worked in conjunction with AWC State -Shared revenues fully funded (marijuana revenues to cities not increased) Protect Business by Reforming State Regulatory Burden House Bill 1052 (Rep.Walsh) would create accountability in agency rulemaking authority Did not pass Support Prohibition of Recreational Marijuana Home Growing and Retention of Local Authority House Bill 1 131 (Rep. Blake) and Senate Bill 5155 (Sen.Walsh) GTHGA opposed on behalf of the city Did not pass CONDOMINIUM LIABILITY REFORM The city supported legislation that incentivizes the construction of condominiums by reducing the liability developers incur for construction defects, while continuing to balance consumer protection provisions Senate Bill 5219 introduced by Sen. Padden Would have exempted condo buildings with less than 7 units from construction warranties Did not pass Senate Bill 5334 introduced by Sen. Pedersen The bill requires condos to be constructed in accordance with building codes, and updates the "breach of warranty" guidelines Passed the legislature, signed by the Governor on April 306 ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Increased Funding for the Basic Law Enforcement Academy — 2 classes in Spokane HB 1253 — 2 months rather than 6 months — did not pass Final budget includes $4.6 million additional funding for 9 additional classes (19 total), allowing for 540 training slots over the biennium Also requires that two classes are held in Spokane each year Prevailing Wage Calculations Issue being addressed through L&I Rulemaking AFFORDABLE HOUSING HB 1406 (Rep. Robinson) — City and County Financing Mechanism .0146% credit against the state sales tax, split with the county (.0073% each) Acquire, rehabilitate, or construct affordable housing, or fund the operations and maintenance of new units of affordable or supportive housing For persons at income levels at or below 60% adjusted median income $186,867 or $373,734 annually for SpokaneValley FINAL NOTES It has been a pleasure to advocate for the city this session. Please thank Sen. Padden, Rep. Shea, and Rep. McCaslin — the city's success is due to their diligence in advocating for the city Lobbying is a year-round effort SpokaneValley will continue to see success at the state level if we stay engaged QUESTIONS? Josh Weiss (360) 561-3560 jweissgth-gov.com Trevor Justin (360) 280-2847 tjustin@gth-gov.com TO: FROM: RE: GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS City of Spokane Valley 2019 Interim Plan Mark Calhoun, City Manager & Cary Driskell, City Attorney Spokane Valley Josh Weiss & Trevor Justin, GTHGA Recommended Interim Activities Successful lobbying requires year-round efforts. To continue to advance the city's legislative priorities, GTHGA recommends the following interim action items: May o Monitored Governor Inslee's bill signing process June/July o Post session report to City Council —June 18th o Identify possible events to highlight legislative champions o Attend AWC Annual Meeting in Spokane. Participate in AWC Intergovernmental Affairs meeting and legislative agenda development process o Organized and participate in Local Government Champions fundraiser August/September o Meetings/calls with GTHGA and city staff to develop draft 2020 legislative priorities • 2020 will be a "short" 60 -day session. The legislature will adopt supplemental budgets, and there will be less opportunity for funding • Carry-over issues from 2019 include: ■ Pines Road / BNSF Grade Separation Project — Phase 2: The 2019 transportation budget did not include many projects, and Sen. Hobbs' proposed transportation revenue package identified a significant need for additional resources, but was not enacted. The city should work with 4th district legislative delegation to ensure this project is included in a future budget/package. Furthermore, I-976 will be considered by the voters in November and the outcome of this election will have a significant impact on what happens in this area 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 2100 Tacoma, WA 98401 Phone: (253) 620-6500 Fax: (253) 620-6565 www.gth-gov.com 203 Maryland Ave., NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 544-2681 Fax: (202) 544-5763 ■ Defend Local Control: GTHGA will continue to advocate for local control for the city when appropriate ■ Protect the Local State -Shared Revenues: GTHGA will continue to work with AWC to advocate for local state -shared revenues ■ Protect Businesses by Reforming State Regulatory Burden: While this topic wasn't a priority for the legislature in 2019, GTHGA will continue to monitor legislation regarding this topic, and will weigh in when appropriate ■ Support Prohibition of Recreation Marijuana Home Growing and Retention of Local Authority: While GTHGA was successful in advocating against Senate Bill 5155 and House Bill 1131, these bills will be automatically reintroduced for the 2020 session. GTHGA will continue to oppose this legislation and others that authorize home growing of marijuana • Possible new issues to consider: ■ Transportation funding: The 2019 transportation budget did not include many projects, and Sen. Hobbs' proposed transportation revenue package identified a significant need for additional resources, but was not enacted. The city should be developing possible projects for a future revenue package. ■ Annexation: The legislature considered, but did not enact, proposals relating to annexation. In addition, the legislature will receive a report from the Ruckelshaus Center on implementation of the GMA ■ Mental health is likely to continue to be "hot" topics for legislative consideration o Meet with the 4th district legislators to discuss priorities, and identify possible legislative champions o Attend House Committee Assembly Days (part 1) — Sept. 12-13 • Engage delegation • Engage transportation budget leadership October o If making funding requests, coordinate with county staff to complete legislative request forms o Develop one pagers for legislative priorities November/December o Finalize funding request forms o Attend House Committee Assembly Days (part 2) — Nov. 21-22 o Attend Senate Committee Assembly Days — Nov. 20-21 o Develop letters of support for the county's legislative agenda and funding requests o Legislative sendoff event with legislative delegation CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin. Report: Re -opening 10th Avenue GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: On October 20, 1989, neighboring citizens petitioned to have 10th Avenue vacated between Bannen Road and Best Road. The petitioners believed that 10th Avenue should be vacated because the right-of-way (ROW) was routinely not used by the public and the adjoining property to the south was farmland. On February 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County denied the vacation of 10th Avenue and temporarily closed 10th Avenue to through traffic between Bannen Road and Best Road pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 90-0225. The resolution stated that the vacation was denied because the road was needed for future road purposes and that the public would not benefit by the vacation. On October 19, 2018, the preliminary plat application for the 12th & Best Subdivision (File No. SUB -2018-0007) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley to subdivide an 8.94 acre parcel into 43 single-family residential lots. The preliminary plat is bounded by 10th Avenue to the north and 12th Avenue to the south with proposed Bannen Road and Best Road extending through the plat. The preliminary plat map illustrated the extension of 10th Avenue from Bannen Road through Best Road to the east plat boundary. On April 9, 2019, the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat application for 12th & Best Subdivision (SUB -2018-0007), although the opening of 10th Avenue was not provided for as part of that process. Spokane County Resolution No. 90-0225 provides that the temporary closure of 10th Avenue remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the Board of County Commissioners. Under state law, 10th Avenue, like all other public roads in the City, transferred to the City upon incorporation. Accordingly, the action to open the road must now be taken by the City Council. Staff has provided a proposed resolution to open 10th Avenue for Council's consideration on June 24 to allow the developer to continue processing 12th & Best Subdivision (SUB -2018- 0007). OPTIONS: Consensus to consider approval of Resolution No. 19-010, opening the closed portion of 10th Avenue from Bannen Road to Best Road at the next Council meeting on June 24 as part of the consent agenda; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to consider approval of Resolution No. 19-010 opening the closed portion of 10th Avenue from Bannen Road to Best Road at the next Council meeting on June 24 as part of the consent agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Chad Riggs, P.E. Senior Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: (1) PowerPoint Presentation (2) Spokane Valley Resolution No. 19-010 (3) Spokane County Resolution No. 90-0225 SllY a ne Valle Request to Re -open 10111 Avenue from Banner Road to Best Road SUB -20 18-0007 12th & Best Subdivision Chad Riggs, P.E. Senior Engineer 2 Vicinity Map Temporary Closure • 1990 — Spokane County Commissioners temporarily closed a portion of 10th Avenue to vehicular traffic. • To be opened, requires legislative action by City Council. 3 Preliminary Plat Map 4 BLK 1 LOT c2 73135.1 f sr ELK 1 LOT 1 1 0.2 AC 7240,510 :r ¶ T'Tr••' ... B LK 1 LOT 1 ❑ 0._ AC 7236.06 Sr II II II BLK 1 t LOT 9 723p1. 6 sr BLK t LOT B 7."1s sr B LK 1 LOT 7 13.2 AC 9039.37 Sr_ BLK 1 LOT 1 3 0.2 AC 152.54. Sr BLK 1 LC1 s.c6 5553.49 sr --8-LK 2 I 1 LOT 12 1 4, 77.60 5F BLK :E'L.T LOT i 1 ❑.2 AC 5957.24 sr t3LK 2 LOT 113 0.2 AC 7357.32 sr 1 1 1 11 1 -E3L1G 2 LOT 1 3 "x51 8956.47 sr BLK 2 LOT 0.2 A1cI 4 ` I I 4953.25 Sr 1 1 I ELK �-~ LICIT • AC2 I I - I 1 9750.96 Sr I I •.L--- 13' RORCER EA5€Y T BLK 3 LOT 1 1 pp 73'JSO EF 3, UTKJT 11 BLK3 i ' I I LOT cO I 1 1 7397.64 sr BLK 2 LIJT 1 5 7354 93 sr BLK 2 LOT 9 0.2 AC 7373.4G 55 BLK 2 LOTp1 6 7355z.39 sr ELK 2 LOT 8 0.2 Ac I 74275..1 6 s; BLK2 11 LOT 1c7 'JI 1 7S4 -A4 sr ELK 1T7 15459.51 Sri BLK 2rv.. LPT 6 I 0.- 1556.5.52 sr L-_-1 8LK 2 L IT 11p8 S13 5F BLK 2 LOT 19 735.1233 s£ 1 BLK 3 I LOT 9 0.2 AC 7395.40 sr BLK 3 LOT S o_= AC 7335.55 sr ELK 3 LOT 7 0.2 AC 7394.33 Sr It rI ELK 2 LOT 5 ❑.t Ac 5244.53 sr BLK 1 1 I 0OT 1 . we 1 1 5577.04 sr 1 I ELK 1 I LOT 3 II' 59031.27 sr I I BLK 1 I I LOT 2 I 1 59261.70Ac sr I BLK 2 t LOT 4 t pp i x 5297.35 sr I BLK 2 I LOT 3 53803.2 sr BLK 1 I LOT 1 - -0.2 AC Lr44P_. BLK 2 1 LOT 2 5257.3 sr I I BLK 2 L T Tr Ae1_. 5351.05 sF BLK 2 TRACT "A 0- 1 AC-' 053.51 sr PARCEL 45233_100S NOTA PART 12th Avenue C7 0 1 BLK 3 LOT 6 0.2 AC 740t.7C S. - ELK - ELK 3 LOT 5 C.2 AC 7633.36 SF BLK 3 LOT 4 0.2 AC 7757.25 sr ELK 3 LOT 3 ❑_2 .0 72418.30 sr BLK 3 LOT 2 O 1 aC 6500 30 Sr BLK 3 L - 0-2 ac1 7 - e 540.60 3F DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, OPENING THE PORTION OF 10TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN BANNEN ROAD AND BEST ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, 10th Avenue is a public right-of-way that is located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County approved Resolution No. 90-0225 and temporarily closed 10t1 Avenue right-of-way between Bannen Road to the west and Best Road to the east to vehicular traffic; and WHEREAS, a preliminary plat application for the 12th & Best Subdivision (File Number SUB - 2018 -0007) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley that provides for the closed portion of 10th Avenue as an access to the proposed internal street system; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, the City has the authority to lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, extend, grade, pave, plan, establish grades, or otherwise improve streets within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that opening the closed portion of 10t1 Avenue to vehicular traffic is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: The City Council hereby opens 10th Avenue right-of-way from the east right-of-way line of Bannen Road to the west right -of way line of Best Road of Tally Ho Subdivision, a plat of Tract 148 of Vera, located in the South 1/2 of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., to vehicular traffic. 10th avenue as described herein shall be improved pursuant to the conditions of approval for preliminary plat SUB -2018-0007 and the City shall have no obligation for maintenance until such time as the improvements are installed and accepted by the City. Adopted this day of June, 2019. City of Spokane Valley L.R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 19-010 9063060234 voL.1O95PAGE 489 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 90 0225 IN THE MATTER OF ) VACATION OF 10TH AVENUE IN ) RESOLUTION - VACATION TALLY HO SUBDIVISION ) ENGINEER'S ROAD FILE NO. 1493 & 1292 ) This being the day set for the hearing on the County Road Engineer's Report on the proposed vacation of 10TH AVENUE, proceedings for which were initiated by Thomas Rowland and others, and it appearing to the Board on proof duly made that notice of the hearing was published and posted in the manner and for the time required by law, and the Board after examining all claims and all maps and papers on file and after hearing the evidence adduced at the hearing and it appearing that the hereinafter described road is needed for future county road purposes and that the public would not benefit by such vacation. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, that the requested vacation of 10th Avenue between Barmen Road and Best Road be and is hereby denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 10th Avenue between Bannen Road and Best Road be temporarily closed to through traffic and the County Engineer be directed to cause the placement of suitable barricade or gate across said roadway and to provide the necessary signing to affect said closure. This temporary closure shall remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the Board of County Commissioners. PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, this 27th day of February, 1990. ATTEST: LLIAM E. DONAHUE ERK OF THE B'i DEPUTYjor 03170 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Patric a A. Mummey, hair --Steven Hasson RECEED FILED OR fl CORDED REQUE&T +7r 168- 6 2s, PMI W:C.a w>rYr MM. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Affordable Housing Code Text Amendment — CTA -2018-0006 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; SVMC 19.40.035; SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130; RCW 36.70A.106; PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment is a privately initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050, and SVMC 19.65.130 to allow multifamily development in the Single -Family Residential Urban Zone (R-3) if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing. The proposed amendment creates a new conditional use to allow multifamily development in the R-3 Zone on parcels 10-20 acres in size, in conjunction with a church and school use. Multifamily development under this proposal would be allowed only if 51 percent or more of the housing units were used for affordable housing. Multifamily development would be required to meet the residential standards of the R-3 zone, which include both density and dimensional standards, to create consistency with the existing character of the residential neighborhood. The maximum density allowed in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre (6 du/acre). The proposal allows density to be calculated by considering the entire site, including developed areas. Existing site amenities, such as parking and open space, may be shared rather than constructing new amenities to serve the multifamily development. The proposal modifies SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, SVMC 19.65.130 Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential and SVMC 19.40.035 Alternative Residential Development Options - Development Standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone. Under the current zoning regulation, multifamily development is permitted in the Multifamily Residential (MFR), Mixed Use (MU), and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zones. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the April 25, 2019 meeting. On May 9, 2019, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. At that meeting, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA -2018-0006 be denied. On May 23, 2019 the Planning Commission adopted Findings and Recommendation. OPTIONS: Consensus to either (a) deny, (b) approve, or (c) modify the request and move such decision to first ordinance reading, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place an ordinance on a future agenda for first reading (a) denying CTA -2019-0006; or (b) approving CTA -2019-0006. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Dept. ATTACHMENTS: A. PowerPoint Presentation B. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation C. PC Meeting Minutes: 4/25/2019, 5/9/2019, and 5/23/2019 D. Staff Report CTA -2018-0006 with attachments S"pokane City Council Meeting Administrative Report CTA -2018-0006 — A Privately initiated Code Text Amendment June 18, 2019 Application Information Ili Applicant Information o Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington Application The privately initiated application reflects changes proposed to the code by Catholic Charities specific to allowing affordable multi -family housing in the R- 3 zone if certain conditions are met and subject to the Conditional Use Permit Review and approval process conducted by the Hearing Examiner. Privately Initiated CTA Process Mk ilk Mk 8-29-2018 Preapplication Meeting conducted. 12-14-2018 Application Submitted 2-21-2019 Revised application submitted Notice of Public March 29, 2019 .o 5 Public Hearing Zi Zi c May 9, 2019 Study Session April25, 2019 Findings of Fact May 23, 2019 LJ 117 [y( A A A Ordinance 1St Reading July 2, 2019 Today Ordinance 2nd Reading TBD Proposed SVMC Amendment - Overview 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted use matrix Add "S" in the R-3 zone column requiring additional regulations 19.65.130 — Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential Add supplemental use language for multifamily development 19.40.035 — Development Standards — Multifamily in the R-3 Zone Add applicability section and criteria to be met for the site and building, and other related agreements Permitte d Uses Matrix Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Add indic is pe R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC !MU 1 subs 1 eel rg. cc -tape. s s supe D'...,el.rig duplex PPP P regu Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily ("PPP 5 S Dwelling, single-family PPPPPP P Dwelling, to :nhause 5 S Manufactured home park 5 3 an "S"• ates the use rmitted ect to Iemental use lations. Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 1 9.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 6 19.40.035 Development standards —Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone A. Applicability. "May be permitted if at least 51% of the units are used for affordable housing and subject to" additional criteria. Notably, though Applicant discussed "senior housing" at times, Applicant submitted request for broader category of "affordable housing:" City has identified some legal limitations under the federal Fair Housing Act related to legislatively limiting to senior housing Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 1 9.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone Key Site Criteria 1. Site Shall include church and school 2. Site size shall bel 0-20 acres 3. Entire site is utilized to calculate maximum density of 6 du/acre 4. One parcel under single ownership; all uses must be located on same parcel 5.Parking and open space may be shared Natural amenities and topography shall be incorporated into design All buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity Pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 1 9.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone C. Building Meet the residential standards in Table 19.70-1 for the R- 3 zone Minimum lot size not applicable Development shall provide 10% gross area of the site for open space Add supplemental use language for building development. Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards —Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone D. Other Agreement is required ensuring compliance with conditions — Agreement to run with the land Affordable housing shall remain for life of project Add supplemental use language for Agreement. Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards —Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone E. Permit Type Shall require a Conditional Use Permit Add supplemental use language for Permit Type. 1 Vacant Sites Meeting Criteria (Size, Zoning and Ownership) i "�` 11 • 8 potential sites identified • Represents a snapshot of property and ownership • Circumstances are constantly changing — Additional sites can be aggregated um Ave1)" Legend DE Vacant parcels - 10+ acres R3 Lakes/Rivers Appleway Trail Centennial Trail IM City of Spokane Valley Issues: CTA versus Site Specific Project 12 • Code text amendment affects all R- 3 properties; and • Confusion regarding site specific proposal and direct impacts; • Catholic Charities discussed intention of a Senior Housing Project at St. John Vianney; • CTA does not approve Senior Housing Project; but creates an opportunity for review as a Conditional Use (CUP); • CUP's can be denied by the HEX. St Jahn Vienne Cathal is Schon Public Hearing Comments CTA versus Site Specific Project • Comments generally directed toward a project at St. John Vianney and not toward the CTA; • Confusion regarding direct impacts of a site specific proposal and the code text amendment; • Opposition to Catholic Charities Housing Project at St. John Vianney; • Concerns over traffic increase, pedestrian safety and water infrastructure; • Concerned that multi -family development is not consistent with character of existing neighborhood; and • Not opposed to affordable housing, but not at St. John Vianney location. Planning Commission Action Recommendation: Deny the Request Vote: 6-0 Major concern: Proposal benefits a single site April 19, 2019 March 29, 2019 NEXT STEPS ;1' A A A Study Session April25, 2019 Public Hearing May9,2019 Findings of Fact May 23, 2019 Administrative Report June 18, 2019 Ordinance 1St Reading July 2, 2019 Ordinance 2nd Reading TBD Today QUESTIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2018-0006 — Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA -2018-0006 is a privately initiated code text amendment (CTA) to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130 to allow multifamily development in the Single -Family Residential Urban Zone (R-3) if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, on a property with a church and school, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and other provisions. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2019 and conducted deliberations on May 9, 2019. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council deny the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1), the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the following provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: LU -G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley; LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses; and LU -P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. b. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2), the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment based on the following reasons. The Applicant identified that the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2018-0006 Page 1 of 2 of the environment because housing is an essential component of health and safety. The basis identified by the Applicant for the proposed amendment is to address "a significant deficiency in the availability of affordable housing." However, the proposed amendment is a limited scope amendment that will not allow significant creation of affordable housing due to the requirements that a church and school be located onsite. Further, the amendment allows intensive multifamily uses in single-family residential zones, thereby creating incompatible uses that will cause conflict due to increased density, traffic, potential commercial uses, and increased noise and disruption. Affordable housing should be located near commercial and social services, public transportation, and within high density areas such as the Multi -family zone, and Mixed Use zones, but the amendment allows affordable housing outside of and away from these necessary services. Adequate area for multifamily development is available near the necessary services. 3. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council deny CTA -2018-0006. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA -2018-0006 Approved this 23rd day of May, 2019 annin ' Commission airman ATTEST a_r(k)'/C-1(_) Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2018-0006 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 25, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley, absent - excused Karen Kendall, Planner Robert McKinley Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kelly, Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA -2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA -2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: STV -2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Ms. Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road. Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation. Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, that there is not an application on file at this point, and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies, and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii. Study Session: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51% is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church, school, and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what "share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner, requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10 -20 -acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum. requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max, they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres. Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five -acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five -acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD Or THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. s�g/2o/9 James Johnson, Chairman Date signed D --(7kot Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall May 9, 2019 L Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter, absent - excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange, Planner Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 agenda. The motion was to add item i.a. Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VL COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did not attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i.a. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2Q18-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that -City Council adopt the amendment". The language was changed to accurately reflect the Commission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amended Findings of Fact for CTA -2018- 0005 as presented. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote, he was in favor of the adopted language. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Public Hearing: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. Barlow advised that staff reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non -significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements did not apply. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. This proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. The newly added section, 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Ms. Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and multifamily units all located on a site at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. For example, if you have a 10 -acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms. Barlow advised the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms. Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site, buildings that include parking structures shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the Dimensional and Standards Table 19.70-01, which includes a building height limit of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the life of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and gave an overview of the process. Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Staffs analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all circumstances could change. Ms. Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms. Barlow explained the City's GIS specialist queried single property owners within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could apply to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms. Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a City initiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to be private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for a church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hippie, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Manahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities mission. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Manahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities has a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. He continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Manahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mx. Manahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project on a parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Manahan continued that seniors often times downsize due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. He addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29% with only a 6% household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Manahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will proceed with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation. Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County Human Rights Tasks force with him. Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population in code could be a liability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51% as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was for limiting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the internet was to narrow the amount of land that this would apply too, but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CUP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Commissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms. Barlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that might take advantage of the locations that staff identified. Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51% requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained that trip generation. studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic. If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Ms. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing. Mr. Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal background check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 E Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Harold Road their will a new development of thirteen houses. He does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder, 417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zielfelder explained that his concerns are the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic impacts and for the infrastructure. He works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. He feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. He added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. Zielfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood. Thornas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard. He and his wife chose to buy in this area due to the character and location. He is concerned with traffic impacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this. Mrs. Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman, 9920 E Broadway; Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were 110 studies being done regarding traffic or water. He found it hard to believe there were no adverse impacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be accessible on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed. Ken Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fade, 124 N Walnut Roadd; Mr. Fade explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure. Christine Fade, 124 N Walnut Road; Mrs. Fade explained she moved to the area because she liked the street. She was shocked to receive a letter dated April 30th from Catholic Charities and St. Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing; she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield, 205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Holder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Holder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property values going down and the unknowns. Ms. Holder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be, opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few times a year where they block off the street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, Ms. Lieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, agrees with Mrs. Lieuallen. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to be a bad idea and still is. He continued that parking and traffic are already a problem as the current students get dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Strauss continued that Catholic Charities is big business trying to make money with no respect for the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss continued that this monstrosity is too big and doesn't fit and asked the commission not to institutionalize the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss concluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room. Commissioner Walton stated he felt it important that the Commission is professional and appreciated the statement in terms of the audience. Commissioner Walton pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than limiting comments to three -minutes that they have the ability to do. He reminded the audience that if they are repeating comments to keep them succinct. Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter left on her front door regarding this meeting. Her concern is that the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also concerned with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber explained he will use the same statement he used eight years ago. The founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to respect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't want to move out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure. Mr. Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she no longer lives on Walnut Road partially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all of the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the 51 %o suggested does apply to for-profit builders as long as they are a low income property for a specific number of years. Ms. Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in bankruptcy. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone else. Commissioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais. He felt it unfortunate that while tensions are high with strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal and asked again that those comments be directed to the dais. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt that everyone present knows what Commissioner Walton just said. He agreed that some individuals may have been carried away due to emotion and added that Commissioner Walton's' constant interrupting or comments when someone speaks to the issue is intimidating. He told Commissioner Walton that he feels he needs to stand down as the audience knows what the rules are and are doing a good job at holding back emotions and stated he had heard enough. Commissioner Walton moved for a three-minute recess, with no second, the motion failed for the lack of a second. Daniel Hipple, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr. Hipple explained that he has the most to lose out of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr. Hipple advised he had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acres there could be 76 units however, this 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hippie asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they be attending the meeting on the other side? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the House of Charity. He is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendick, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendiek lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property from being built? He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason, 5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the area and was there in support of the Hippie's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. He gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. Gleason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building across the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Elton Road; Ms. Rulea used to own a home at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the building will look like, traffic problems and with the water and sewer. There have been problems with the sewer before. Ms. Rulea is also concerned with the possibility of extending Valleyway Avenue, she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she heard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to make a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catholic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, agencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. Currently there is no project under review therefore those items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City does have water concurrency requirement. The applicant would have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain a certificate of water concurrency from the specific water agency before being allowed to move forward. Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an effort to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up. Commissioner Walton added he can sympathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be on the other side in the audience. He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions for the proposal and that the Commission were reviewing a zoning change that would allow any applicant to apply. He added that he understands how difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria. Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as he has strong concerns related to the for-profit entity could come forward, the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward and the idea of a school on the property is the most limiting factor. Commissioner Walton 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there are zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put a burden on them due to cost. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal, because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76 -unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their comments. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the proposal was denied by both the Commission and Council. Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing but does not feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and if the Commission was not looking at a Valley wide change he may have different. considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity for individuals whom may not be as neighborly as Catholic Charites. He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type of multifamily construction project would not fit in the R-3 zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend denial of CTA -2018-0006 to the City Council. No further discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV -2919-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between I-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South and further boarded by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the Findings of Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access, removal of the portion of the street vacated and design or construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road and 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be vacated. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle M properties. Mr. Lange advised that I-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. Lange concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of nonsignificance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25, 2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative I-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing, process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even though it was brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington. State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system due to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins. Mr. Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer, money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hall is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non -conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lamb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone. This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall. Subsection B states they must have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must be in sealed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that he will research and provide at the public hearing. Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr. Lamb stated he is not aware of any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however; there are businesses that do advertise the use. Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol, nicotine, oxycodone or opioids and Mr. Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process are in place for a reason. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 He felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. He stressed that if there was any idea that what he was saying was meant to dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly pushes back. He added that the incivility of the Commission members toward each other should be avoided at all times as they are there for the same purpose. He appreciated that it was brought to his attention that it was concern and he did not interrupt any speaker at any time. He thanked the members of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that Chair Johnson did an excellent job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. He understood the points and felt as though Commissioner Walton was supporting him in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your beliefs do not change the reality. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote on the matron was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed James Johnson, Chairman Robin Hutchins, Secretary 3//9 Date signed Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall May 23, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor; zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4th legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings. On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training. The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute time limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CTA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission. He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings ofFact CTA -2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn, University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between 1-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9, 2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road inay provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20 -foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre - Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road, now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work, provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the PIanning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the license agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over I-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50 - feet wide and building a 45 -foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchelli, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the case that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future. Justin Fabio, 302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north ofUniversity Road, through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement, across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. Public Hearing: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow Iicensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative I-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is Left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non -conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment, those compartments could be metal partitions, cages or shatterproof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (1) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr. Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout 1- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license, business license, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000 -foot exclusion zone? Mr. Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail clue to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country. He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state Iaw, adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds. Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA -2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when I-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission_ He added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor; one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed iv. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr. Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission. On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses, extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a Large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued, the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr. Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have an easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements. There was some discussion regarding a Pre -Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue. Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will be extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, arad the motion passed X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Comini.ssioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Spokane Val leyu COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: April 18, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 9, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Privately initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130 to allow multifamily development in the Single -Family Residential Urban Zone (R-3) if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, on a property with a church and school, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and other provisions. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: CTA -2018-0006 Application, attachment and proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.035. SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130. Exhibit 2: Agency Comments BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Application Submitted December 14, 2018 Revised Application Submitted February 21, 2019 Depaitnient of Commerce 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment March 19, 2019 SEPA — DNS Issued March 22, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 19, 2019 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment creates a new conditional use to allow limited multifamily development in the R-3 Zone on parcels 10-20 acres in size, in conjunction with a church and school use. Multifamily development under this proposal is allowed only if 51 percent or more of the housing units are used for affordable housing. Multifamily development will be required to meet the residential standards of the R-3 zone, which include both density and dimensional standards, to create consistency with the existing Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0006 character of the residential neighborhood. The maximum density allowed in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre (6 du/acre). The proposal allows density to be calculated by considering the entire site, including developed areas, similar to how density was calculated in the mixed use zones prior to the 2016 Development Regulation update. Existing site amenities, such as parking and open space, may be shared rather than constructing new amenities to serve the multifamily development. The proposal modifies SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, SVMC 19.65.130 Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential and SVMC 19.40.035 Alternative Residential Development Options - Development Standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone. The basis for the proposed amendment stated in the application is to "Support development of affordable housing... consistent with the mission of the church" and "To use underdeveloped land adjacent to churches and schools" for the development. The application and specific language proposed are attached as Exhibit 1. The application materials include the definition of "affordable housing" as it currently exists in SVMC Appendix A — Definitions. No revisions are required to support the amendment. The definition is: Affordable housing: Where the term "affordable" is used, it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one-third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate to extremely low- income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. Analysis: Currently multifamily developments are allowed in three zones (see Table 1 below). Multifamily dwellings are defined in SVMC Appendix A - Definitions as a building designed for occupancy by three or more families with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. Multifamily is allowed as a permitted use, subject to Density and Dimensional Standards in SVMC 19.70.020 (see Table 2 below). Additional standards in SVMC 19.70.050 F and G which specify open space requirements and applicable requirements for development in the Mixed Use Zones also apply. Table 1— Current Zoning Districts that Allow Multifamily Development The proposed amendment has the following implications in the R-3 zone: Page 2 of 6 Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU 1 POS Dwelling. cct1age S SS S Dv.el -g. duplex PP P P Dwel -9. h:lu_:rial accessory d; el ira unit S S Dwelling, mu.ifa•nil., P P P Dwelling, single-family PPPPPP P Dwelling, townhouse S SS S S Manufactured home park S S The proposed amendment has the following implications in the R-3 zone: Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0006 1. Allows multifamily development as a conditionally permitted use. Pursuant to SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix multifamily development is allowed in the Multifamily Residential (MFR), Mixed Use (MU), and the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zones. Multifamily development is not allowed in the R-3 zone, except as part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The proposal would allow multifamily development in the R-3 zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and consistent with specific criteria. A CUP is a Type III permit which requires public noticing and public hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. A CUP is subject to a specific review during which additional conditions may be imposed to assure compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. A CUP may be denied if the review determines that the requested use is not compatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity or does not meet the criteria set forth in the SVMC. Chapter 19.150 Conditional Use Permits identifies the decision criteria and conditions that may be applied to a project. The CUP process considers consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood character, scale of existing development, public health and safety, potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, and impacts to public facilities or services. The HEX may stipulate conditions to alleviate impacts from the use that are not addressed by the development regulations. 2. Allows multifamily development at a density consistent with the underlying zone. The R-3 zone allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single- family neighborhoods. Density is limited to 6 du/ac (see Table 2). Multifamily development is allowed in the MFR zoning district at 22 du/acre and at an unlimited density in the Mixed Use zones. The proposal limits the density to 6 du/acre, consistent with the R-3 zone, but allows the density to be calculated based on the entire site including the developed portions of the site. While the Table 2 — Table 19.70-1- Residential Standards multifamily development would be clustered on the site, the overall development would not exceed the density anticipated for future development within the zone. The impacts to transportation, services and utilities, would fall within parameters contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan for the R-3 zoned areas. Allowing the multifamily development to occur at the single family density would not result in additional population, trips, or demands on services, but establish a flexible opportunity to cluster the housing rather than provide for it on individual lots. 3. Increases affordable housing opportunities in the City of Spokane Valley. Generally, multifamily development provides an affordable housing option for renters versus renting a single family home. Although the rent price is market driven, the rent can be influenced by the cost of construction. Multifamily construction is generally less costly than single family construction for a variety of reasons which include shared infrastructure such as driveways, curb cuts, yards, utility service connections, and parking. Page 3 of 6 R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR(1) Minimum Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2 35' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space NA N/A NIA 10% gross a reai 3) Lot Size 40:000 sq. ft_ 10,000 sq. f1 5,000 sq. 11. N1A Maximum Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 dufac 22 dufac Building Height 35' 35' 35' 50' multifamily development would be clustered on the site, the overall development would not exceed the density anticipated for future development within the zone. The impacts to transportation, services and utilities, would fall within parameters contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan for the R-3 zoned areas. Allowing the multifamily development to occur at the single family density would not result in additional population, trips, or demands on services, but establish a flexible opportunity to cluster the housing rather than provide for it on individual lots. 3. Increases affordable housing opportunities in the City of Spokane Valley. Generally, multifamily development provides an affordable housing option for renters versus renting a single family home. Although the rent price is market driven, the rent can be influenced by the cost of construction. Multifamily construction is generally less costly than single family construction for a variety of reasons which include shared infrastructure such as driveways, curb cuts, yards, utility service connections, and parking. Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0006 Ensuring affordable housing alternatives to meet the needs of the community is considered in the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Providing a broad range of housing choices to meet the varying needs of City's income levels is specifically provided for in the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal specifically requires that at least 51 percent of the units must be used for affordable housing. According to the City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element the median household income in Spokane Valley is $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings, and almost one-third of the City's residents earned between $25,000 and $50,000 annually. It was further noted that 51 percent of renters were cost burdened by rent, meaning that housing costs are greater than one-third of their income. Affordable housing continues to be a need in the City of Spokane Valley. 4. Allows Multifamily development where amenities may be shared The proposed amendment restricts the opportunity for multifamily development to sites that are developed with a church and school that are 10-20 acres in size, or to a proposal that contains all three elements. The proposal allows for parking and open space to be shared to efficiently utilize the existing amenities without overbuilding. In the case of existing developed school and church sites, the uses already provide adequate parking areas and open space that is vacant during the off hours. Sharing the parking spaces and drive ways avoids the overbuilding of hard spaces and minimizes the need to handle stormwater created by more paved surfaces. Church and school sites typically have significant grounds for play areas, fields, or passive open space areas that are generally used by the neighborhood and could also serve the needs of the multifamily tenants. If a new development were proposed the "shared" amenities would be determined through the CUP process to determine adequate areas or parking requirements. Since the proposal requires single ownership of the school, church and multifamily development for the life of the project, the owner would be responsible for any limitations on open space use or parking that conflict between the tenants, school or church uses. 5. Has limited application to existing church sites due to the criteria. The proposed regulation has limited application. The criteria requires that the site be 10-20 acres in size and developed with a church and school. A review of properties citywide identified 75 parcels are church owned; 25 of the church sites are located in the R-3 zone, and 2 sites are greater than 10 acres in size. Those two sites are St. John Vianney Catholic Parish, located at 503 N. Walnut Road, and The Carmel of the Holy Trinity, located at 4027 S. Wilbur Road. The Carmel of Holy Trinity site is 20.3 acres in size and technically exceeds the property size criteria, and does not have a school. However, these results could change as churches develop schools, or acquire more property. Additionally, it should be noted that the proposal is not limited to existing church sites. A new development containing a church, school, and Multifamily affordable housing could be considered through the CUP process. In any case, it is not expected that this would be used as a mechanism for private development of multifamily by parties other than religious institutions intending to provide housing consistent with the church mission. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0006 (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has identified specific goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support the proposed amendment. In addition to the applicant identified goals and policies, staff notes that H -G2 and H -P2 also support the amendment. The Applicant noted the reason for the code amendment is that Spokane County has a high demand for affordable housing, and that a significant deficiency of affordable housing exists. The application further notes that the amendment allows churches to use underdeveloped land to further the Church's mission to provide for vulnerable individuals. Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and identified that the proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU -P 14 Enable a variety of housing types Goal H -G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. Goal H -G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Policy H -P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre- fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Policy H -P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. Policy H -P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has identified how the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment by providing affordable housing for low income renters. In reviewing the proposed amendment, staff believe that the amendment creates regulations that are consistent with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would create an opportunity for religious entities to provide alternative and affordable housing options in the R-3 zone. The amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0006 b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The Notice of Application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. On March 28, 2019 comments were received from the Growth Management Services Division of the, Washington State Department of Commerce supporting the amendment and noting consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Countywide Planning Policies ( see attached). No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the amendment and that the amendment is supported by the Washington State Department of Commerce. B. OVERALL CONCLUSION Staff finds the proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. Page 6 of 6 DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT ScITYOF,'>A AMENDMENT APPLICATION pokane SVMC 17.80.150 Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • permitcenter c� spokanevallev.or,4 STAFF USE ONLY 1-4:SU0M I T CTA "1 CC/C;' Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL RECEIVED **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** DKANE VALLEY ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting).jNITY DEVELOPMENT ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application Fee ❑ Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 -foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 2253 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99210 PHONE: 509-926-2707 FAX: 509-838-2785 CELL: 509-991- 1029 EMAIL: jmallahan@ccspokane.org SECTION(S) OF CODE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED (INCLUDE CODE CITATION): 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Definitions Appendix SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODEAMENDMENT(S): The proposed amendment creates a new conditional use to support multifamily developments in residential zones on large parcels with existing church and school uses. Development under this proposal is restricted to affordable housing and required to meet residential development standards. Further design guidelines are added to ensure that the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods is not disrupted. PL -08 V1.0 Page 1 of 2 Spokane Valley REASON(S) FOR CODEAMENDMENT(S): Spokane County has a significant deficiency if the availability of affordable housing. This challenge is compounded by increasing costs of living, rising development costs and lack of developable land. Over 50 percent of renters in Spokane County are rent burdened (paying over 30 percent of gross income towards housing costs) and an additional 10,000 units of affordable housing are estimated to be required by 2020 to meet regional demand. Supporting development of affordable housing to bring dignity and security to vulnerable individuals is consistent with the mission and teachings of the Catholic Church. This amendment allows the Church to use underdeveloped land adjacent to churches and schools to further this mission. TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yes, this proposal falls in line with land use policies LU -P14 and land use goals LU -G1, LU -G2, housing goals H -G1, H -G2, Housing policies H -P2, H -P3, H -P4. DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT: Yes, housing is an essential component of health and safety. PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of applicant) 1, j-a.✓,tin*''N MALC1a 4A' , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. (Sign Lure) STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this NOTARY SEAL ```111I I I I l I/I01/ "S� M BRA 4,•+:SMENT64, -f•-s O:` 9.•N • a ill :< ► • <10 w: N. s �► •• ,oUB 1:k ,'i0F WAS��`" �'Imunnll`�� NOTARY day of (Date) FE 20L9 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My appointmentexpires: Z024-- PL -08 V1.0 Page 2 of 2 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix S in R-3 column for Dwelling, multifamily 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations 19.65.130 Residential K. Dwelling, multifamily. Multifamily shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development Standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone A. Applicability. Multiple family development in the R-3 zone may be permitted if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, and subject to the provisions of this section. B. Site. 1. Site shall be one contiguous parcel under single ownership for the life of the project 2. Site shall be between 10-20 acres in size 3. Density shall be calculated at 6 du/acre using the entire site 4. Site shall include a church and school 5. Parking and open space may be shared 6. The school, church and residential facility shall be located on one parcel 7. Natural amenities such as views, significant or unique trees, or grouping of trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to the site shall be incorporated into the design. 8. Emphasize, rather than obscure, natural topography. Buildings shall be designed to "step up" or "step down" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. 9. Projects shall have design continuity by using similar elements throughout the project, such as, architectural style and features, materials, colors, and textures. 10. Parking structures shall be architecturally consistent with exterior architectural elements of the primary structure(s), including rooflines, and finish materials. 11. Pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas shall be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color, and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas using landscaping or other methods. C. Building. 1. Multifamily development shall meet the residential standards in Table 19.70-1 for the R-3 zone 2. Minimum lot size shall not be applicable 3. Development shall provide 10% gross area of the site for open space D. Other. 1. Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, an agreement in the form acceptable to the City that ensures compliance with the provisions of this section shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor's Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Residential Dwelling, multifamily S P P P 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations 19.65.130 Residential K. Dwelling, multifamily. Multifamily shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development Standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone A. Applicability. Multiple family development in the R-3 zone may be permitted if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, and subject to the provisions of this section. B. Site. 1. Site shall be one contiguous parcel under single ownership for the life of the project 2. Site shall be between 10-20 acres in size 3. Density shall be calculated at 6 du/acre using the entire site 4. Site shall include a church and school 5. Parking and open space may be shared 6. The school, church and residential facility shall be located on one parcel 7. Natural amenities such as views, significant or unique trees, or grouping of trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to the site shall be incorporated into the design. 8. Emphasize, rather than obscure, natural topography. Buildings shall be designed to "step up" or "step down" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. 9. Projects shall have design continuity by using similar elements throughout the project, such as, architectural style and features, materials, colors, and textures. 10. Parking structures shall be architecturally consistent with exterior architectural elements of the primary structure(s), including rooflines, and finish materials. 11. Pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas shall be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color, and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas using landscaping or other methods. C. Building. 1. Multifamily development shall meet the residential standards in Table 19.70-1 for the R-3 zone 2. Minimum lot size shall not be applicable 3. Development shall provide 10% gross area of the site for open space D. Other. 1. Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, an agreement in the form acceptable to the City that ensures compliance with the provisions of this section shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor's Office. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the applicant. 2. Affordable housing units provided shall remain affordable for the life of the project. E. Permit Type. Multiple family development in the R-3 zone shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter SVMC. Definitions Affordable housing: Where the term "affordable" is used, it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one-third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate to extremely low-income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. Comprehensive Plan LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -P14 Enable a variety of housing types. H -G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H -G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. H -P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Potential Grant Opportunity—Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010: Six Year Transportation Improvement Program PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • July 25, 2017 — City Council approval for staff to apply for project funding from TIB, including Mullan Road Preservation project • March 27, 2018 — City Council approval for staff to apply for project funding from SRTC, including MuIlan Road Preservation, Argonne Reconstruction (which included the concrete reconstruction of the Argonne/Montgomery intersection with signal and channelization upgrades), and Park Road Reconstruction (ROW Only, which included accommodations for new sidewalk) • October 23, 2018 — City Council approval for staff to apply for project funding from CDBG, including the Farr Road Sidewalk project • June 4, 2019 — Adoption of Resolution 19-008 adopting the 2020-2025 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2019, the Washington State TIB issued a Call for Projects for the UAP (Urban Arterial Program) and SP (Sidewalk Program). The UAP makes approximately $70M available statewide and Spokane Valley is eligible to apply for funds from the Northeast Region's allocation of about $8M. The SP makes approximately $5M available statewide and Spokane Valley is eligible to apply for funds from the East Region's allocation of about $1M. TIB requires a minimum 20% match for any awarded grant funds. Staff has reviewed the grant scoring criterion and compared it to the City's 2020-2025 TIP, Comprehensive Plan, pavement condition analysis, accident hot spots, Safe Routes to School network, and other elements of the City's transportation network. TIB grant award results over the last six years provide helpful insight into how preservation projects and sidewalk projects are awarded by TIB. Generally, UAP project awards range between $1 million to $2 million and the six-year average is approximately $1.4 million. Sidewalk project awards range between $300,000 to $400,000 and the six-year average is approximately $330,000. With this in mind, Staff anticipates that the proposed projects will score well and have a high potential to receive funding. Final project cost estimates are being developed by staff and will be provided as part of the July 2 council presentation. Preliminarily, the total estimated project costs for the proposed projects are expected to align within the typical TIB award amounts, see Table 1. Table 1. Proposed TIB Projects & Preliminary Total Costs Project Name Total Estimated Cost Grant Request (%) City Match (%) Urban Arterial Program (UAP) 1. MuIlan Road Preservation — Broadway to Mission $ 1,800,000 $ - (80% Typical) $ - (20% Typical) 2. Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Reconstruction $ 2,600,000 $ - (60% - 80%) $ - (20% - 40%) Sidewalk Program (SP) 3. Park Road — Mission to Sharp 4. Farr Rad — 6th to 8th $ 600,000 $ 400,000 $ - (60% - 80%) $ - (80% Typical) $ - (20% - 40%) $ - (20% Typical) OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff requests council consensus to proceed with the proposed projects. This item will be brought to Council for a motion consideration at the July 2, 2019 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Engineer — Planning & Grants ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Potential Grant Opportunity Transportation Improvement Board kr/311. a 444111hZa s� fro17 + mpTe June 18, 2019 Adam Jackson, Engineer - Planning & Grants Engineering Division WHAT IS TIB? Transportation Improvement Board Independent state agency created by the Legislature Distributes and manages street construction and maintenance grants to 320 cities and urban counties Funds are generated by three cents of the statewide gas tax 2019 TIB FUNDING • Applications due by August 16, 2019 • 20% Minimum Match Required Urban Arterial Program (UAP) • Total program funds $70 million • City -eligible funds $8 million • Typical Award Value $1-2 million Sidewalk Program • Total program funds • City -eligible funds • Typical Award Value $5.0 million $1 million $300k -400k TransRoftation 1mpYoveme"� 9aar1 Prejeet FTmding Staeus Form VerMvnpe a.e,s,��4W.rf«3bAgoAmntr9r aaf9850aeY9wftmE Awd e'VvntetAo nfL17 uOLe Mu EpYan Rd pQnA9ViOm7ANG ar endvxcear. OTALL' Watt si9^°d ,.e na Fra�awmaf: a-saostoasl a Washwn Trans Ston State portatiop Improvement Board OpSl,Noye Won. Awl! 30 2 O rua_ Gdn'a Mantr, p_E Cit,or gpo�ManaBar mzm k'"a VB s1kr w SPokane alre,�Y. yyA 99208 Dear Ma. Mang_ Sane. on your .$4:a&32on yo9 Upealad Coal saoYi29o,3.3A, ana IB fundi aro it, 500, wOioh reate for the Braaohaoy AVenc. te maY nowawaro Me...__._ foOi19wSoy WPwauTBP➢Pnt,..Yaau ( aooi wmrad, 6-'1143pnswy.0 F9Xatwnh 1Giwy h me Aav Aahley Pr`opad nobaa raja., 3 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Knox:Av Mission'Ave Park Road Sidewalk Argonne & Montgomery Intersection Improvement Spragu = Ave Mullan Road Preservation Farr Road Sidewalk RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Preliminary estimates will be refined by the time of application but will not exceed the costs presented to Council on July 2, 2019. Preliminary Total Project Costs: Urban Arterial Program (UAP) ■ MuIlan Road ■ Argonne/Montgomery Sidewalk Program ■ Park Road ■ Farr Road $1.8 million $2.6 million $600,000 $400,000 QUESTIONS? :;i1114'ile vogtoft st44. (IrTi1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report - Pavement Preservation Commission GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 — Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The topics of Street O&M and pavement preservation have been a topic of discussion for Councils since shortly after the City's incorporation including the following: • In 2004 Council proposed a utility tax ordinance that did not advance to a second reading. • In 2008 Council approved a 6% telephone utility tax ordinance that went into effect in 2009. Proceeds of this tax support Street O&M Fund #101. • In 2011 Council approved a one-time transfer of $585,000 from the General Fund to Pavement Preservation Fund #311. • In 2012 Council approved a one-time transfer of $2.05 million from the General Fund to Pavement Preservation Fund #311. • Beginning in 2013 Council approved recurring budgetary General Fund transfers to the Pavement Preservation Fund. Between 2013 and 2019 these transfers total $6.5 million. • The March 2016 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic. • In 2016 Council and the Finance Committee held multiple discussions related to pursuing ongoing financial support of Street O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 including discussions on the imposition of utility taxes. • The February 2017 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic. • In 2017 Staff re-evaluated the condition of streets and worked on revising estimates of funding needs for the City's transportation and infrastructure program. • In January 2018 Council adopted a Solid Waste Collection Street -Wear Fee that is anticipated to generate approximately $1.5 million annually, the proceeds of which will be applied to maintenance and preservation of streets impacted by solid waste services. • The February 2018 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic. • In May 2018 staff presented an Admin Report on pavement management that addressed levels of service and financial challenges. • This has been a budgetary development discussion each year from 2011 through 2019. • In April 2019, staff presented its findings from Nichols Consulting Engineer's (NCE) evaluation of the City's pavement management program. This evaluation found that additional revenues are needed to attain pavement condition targets and goals. BACKGROUND: The City's street network consists of over 900 lane miles, almost 10 million square yards of pavement area, and is valued at approximately $450 million. As detailed above, the City has been unable to identify a sustainable funding source to stop the steady decline of the City's overall pavement condition. NCE's April 2019 evaluation of the City's pavement program has served as a starting point for staff's 2019 public outreach efforts to educate the public. Public outreach will inform citizens on the existing condition of our street pavements, the tools and methods available to preserve and maintain our pavements, and the associated costs of completing such work. For the remainder of 2019, staff will request feedback from the public on their understanding and acceptance of pavement conditions, pavement preservation techniques, and the associated costs. As part of the public outreach process, staff proposes a Mayor recommended and Council ratified appointed Pavement Preservation Commission (Commission) to complete the following tasks: 1. Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and establish pavement condition goals. 2. Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long- term levels of service. 3. Investigate and recommend funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. The Commission requires a large enough membership in order to sufficiently represent a wide - range of citizens and businesses within the City. Preliminarily, 15 members are proposed plus one independent mediator. Of the 15 members, staff proposes including two Councilmembers. The Commission would meet six times total, two hours per meeting, between mid-July and the end of October. Members would be required to attend at least four meetings, although attendance at all six meetings is preferred. All meetings would be held at City Hall and would be open to the public. No public comments would be taken, however, staff intends to provide surveys for public input. The Commission would only be able to take formal action when a two- thirds majority is present at a given meeting. The Commission's formal action would be in the form of a recommendation which would then be presented to Council for Council's determination. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff requests Council consent to bring this topic forward as a motion consideration at a future council meeting. At that time, we would anticipate a Mayoral recommendation of committee membership and Council ratification. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Member participation will be voluntary. There is potential for an independent mediator to require a fee. Costs to the City would include staff time and materials necessary to help inform and support the progress of the commission. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, Engineer — Planning & Grants ATTACHMENTS: Commission Outline Outline: Pavement Preservation Commission TASKS: 1. Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets. (i.e. Setting PCI Goals) 2. Identify preferences for maintaining specific streets, types of treatment used, and levels of service in the next 5-10 years. 3. Investigate and recommend funding sources for maintaining city streets. NUMBER OF MEETINGS: 6 meetings between mid-July and end of October, 2 hours long each (meet approx. every 3 weeks). All meetings held at City Hall, open to public, no public comment, but surveys/polls available. Assuming our commission has enough members, we require all members attend a minimum of 4 meetings, although attendance at all meetings is preferred. Action/decisions will only be formally taken when a majority is present, and those recommended actions/decisions would then be forwarded to Council for final determination. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE • Meeting 1: July 17 o Introduction of topic o History, Public Outreach Process, Existing Budget, Commission Tasks and Purpose ■ Staff can consolidate last 2-3 years of presentations to summarize everything ■ Outcome: By October 30, complete the 3 tasks identified above ■ Deliver findings to City Council in November/December o Action Items: ■ Identify and prioritize street maintenance/condition levels (anonymous poll) ■ Evaluate funding sources (anonymous poll) ■ Members tasked to seek input from respective stakeholder groups ■ Member requests for more information from Staff? • Meeting 2: August 14 o Member Q&A with Staff (follow-up on items from previous meeting) o Public Outreach: Gauge community status on pavement condition, treatments, funding ■ Staff outreach status/feedback ■ Member outreach status/feedback o Task Discussion (anonymous polls used to gather input) ■ PCI Goals — network -wide, different goal for arterial vs local streets? ■ Types of pavement preservation utilized — chip seals OK? ■ Preferred funding mechanisms. Vote vs Council action? Draft prioritization? • Meeting 3: September 4 o Member Q&A with Staff (follow-up on items from previous meeting) o Public Outreach -preliminary findings from public outreach process o DRAFT Recommendations — Members provide input (polls?), staff develop final report ■ PCI Goals ■ Pavement treatment types, preferences for what is used ■ Funding source recommendation/prioritization • Meeting 4: September 25 o Public Outreach -Staff to deliver preliminary findings from public outreach process o Review/Discussion of Draft Recommendations report • Meeting 5: October 16 o Public Outreach -Staff to finalize/deliver findings from public outreach process o DRAFT Recommendations report delivered to Members for review • Meeting 6: October 30 o FINAL Recommendations report reviewed. MEMBERSHIP: 15 members + 1 Facilitator Facilitator (2) City Council members (1) Chamber director (1) Chamber transportation chair (1) Emergency Services (2) Regional transportation rep. (1) Industry rep. (1) Residential Home Builder or Developer (2) General/Small business owner/rep. (1) Social services or nonprofit representative (3) Neighborhood/community representatives OUTREACH PROGRAM One hour Program — Introduction with video (5 minutes), PowerPoint Presentation (15-20 min), small group work (15 min), finish with reporting and survey (20 min). Open to the public, staff -directed. 1 Chamber -sponsored meeting open to all chamber members and general public 1 Chamber transportation committee meeting (July 25 scheduled) 1 all -community meeting sponsored by the City (in different locations) 3 school-based neighborhood meetings sponsored by the City 2 social service clubs (Rotary for example) sponsored by the City Website — set up online webpage and story map/GIS maps with information and links to online survey Promotion through advertising, social media, earned media. FUNDING SOURCES (commission to recommend council action or vote?) 1. Transportation Benefit Districts • Vehicle license fees • Property tax • Sales tax 2. Utility Taxes 3. Bonds (not recommended due to long-term payback impacts on funding) To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of June 13, 2019; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings CONFIRMED: Mon, June 24, 2019, Special Meeting, 6 p.m. Formal Format 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Resolution 19-010 Re -opening 10th Avenue — Chad Riggs 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment Interim Planning Commissioner Idue Tue June 171 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Spokane County Conservation District — Vicki Carter, Director 5. Admin Report: Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger 6. Admin Report: Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Road — Connor Lange 7. Admin Report: Code Text Amendment 2019-0002: Marijuana Transportation — Erik Lamb 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 9. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) 85 minutes] June 25, 2019, 6 pm Meeting Cancelled (A WC Annual Conference: June 25-28 Spokane Convention Center) July 2, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendment 2018-0006 Affordable Housing — 2. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Potential Grant — 3. Motion Consideration: Pavement Management Ad -Hoc Committee Appointments NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 9, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Parks and Recreation Month 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. First Reading Street Vacation Ordinance for 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger 3. First Reading Street Vacation Ordinance for 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd — C. Lange 4. New Employee Report — John Whitehead 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue June 25 Lori Barlow(10 minutes) Adam Jackson (10 min) — Adam Jackson (10 min) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 2] July 16, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Council Goals/Priorities for use of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Funds - 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 23, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Nick Mamer Days 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Street Vacation Ordinance for 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Street Vacation Ordinance for 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd — C. Lange(10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 9] C.Taylor (15 min) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 16] 4. Admin Report: Police Department Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 6. Info Only: Department Reports (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] July 30, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 23] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion: Council Goals/Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) funds-C.Taylor (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Proposed 2019 TIP Amendment #2 — Adam Jackson 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Draft Advance Agenda 6/13/2019 9:49:44 AM (10 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 1 of 2 August 6, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. — Meeting cancelled Councilmembers attend National Night Out Au2ust 13, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2019 TIP — Adam Jackson 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2019 TIP — Adam Jackson 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Au2ust 20, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. 2020 Budget: Estimated Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 2. Council Draft 2020 Budget Goals — Mark Calhoun 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Au2ust 27, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports [due Tue Aug 61 (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 131 (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 201 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Sept 3, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 271 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Special Meeting: Friday, September 6, 2019, Spokane County Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m. to Noon, Spokane Co. Fair & Expo Center; Conference Facility, 404 N Havana Street Sept 10, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Sept 31 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Sept 17, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 101 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 24, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING Affordable Housing SHB 1406 Appleway Trail Amenities Camping in RVs Crisis Co -response team funding Donation Recognition Duplexes, Townhouses, Cottages Graffiti Health District Re SV Stats Land Use Notice Requirements Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol New Employee Qrt Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) Park Lighting Park Reg. Ord. amendments Draft Advance Agenda 6/13/2019 9:49:44 AM [due Tue Sept 171 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) ISSUES/MEETINGS: PFD Presentation Police Dept. Qtr Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) Right -of -Way process Sign Ordinance Snow Removal: St. Sidewalks Safe Rt to School St. Illumination (ownership, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Studded Snow Tires Utility Facilities in ROW Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Page 2 of 2