The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 01-18 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Karen Kendall First Reading Proposed Emergency Ordinance Advance Ordinance to Amending Comprehensive Plan and Map Second Reading (City Center) [public comment] 2. Karen Kendall First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Advance Ordinance to Zoning Code and Map (City Center) Second Reading [public comment] NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3 Neil Kersten West Gateway Project Discussion/Information 4.Neil Kersten School Zone Flashing Beacons Discussion/Information 5. Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 6. Information Only(will not be discussed or reported): (a)Response to Public Comments ofJanuary 11, 2011 Meeting (b)Solid Waste Update 7. Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 8. Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,January 18,2011 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business IX new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading of draft ordinance amending the comprehensive plan for the emergency comprehensive plan amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.130 (1)(d), (2)(a) and (b); Section 17.80.140 Type IV applications - Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones and Section 19.30.010 Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Matter was referred to Planning Commission on October 26, 2010. See October 26, 2010 Council packet for additional information, BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2010, the Spokane Valley City Council passed a motion to forward an emergency comprehensive plan and zoning code amendment to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The proposal is to change the City Center (CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book I: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City Council discussed the following basis for the emergency amendment as follows; 1. In the last 12 months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011, and property taxes by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011. Funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2,2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 for 2010 and 2011. 2. Funds for significant private development are not available and significant failures of large commercial investments within the City have occurred. 3. The economic development anticipated by the Council when the Ordinance adopting the Subarea Plan was passed in June of 2009 has not occurred. 4. The restrictions on development within the City Center zone, as well as the design requirements, contemplate significant public investment involving both the purchase of property and construction of a City Hall as well as adjacent infrastructure improvements. The projected 2011 budget does not contemplate the purchase of any property within the City Center zone and funds available for the construction of City Hall are projected to be reduced by $2.2 million to fund other capital projects. 5. Because there is little likelihood that any significant investment will occur by the City, the City Center zone, as currently configured and restricted, creates significant immediate economic hardships for the property owners within that zone. Based upon these facts an RCA First Reading of Draft Ordinance(Comprehensive Plan) January 18,2011 emergency exists and an immediate change to the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(b) set forth above may be appropriate. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission at a study session on November 18, 2010. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2010. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. The City Council received the Planning Commission's recommendation at their January 4, 2011 study session. Following staff's presentation and discussion, Council directed staff to proceed forward with the emergency amendment as proposed and prepare an ordinance for consideration. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.140(H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for comprehensive plan amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: I. Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading; 2. Do not advance the ordinance to a second reading; 3. Modify the ordinance. If modification is substantial, the council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council's discretion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall—Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Draft Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan (2) Planning Commissions Findings and Recommendations (3) Amended Maps (4) Amended Text (5) Staff report and exhibits to Planning Commission form 12-9-10 public hearing (6) Public comments received on or before 12-9-10 public hearing (7) Planning Commission's draft minutes from 12-9-10 (8) Minutes from 8-19-10 City Center Community meeting RCA—First Reading of Draft Ordinance(Comprehensive Plan) January 18,2011 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREIENSIVE PLAN DELETING REFERENCES TO THE DESIGNATION "CITY CENTER" AND AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGING THE DESIGNATION "CITY CENTER" TO "MIXED USE AVENUE," AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 09-022 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, (The "City") is a noncharter Code City organized under the laws of Title 35A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to amend the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, (The "Comprehensive Plan") pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, (the "City Council") , adopted Ordinance 09.022 on September 25, 2009 amending the Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Spokane Valley Sprague Appleway Subarea Plan, (the "Subarea Plan"); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 20I0, the City Council passed a motion to forward an emergency Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendment to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at a study session on November 18, 2010 and conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Findings and Recommendations and the same were presented to the City Council on January 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Ordinance amending the Zoning Code and Map and the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning Commission on January 18, 2011, for the first reading and on January 25, 2011, for the second and final reading; and WHEREAS, one of the land use designations contained within the Subarea Plan was the "City Center" designation; and WHEREAS, at the time the City Center designation was approved, the City of Spokane Valley intended to make significant investments in the City Center area through the purchase of property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan envisioned that certain uses within the City Center area would be restricted and limited to encourage the development of a City Center that would provide the community with, "its symbolic, social and geographic heart," the "center of its civic Ordinance I 1-001, Amending Comp Plan Deleting Reference to City Center Page 1 of 6 DRAFT and social life" and provide services such as shops, cafes, restaurants, community services and the offering of"comfortable public streets and public places," and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan further envisioned that the new City Hall was intended to "preside over the City's main outdoor gathering space and its vista will be the iconic image that stands for Spokane Valley," and spur development including a new regional center including retail, office and residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Center designation in the comprehensive plan and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of specific uses including vehicle sales, convenience stores, gas stations and thrift stores; and WHEREAS, the Mixed Use Avenue designation in the comprehensive plan and subsequent development regulations does allow such uses; and WHEREAS, the City Center designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations, once the development of the "core" City Center Main Street commenced, restricted retail development in areas adjacent to Main Street until specific development thresholds were met; and WHEREAS, the city center designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations imposed certain design restrictions and construction requirements that were unique to the City Center area; and WHEREAS, in the last sixteen months since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011; property taxes are projected to decrease by $1 00,000 from 2010 to 2011, and funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 in 2010 and 2011; and WHEREAS, funds for significant private development are not as available as they would have been at the time the initial ordinance was passed, and major commercial investments within the City have had financial difficulties; and WHEREAS, the City is not able and does not intend to make any significant investment in the Center area as was contemplated at the time the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations comprising the Subarea Plan was adopted. Specifically the City Council has, by motion, ended negotiations for the purchase of property on which to locate a new City Hall, and adopted a 2011 budget that does not include sums for the purchase of such property, and further reduced funds available for the construction of a new City Hall by $2.2 million to fund other necessary capital projects; and WHEREAS, the property owners within the Center designation are burdened by the restriction on allowable uses outlined above, the further restrictions that would be in place if and when a development plan for the core was adopted, and the design restrictions and requirements Ordinance 11-001,Amending Coinp Plan Deleting Reference to City Center Page 2 of 6 DRAFT unique to the city hall designation, without the City investment and infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the City Center area that currently is precluded by the current designation; and WHEREAS, a number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the adoption of the City Center designation and development regulations implementing the same; and WHEREAS, testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission has demonstrated both the economic hardships and the desire to remove the current limitations as is set forth in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS, the issues and factors concerning the creation of the City Center designation has been the subject of three years of study and analysis, and public meetings and testimony, specifically as set forth in Ordinance 09-022 and in additional public hearings and meetings identified in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2006, prior to the adoption of the Subarea Plan, recognizes the goal of identifying and creating a City Center for the City of Spokane Valley, and the Council wishes to continue to pursue this goal with staff, taking into consideration the existing economic situation and the City's current financial circumstances, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendations fail to take into account the specific factors set forth in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS, adoption of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Map must comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") as set forth in RCW 43.21C; and WHEREAS, the City is required to notify the Washington State Department of Commerce of its intent to adopt this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Map at least 60 days prior to final adoption pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: I. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Map has been provided to the Department of Commerce pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on November 3, 2010. 2, The City of Spokane Valley has complied with the requirements of RCW 43.21C and issued a Determination of Non Significance ("DNS") for the proposed amendment on November 12, 2010 in a manner consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. Ordinance 11-001, Amending Comp Plan Deleting Reference to City Center Page 3 of 6 DRAFT 3. At the time the City Center designation was approved, the City intended to make significant investments in the City Center area through the purchase of property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall. 4. In the last sixteen months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the city's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011; property taxes are projected to decrease by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011 and funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 in 2010 and 2011. 5. Funds for significant private development are not as available as they would have been at the time the initial ordinance was passed, and major commercial investments within the City have had financial difficulties. The City Council has, by motion, ended negotiations for the purchase of property on which to locate a new City Hall, and adopted a 2011 budget that does not include sums for the purchase of such property, and further reduced funds available for the construction of a City Hall by $2.2 million to fund other necessary capital projects. 6. The City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the City Center area that currently is precluded by the current designation. 7. Public testimony has favored and opposed the change. Specific comments at the City Council meeting of October 26, 2010 supporting the amendment include comments that businesses were struggling, vacancy rates were high, and that the property owner of property where City Center was planned to be located, supports removal of the current restrictions; further testimony at the Planning Commission meeting on December 9, 2010 supporting the amendment indicated that council has, since taking office in January of 2010 reviewed the Subarea Plan in detail, reviewing each zone, and has heard testimony concerning the impacts of the current regulations on development and how the current economy is affecting the properties within this designation, as well as the desire of property owners for additional flexibility for development within this designation, as well as testimony by a property owner within the City Center designation requesting more flexibility to enable redevelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs. 8. The City of Spokane Valley has provided notice and engaged in a public process to ensure citizen participation pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 36.70A.140, providing the public an opportunity to be heard on October 26, 2010, December 9, 2010, January 18, 2011 and January 25, 2011. The notice provided and meetings identified constitute early and continuous public participation in the consideration of this proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan and map. 9. The City Council does not accept the Findings of the Planning Commission for the following reasons: Ordinance 11-001, Amending Comp Plan Deleting Reference to City Center Page 4 of 6 DRAFT 10. The inability and decision of the City to invest in the City Center area as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, and the current and ongoing economic hardships suffered by both the City and its constituents, along with the code restrictions contemplated by the City Center designation of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations set forth above in the recitals and incorporated herein, creates, without immediate action by the City Council, a significant and ongoing economic hardship for property owners within the City Center designated area, constituting an emergency requiring action by the City and a sufficient basis for amendment of the comprehensive plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (b). BASED UPON THE RECITALS AND FINDINGS OF FACT SET FORTH ABOVE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Declaration of an Emergency The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley hereby declares that an emergency exists, as is described in the findings above, allowing the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Map as is set forth below pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2) (b). Section 2: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is herby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Map. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended as is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 4: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or lack of constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of January, 2011. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Ordinance 11-001,Amending Comp Plan Deleting Reference to City Center Page 5 of 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION December 9,2010 Background: The Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan) was adopted in June 2009 and became effective on October 15, 2009. City Council passed a motion on October 26, 2010 to initiate an emergency comprehensive plan amendment as follows: 1. Change the City Center (CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA); and 2. Remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan); a. Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and b. Book 2: Development Regulations; and c. Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 9, 2010. After hearing public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan). The Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendation ace summarized below: Findings: 1. SVMC 17.80.140(H) states that the City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments, based on the following findings and factors. The Planning Commission's findings are italicized. Findings a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of environment; The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment was processed too quickly and without sufficient public input. There wasn't sufficient statistical information and/or survey of the community to gauge citizen support for the City Center to be removed from the SARP. The Commission believes the City Center district zone provides guidance and stability for future economic development; and that a City Center is necessary for the long term viability of Spokane Valley; and it is not in the public interest to move forward without a plan to implement one. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The City's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies that support the creation of a City Center. The proposal removes all SARP language concerning the City Center but leaves in place language in the Comprehensive Plan that generally supports creating a City Center. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The Commission believes that a lack of vision and indecisiveness for a City Center is contributing to economic problems and the Subarea Plan and City Center zone has not been given enough time to develop and provide guidance on its function. The plan has been implemented for just over one (1)year during a time of economic difficulty for all development in the region. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and The amendment does not correct an obvious mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission has not identified a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes; The proposed amendment is a non project amendment and will not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The City Center designation is compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation and schools; There is no appreciable difference between the Mixed Use Avenue and City Center designations in terms of impacts to community facilities. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; The removal of a City Center zoning designation strikes the ability for the City of Spokane Valley to have an identifiable area with retail shopping, open space, residential and cultural, civic and quasi civic uses. Changing the zoning to Mixed Use Avenue will allow vehicle sales and other auto oriented uses to develop adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However, residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and The projected residential density would not significantly change under the Mixed Use Avenue designation. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposal would eliminate the designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan which is designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the City of Spokane Valley. Elimination of City Center zone gives the perception there is no City, specifically the absence of the City Center gives no basis or guidance for economic development. Conclusions: The Commission concludes that the proposed amendment is not in the interest of the citizens of Spokane Valley and is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council that the proposed emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center(CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) be denied. The Planning Commission further recommends that the proposal to remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan)from Book 1; Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also be denied. Findings and Conclusions reviewed and approved on this 20th day of December, 2010 P_ fhn G. Carroll, Chairman A SST /] A A Dept na Griffith, Administ . .iv- Assistant Fuiduigs and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 rroposea r,mergency Amenament Comprehensive Plan ■ ._I.�_- v i ,_I I m� .9111.0wo ttsity v Goise[liaita y I" `° , M.J a. 13°A4a 'x 1 ros�dsy ty 4` _ilru.i wav 11 aroadwa. ,.._l estdet,il i °` I; I m Llitherme=" —. - o i-1t1 rh i —�— o Imilimil 3 - L R':i 1 i Name . 1 ) road►vt^ I� p ' Cure Itt'c'rlcI'Eal_ y--� —�-� • L_Aplin and I 0 Elerllelltill'yt j_ p , (I dl 1.0 IN '� w --- o �Sprii gfield_ 1.g seld�� I c _. z - 11 1111 s� .■EMI a Alki_� II Alki 1 •-.11111 - �� 1711 °1 .Iki- -_a • Alki 'i;tnney 1.. 1_ _P • _ --R.•Idea"i�i1, - _ 0Iixe _ (N IF ._. ! [ is ri I i,1� _D3q it3'' f , i Residepi it Val•5 3y,1%., . . ValIe av y •[ie.. _iJi L. .-. . .__ at y_s}'3v ' 1111 I �alley+saY 11111111 _ II - r e itil€'ntlzll Nixon I♦ 141ecllutt- I's:. I- I 3 i a Jr __ . . fir. Ir — , — ��o I �_blits-.II -Resltleni AI 4= IL l..tli, 11'11,-., I ! w �� . .. -- ,r13i�:. . .- �. -,� '- - •- - �=sal: . . _ .G s �Q• B 134.01x, I ---- �, ti, psi - }Pi I _- k ~ i Rive sid � V = _ - . - -x --' ..1 -111_ .1_..9, T . h-r. t 1 11txe+i.t;se i — — — _la . LJILL_ f E_-_'—I I h 1 1 1_ __]r. L-1_ 1 Li Il i` ~ _I-Sprague - Spr ue r .p r g ie • -1 IF-- Contract Lased aeaiion „ ' i T= � a 1 i i + t1 — I Lr -11 I �# EcrA-01-10 ' — - 21d_ Awes 1J 4 t. a _ JUrRltttieli[ L uI >;' rah ��` :��I —Liii� .— ii lovstrtl: t._ 4ppcssay-- - - - N', Ti ' - L L 3ru 11L1 - Ca .T3-i&it T)e st., _ _ • ' �R- �:'. . ' , - .: .!. mtrtjieil lj.,.' Mill ie Iiui, ' : O.; i ,T ;Lt) ' I �}ensiiy� 1 �� I .l qtr} ,{t}: s7. to R :111eei)[t1 iMmi m I 1 1 • ]i. I --— i i 1 , a th - - 4w ��III I ��:.. th +1- r.-'- °_ -_ P 111333 ohm - _• `:_ I I 1 � , MI _ III 8 r ^• ` 11I •■ :111 1 l.tl ma nth. _ 11_ — •_ Y _ 1-41111 Ei III J r I I L. ..altli I�t I I :th_, J Ni ,8thcJ11' 18t1� 311t tl 11■ � �W�u—H- ty_HkL " ■■ 1,11 „3` I I `-' 1L-P--ii' I 9th F3 Ott 9,11 u ltz-R-u t • 9th TN; 4 1111 Low T)ensll} I ,. Uh Hopi 11�u _ _ I a II a - Re�Itleiriltll tr ��, „J a . III UUt I♦_..1M • ..1r0at.�I --1.6;1t 'lotl '0 h Deit.[ty iV."1 th- 11 i th � '� -... La[tiverslly1-[ �- ..�, �, -I,�tnrf i1o'IIa1i5 :1 -i,7 Caller ly,-:!{I.Ctlllli' 1>, —� 11111-�111•..III� - a'1... 11�°5i( eillial MEI�fa 11th.. 1 1JCPA-0 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from City Valley CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change front CCT to MUA. Community Development nt Department i ' Strike-though text Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS: 2.1.DISTRICT ZONES REGULATIONS ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Hoir District Zones Apply To Properties 22 !loin to Review District7.one's Regulations Error!Boo',mark id ot defined. 2-1-1-l-i+Y-&r'iLut E J- g;Z444'I'I.tJe \;4:111'CEN Ii fl, -, -- —.-.1.L LE Fikir7.044FiEt—LLIEME- -..}Jc 2.2.SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 2.2.1.BUILDING ORIENTATION 11 Required Building Orientation: 2 "Front Street"and"Side Street"Classifications::, 11 2.2.2.BUILDING USE 12 Fiei Befall 12 BOOK III:CITY ACTIONS ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. —.._. .,....,.,,,. 138 INTRODUCTION: i.I PURPOSE This Subarea Plan is established in response to the community's desire to reverse the visual and economic decline of the Sprague and Appleway corridors, and restore the beauty and vitality of these corridors, tr lhrti l-Ibe t'Ii + r It presents the community's vision for the future of these corridors.It establishes the primary means of regulating land use and development within the Plan Area(see Fig.i.I.Plan Area), Finally, it describes the City actions and puhlic investments that will support the corridors' revitalization ari,:.. • :ft?seC'it C'en ■r, The Subarea Pion is intended ra implement the broad policies established in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive I Plan for n new Cit i ': . •the development/redevelopment of Sprague Avenne/Appleway Boulevard corridor into an area of quality commercial and mixed-use development. The regulations contained within the Subarea Plan replace land use and development regulations previously contained within the City Zoning Ordinance for this portion of the City. In the instance of conflicting regulations with other municipal planning documents containing policies for land use and development within the Plan Area, the Subarea Plan shall prevail. The Subarea Plan document does not replace or augment regulations pertaining to issues of building safety codes or other non-planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and for changes in land use, shall be reviewed for conformance with the policies contained in the Subarea Plan. Book 111 City Actions Page 1 of 23 BOOK I 1.2. INTENT IIr3tl�41r�-}�rge41I i9set�011{kitlIPi1i,s4-igited--C-eigieFr4E'-Ille— :rAprFtIH-Hi-t•IIlleyr 6yoMarl#Valley w:ts a at�d En�O}3,CIE' islreia dncrlhEOUwiliatti€4 :142041.01014- - - ." - wre• ,. Ii FMf`FkMl;+u-dui°e.it-L.9 ' _Le l ESnd s}'uergiMl ie e(i�:;;F;R;fvh} grlret sirwQ sl t ,:,, 1 •:-�taria't gherias 9 miIL"al•te scaled district ee willi-e;:e-oi:il•diner,-uttian-irt0i-ig3Hids-eH4}-4.r-Hrklas all •H:HFI inJ-r3l a Sian p deltll l ti-fr at-CH+ 1,01.1tt rltlr. 1.4. THE ENVISIONED FUTURE CORRIDORS Figure 1.1 Urbon Design Concept Mnp—remove City Center- Core#IIItl add Mixed Use Avenue t1esignnlion Front Commercial Strip to a Pattern of Centers nod Segments: During the period of time in which development is guided by this Subarea Plan,the Sprague Avenue Corridor will begin its transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of Centers and Segments(see Figure 1.1). Whereas the commercial strip is undifferentiated-a linear pattern of exclusively commercial buildings,typically one-story (with very few notable exceptions),surface parking lots,and pole signs,-the future corridor will be increasingly characterized by emerging structural differentiation:there will be clusters of shops,activity,mix,and intensity- Centers,and there will be longer linear portions distinguished by cohesive building types, frontage landscaping, and dominant uses-Segments. Whereas the commercial strip caters to a narrow segment of market demand(the demand for commercial goods and services),the emerging Centers and Segments will have differentiated market focus. Neighborhood Centers will specialize in serving the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive;Ella City ,,enter »in aIIi,'coonasHfflitYi •Rrr-WWll-a•S-c SFnrrlMra.l..l ......,I_ ..._.I_.....:_.,..hilt c.4t.f41 h.. liiaif pa!e;1riuE friciidl) cHVif{,111x'1}- -Appleway Boulevard will ultimately be lined primarily with large residential buildings facing a landscaped boulevard;the Gateway Commercial Segment of Sprague Avenue will continue to enhance its position as a regional Auto Row,and the Mixed Use Avenue Segments of Sprague mill focus on a synergistic mix of workplace,commercial and high density residential uses. 1.4. THE ENVISIONED FUTURE CORRIDORS �e-F;Ety-Eentrr Witfil-i4r-now tits new City of l;'pol.mte-Valley was long o collection of unAifFoelitieted-ambufban {l�Edl$tmt1. ." . . " " • - - • • "• - , - , !ouFii Isol.;Ha-9H E9-e2•tre +fiesahI featlal el--tl`- bv.•I:61 metum! lerralis of Iltc SUI:Rae Valley. III is 1110*644201-•11••`H--m,t,.' 'i of-Hf-AlEis teannwnily " • • •- ." " - •." ' • • •••• . - : • • • - ••,, ." ,- • ,•, ;:--:' : " 'rte_: at rllyO WllBt }414#irllkRl O11,IH i1HEHK�HELHklf t� �" ErrYt}-ta}' Itae it a�l!e-eExux�Hdrity wii Ii ll f ii ei ' •• • - • I ttr`byiliup -BaFesTrestauEaats,e-ornine°:' - liefit,rears-oni-Ati.a spates to lino Fhe-w ailter is fine AuEl the Hetv City. J 3-141W-t•_"•';''..-t@ F•.-110,,T-..�--.,.---v'i•.'•.rlthe515-.9141 r.rip"dCti':�$ A211P-Fti-it-€it}'-cm°.•rtelll�'10•�Spaawi ttitkh+.HPdr -i tot -•ate' II he ms hPFha-iHily 1k1/2 • Of-IoHEI-EE fa-a Book III-City Actions Page 2 of 23 _. Ila4 tins Rtl'• "'n--sn.ss.vr"''""n:ri4L11�FIYI � Ri6 F.,ar.-�-ci-Tro_' •12.4iog win'he I-4uud th•rr, T114 sklep♦ii9 Gale xill a="� R.i ii L L �.r a Ih ewbside-pa+1iF -rFlsl-c.I rw 1: oniniedzl i-ig 1It2 eke#;i}4�I�iriawi141w#�uil!-ill-til uiapily of#IHSfe eal fi�eE sha i e€eLf r-I F 9tH $95fHF riSE I-i,il1$f9-I}V i 's-i ° .i c'.-.s-r,."i1HHi1 Cf -0'14Gd#e-tha-pfee-i5.y:t�„�.'•:. .� of Elie-cik}`l6s 1LairE-Isat-F lRee-ome144%-119g-ri5ibla-frool +will paupy-IPre-+Yry ecnr Amelia!IIwy--nail-reo elt=--pFlina y-a••[.,. --rl...a.g , ,k44`hlN1-froikLa 141Ih{IY6vi4rd-h6-*Bv`di Fief Willrll ltl-UHrnlistIGal�ld-iJu,rI1l xr,-14.' -IHB'It- ktu-en41-1iirrl.+-i1f94.461,0f rvin .fi-Fii ng-kfx.kta lirii tD-VIIl+d-eaIlvL Il•Fe r4___-j9al, ce e-ih -kal-lan-ii.=.' ew15S1DOWIF1-1rtalifivi�11ee:.8 t9 luli{ - . . . Ig 42$c, LI]c Ill 1L1Et V,;'�."�kfae# }x�r{]la wilFrdlw�iv�4y pxdasl l iol� Iiw lly.w►MFaunir0Rel ala�e+Ly x rlrFleHl-fn 911141.- r_t...... Q2i16f011&Q1590/04.11W-01-i itiop, i,, ;;.,�wR��iyrlkkilddualk�--nfx4-,iH _-Rg--alai I,ic3tiiing`Nh'IIihr-illik r iL.y by!hoiliiifici'f•nhiklu+r,s1-1+2 e1HrE4w•.0i ; 4;:atIFFteRil {t11I,-Hml- �ium- faii f 1-+1444F1k1:af-4 4,61: ...,_.-1 111kkP-r$H44 p4411.96#IdiS•fl1i1Se-(12ig.1 2) Al{l i -1hc o , ..Mee IH u_Ino rir l Il`LI�iR�li iII f3511}-I41 I.i In nL1+ii rr i9v-mn1 •II,i.ng iiil L-F44 444 1 1-114i1$1114 rOHThIHk 491k'rJiiLIe ♦ ri e I....11 11._.__eaFes 14re kecllRo aFaR�111i1auFllwrf�loanr41wT 3}- n}TIlo(li1}•(-cirlri'-Go+0 }4 iir.a .rlaYrlo!i.Ion.i4i[y-v..-IINHIL'-Rd'AIll$ $r•Ehe..IHr-ga-a...... e{--ra-ifi ....,J tiiid,.RA-1:,... I....1 taaunlNliellAlkors''"'" se+eliuR-upWu blipaftetli BaalPtriH-getwe-Bike City CeciI.r•i�Frizfl +sRxtF 'ro-.li.....g-zO.re Y in .. tn1l4.I4 I1-104P44141Yf-bi ukS iie-fe+ft1l.rz:,•FL1Fdn[5 0111 aWtleer-dHlIIr,pact enti ]It ses-in-nthied-ast-13.8aldaHg+s-fe9kHrirl -eramiovat4 fHlrtld-lle4{-9ltop ffwn#s--Irlre I a1-13Lilldiii iii 9 high Ier�Eo1-Ii i.kall d nil Fig--- ALa�caliese s4]eps esedelds, tis orlxLS-alid-5454afsi•ilk elfju klktiii,oiklitie hl h{1-g000rmlew. of ilia eoifoa#IiR4¢# •- - • - .. , • aW I lgl]L colHif a rviiiti lYPif-ye 4IU44ii-'14#11#5[1 10 1P Hianosphcrz Cfig LS.). 11.114 Harfa4;'i1recyi,liILRE[with s1re:4[me;anal-dreefakkYr-fuLaL1s11iiw_ rril�oF1;•r f9ii i ni Hrl;Jii .pRf45 E die CLI EIiFL4-n COIS 41]1d S1T110u1.65- '11Le barl.baR”r plc...r.r c.r1 rc�.:' r`- Inc .nf` f-l l b'R n HF-S1itki i11HF#r1gl4Fh111111{IH tOi1H1l '4 -cF9se-Ie-lhe-s14ey44Nhuk-aRI ri4-IPF *4-MIN-ii$0etil{a+-vrtkl-;ii (.11'RI'6_). Niw p1.I.II.. . .iII irr ,:.1. .. ipl o ^+k4 Rio :- e-teliliFei 2leN;-1HhEF mEpericH=e 111=1RIS112 and ircLle ofCiiy'!"eater life(l:i..I.7_). 1l1,11•r�,.FF1403-Er;Lh Asa('ily-NalllmliiI Piukdio - - .. _ 44F IIr-lerlga+sl of . - - - Ii�FiiuFk fikH�es eu ti-Fd Mg 1 7.). II} l i 4 1.5 1 elder lipramxr-d4}eni e dtsHw�,wi5lees-lk]i�aslleis-efr�ourJ4cea�e-AS-el�iixw�y�ifle�r�w!-fe[erl-oNle�FlrudRie�_m-,.c;;:c c�rFhdPiF 4+eNSiapt�4R#prrrR4s-vr�ll-l•e�aH#He-a-lralyHe-g4Lrn19_I I n..,. ..1�_a..yllF3ldP`9f•�hd•,I r2d1-'�.iAF .:.ie l l L/...... ilk.. r sgo.1. f C o.m.g �Iar kie:1 saL kit er I1e�.� s�-+il9��a:��,n,�-�.-- .r.aUdr ' _ - hi-IHor11F {Arce1 I•'..�n..9.:•••••• ;;a o w. 6f Ii ci>a gi - -• . - . i Ff r-C411-Ern ler-Pielglrherlloo.I •Thin-Khali a jEI94104176$4-ii4rrfw _ - ,�1,,1..�,.�...,.I ..IIk. dilifeh lea-Tand`.C;0. -wi kosi-som of-housing-15— 11 1-rniaaure of hni;, 11icc prid IullOg7v rill•heg11r-lo-torkivnrlrtle--viiihin-orml i:i+in��e oaf the Ciiy"Ctvurr Cnre -iheaberr-shop, fril,rurnHks-errcii kierklifi mlhl-oInenikie 1 iiIl I • - - . . - - "+Ik--IiHy'1-.111 r 1iiiiiimi.61.1w4e.siria`rhiP-a-N :k h th_r-: �► +�l'1 Imo}-}l� �+>�tT'4}-5 eAt.fisiA.04.31Lftknifiition Pf kroiFHI 11C�iltlt$(FId.�:IA, Book III-City Actions Page 3 of 23 TliF hharareeEiwlil-ean_isi ofaH{i e-tI., {4e+ai,- v. ,__ff f.-r. v-,r,.c5-=rrFnriis"+tly d[9oi ,an,-ovaAk'tlyt-bihFl&Er,-!$r2e6alrt5.1:'re[vd 11 ItRr4 ge-r ; S hasp and-48a} w +4rlwnNet -of itlin i-erHr v x.eilvit -to-the-Sw aIG(Fig€-I1 1 I einove figures 1.2-1.11 1) Neighborhood Centers An even distribution of supermarkets and neighborhood serving convenience uses currently punctuate the corridor at major intersections along Sprague Avenue. As the corridor transitions, development in these neighborhood centers will introduce mixed-use buildings and line grocery anchors with shops that will be located closer to the sidewalk(Fig.l.12.). New mixed-use development in these locations will be larger scale with parking lots that are screened from nearby housing in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent development(Fig.1.13.). A combination of new infill development and streelscape improvements with wide sidewalks and on-street parking will provide nearby residents with a safe and convenient pedestrian environment(Fig.1.14.). in contrast to the unique,entertainment oriented!. .. ....... .N e i g h b o r h o o d Centers and their services will continue to be distributed throughout the Plan Area. These centers,with their close proximity to surrounding neighborhoods,will supply nearby residents with all their daily needs(Fig.1.15.). 2) Sprague Avenue—Between the Centers b) Gateway Commercial Avenue The community intends to maintain the specialty segment between 1-90 and the railroad overpass as the region's premier destination for automobile sales, The Gateway Commercial Avenue will be a"themed" stretch of Sprague Avenue,home to a busy cluster of vehicle dealers and supporting services(Fig.1.21.). In this District,Sprague Avenue will provide easy access and on-street parking to all dealers and other businesses in the district. A unique streelscape design with special treatments will include architectural vehicle display spaces that reinforce the district's generally auto oriented character. Sprague Avenue's new streetscape improvements,with modem boulevard-scale streetlights,will be complemented by well designed signs advertising the District's brands and services. Interspersed with the automobile dealers,compatible uses such as"medium box"commercial sales and services will line Sprague Avenue,taking advantage of the District's clear Identity and proximity to 1-90 (Fig.1.22-), Gateway features and coordinated signage will announce a revitalized Sprague Avenue atrd-Ihe4144Y-rity aN r.so passing motorists on 1-90. 3) Applewny—The Community Boulevard The undeveloped Appleway right-of-way provides an immense opportunity to improve the Sprague- Appleway corridor and the City as a whole. Appleway Boulevard will be extended East of University Road, creating a lush, pedestrian friendly environment. This new "Grand Boulevard", with continuous planting strips along the sidewalk featuring street trees,decorative lighting,and pedestrian amenities will provide the perfect opportunity for previously undevelopable deep parcels to build new grand scale housing and sensitively designed residentially compatible office buildings(Fig.L24). This new housing corridor will help transition between Sprague Mixed Use Avenue development and the single family residential neighborhoods South of Appleway(Fig.1.25.). A's-lI-�MItiat"ii4sfiHW1Nlii-Y'ily r'r'ulrr x....11 55'A'}'-IX ik1111!'Fs7E�-5\41•l�M"rn's:�iHi—Wh'�r: 91 17M.:._._erf i rhl� 114:e rand On utter with-i1.11 eJ-IEedving that iol. -m ore-HEbbii-cll ter nkrt g-tlr CpW Ce9114 SaF41 1SFE2E1—sta ape 1'is hnurs•si;MI lie-eampli enieE1-sae21 l}-smite- Vpicn Lu€Idi gs H4-tlw lily Book IiI—City Actions Page 4 of 23 Doom the Center of this Community Boulevard,a wide,landscaped central parkway median with large,leafy trees accommodates multi-use pathways for biking or strolling(Fig.1.26.). This prominent open space is also located to maintain the potential to accommodate a future transit line. The transit line will take advantage of the existing bus transit center to provide easy access=-a = •,...to Spokane valley residents,workers, and visitors,from throughout the City and the region while further increasing the development potential of Appleway as a mixed-office/residential boulevard. 1.5. CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION STRATEGY T-44is lM FF-..esi-IpFJ014 a14-00-rPlllrutlaal-01-1110-eonlna1nllt silPMn►iri-u at}-G il{ffr Sly` Fn-le grarnrent--i,F silK-IKefcreII s fer-itw{ nIeerta �l�ae�wdw e-ef 114 -Fx .4f1H _4ttdr l-litho s--c4ittxr•-Irujee4s-tn•tinl.s,-tno srvigl aerie-4siui itie-Ehe Morelottrar�rl F lent-a-0wlstara.inl-t1,64.pkase. :itrCitihlrrC} rllFal a:.._.._LIf1Io_PIl esilienl ..-.r_ ^z rs7-ks-14nH;uIb, eiYiC G'ill-14.rag mull{-SkIAF -rFk1--RiN43iaaei-L#-141e111-RintHaMia as a prit desttnutioa-fof-t13°1L(gel Ei-FaaHea'Jtty� (i) Public pri'ax port iiersh ip I,cwarag -City str4e1 ia.prts. rte-._ tiii .Fiat ilic do4LeitipH oFtlrafs 1-444 E'ity-Center, c) City Center must conic rips!. 1 heat sfuF aFi, r of m—€i�f e a I. . •.• ... - • ' - -• •- - • . 45•441-L-144 Wo i S-RS-Chi-l1lari os,.-go•• •..#h oiniiyriyal•N.-+k1lF-ri•ov.de-ii-etitel9ntiai-i iHH•.._.r_beii_r._:..i,.1...Rg$ tlne4-i4i11 •",a,"" ^h.,4: 14111Si11g-f ices-rt9wl liB-fAikt€r. THLF e1's iii6e F-I,m...In;f_-.u_i l-kaa a Nsd-C-or-r:.1..._ ..P..0 401.6 , yrlhi-6ii eeiiorr5-cud-esp@HdJLHrd5-ihet sli-ni tta4e-aal ag part-s carets se 3t-ia-eai.1.i. -�;; r Cfly-Crtntdc-l4airloI.liI ihvle!eeteel-iim5Fiiai d� Fiesitsic:nt;tfeateft fate ride s-psrlf fesisno ok-wpesifie-enough ins are-ClWFMkw luwtstiHet.• o_, ,.HcreHR c `.. privaipler F-thd-faFlxota91t-9f-4iw2I-pss4 '-+aii-W iiteI uity-caaH3 -latiW1$5t Hilda-6FleHSt140-rftrAft€1{e aitFgHr� p#sFHitte a uFb-cjao ifrcaily.IaOv -p ho aihW'•Wlt$-Fhal•rr46611YH1s tsfeF4aeah at- uaee aIy--CrHt.e!--dave4 0yfHn5HIS-Y EVIIIa1Fk-114 r owifle fr plPey#1<L1rft rsi4Oliia -_..aese-aaHaAalc-ilie-de}einpmcat oi'u City Center-E$re-ulfeither ti le-c11-6fiu °""n°^•F i °°C11. .:d._EFF-gR:..e..: Provide n Polley Framework that accommodates the market's preference for retail concentrations nt Inserted:t major erossroads,while building on the pat terns of value already In place. b) Refocus retail development over time to foster a mutually supportive hierarchy of retail-driven centers and mixed use segments Transition from miles of"anything goes retail"to a pattern that clusters mutually supportive types of retail hi centers or segments with differentiated market focus. t-!=: lort4!-asc its drti.l,=a+a�-1i• -., fact city cit5ttac riiei4�y -i,t tlFateFestaid•I,axatiulF#�x s;at spcci+eI strict;fpcsrs neighborhood center _ (inurtadt F 1 retail at the designated crossroad locations; cluster auto-row serving retail and services in convenient clusters,and limit retail in between crossroad-located centers to non-competing retail types that thrive on visibility and that make less sense in pedestrian-oriented districts. _ Reverse creeping disinvestment by Idealif Ing_thc longterm"highest and hest uses"for the Corridor -[ inserted:2 as a whole. b) Replace entitlements for retail types suited to--sly-enter .4H: neighborhood center clusters with residential entitlements Book III-City Actions Page 5 of 23 0. CO'~IN#I.'-i I 'YDEYI:':Ior !ENT DErART iENTC PLANNING DIVISION Spokane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE .Valley PLANNING COMMISSION ECPA-01-10 STAFF REPORT DATE: November 9, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: December 9, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated, site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center (CC) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA); remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). PROPOSAL LOCATION: The amendment area is boarded by Walnut Road to the west, Bowdish Road to the east, Main Avenue to the north and 4tl'Avenue to the south. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Karen Kendall; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; (509) 720-5026 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission approve ECPA-01- 10. STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Application Materials Exhibit 2 SEPA Determination Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 5: 2009 Aerial Map Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map Exhibit 7: Transportation Map Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 1 of 6 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): November 12, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: November 26, 2010 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: November 12,2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: November 12, 2010 Date of Public Hearing: December 9, 2010 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 225 acres in size. The site is relatively flat. Comprehensive Plan: City Center Zoning: City Center(CCT) Existing Land Use: There area is comprised of developed and undeveloped land with one Park (Balfour Park). SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan— Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning—R-3, MF-1 and MF-2 Existing Land Uses— Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential South Comprehensive Plan— Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning—R-3, MF-1 and MF-2 Existing Land Uses— Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential East Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Avenue, Community Boulevard and High Density Residential Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA), Community Boulevard (CB) and MF-2 Existing Land Uses— Commercial, Office and Residential West Comprehensive Plan—Mixed Use Avenue and Community Boulevard Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and Community Boulevard (CB) Existing Land Uses— Auto oriented uses, Commercial, Office and Residential II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 2 of 6 Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The following are responses to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The City proposes an emergency amendment due to the deterioration of the economy and the resulting decreasing sales tax and decreasing property taxes. It is likely not possible to have a large investment company to contribute to build in the City Center. The proposed amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve economic growth by expanding the land uses available for further diverse development. This proposal supports the safely, health and welfare of the community by encouraging mixed uses that foster community identity with pedestrian, bicycle and regional transportation services. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The state-wide planning goals and policies provide the basis for the City's Comprehensive Plan and guidance in the development of goals and policies. The proposed amendment will allow services to be expanded for appropriate in-fill development with the City of Spokane Valley. The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new development such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, setbacks and height. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment responds to the economic hardships of business to locate within City Center due to limited permitted uses. The crashing economy has also limited the interest in mixed use/town center developments on a national level by large scale investment companies and developers. The economic climate has lead to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 3 of 6 The proposed amendment alleviates the restrictions placed upon the area by the current zoning of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan). 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; The comprehensive plan amendment is a non project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; There is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. Balfour Park is the only designated open space within the proposed amendment area. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to a Mixed Use Avenue Comprehensive Plan designation on the east and west. To the north and south High, Medium and Low Density Residential as well as Community Boulevard Comprehensive Plan designations border the area. At the time of development, standards relating to fencing, screening, and landscaping will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation and schools. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The proposal would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. This is an appropriate location to allow for infill mixed use development that can utilize services such as alternative transportation methods (public transportation)provide an opportunity to live and work in a close proximity and the beneficial location of commercial, auto oriented retail and office uses to serve the area. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However, residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for RCPA-Dt-ID Page 4 of 6 The current population of 736 dwelling units is projected to increase to over 3,000 dwelling units as calculated in the City Center Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the Planned Action Ordinance. This projection would translate to the Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) designation. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the only'napped area designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan designation designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the City of Spokane Valley. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.110.020 (Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan) Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from City Center to Mixed Use Avenue and corresponding zoning map amendment from City Center (CCT) to Mixed Use Avenue(MUA). Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is contiguous to other mixed use development. ECPA-01- 10 is consistent with the intention of the.Mixed Use Avenue designation. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive plan states that Mixed Use Avenue is characterized by multi-family housing mixing with commercial, office and lodging uses. Staff analysis is italicized. 1. Mixed Use Avenue is intended to transition older strip commercial development into a mix of vertical and horizontal mixed use developments, Development intended to orient to a vegetation enhanced street. 2. LUG-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states; "Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residences and enhance the community image and economic vitality." Staff Comment: The Mixed Use Avenue designation is consistent with the surrounding parcels. 3. LUP-3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states; "Encourage transformation of Sprague Avenue RegionaUC.ommunity Commercial corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the corridor, exclusive of the City Center should be concentrated at arterial intersections and designed to integrate auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open space into retail and office development should also be encouraged." Staff Comment: The proposed area has several arterial intersections along the Sprague and Appleway corridor. The proposed amendment area is served by Balfour Park located on Balfour Street and Main Avenue across from University City Development. StafReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 5 of 6 D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for ECPA-01-10 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Mixed Use Avenue and change in zoning classification to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans goals and policies. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ECPA-01-10. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 6 of 6 Spokane Valley. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 10-27-10 Received by: Fee: City Initiated (NIA) PLUS #: File#: ECPA-01=10 PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION ® Map Amendment; and ® Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME:City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Department MAILING ADDRESS: 11707 East Sprague_Avenue, Suite 106 CITY: Spokane Valley STATE:WA ZIP:99206 PHONE: 509-720-5334 Scott Kuhta FAX:509-921- EMAIL:skuhtanspokanevalley.orq 509-720-5026 Karen Kendall 1008 kkendall cr spokanevalley.org PROPERTY OWNER: N/A STREET ADDRESS: CITY: - STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: See attached PARCEL No: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City Center PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) ZONING DESIGNATION: City Center PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Avenue(MUA) BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): City initiated,site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center (CC)comprehensive plan and zoning desi Use Avenue(MUA);remove all langge referencing City Center in the Sprague AUpleway Corridors Subarea Han ,Subarea Plan)from Book 1: Community Intent,adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions,adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). REVISED 212610 Page 3 of 4 I ( Spokane Valley- COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III -- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) 1, 1)6k\reir\. jaki , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are maVtr thfully ado the b-s if my, owledge. i dd (1 1 1 0 (Si atu/e) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of j`liCaltrA10.C, 2016 NOTARY SEAL �� / NOT i A.U A., „_____ ``.\``��t��1�5}I'lt?/ Notary Public in and for the S a e Washington `r lj _a oT S , g4 �C U �s �'��q'� � Residing at: cc-46\"\a/1Q �C cc\ ��;,,,`pg,.�A. ��`' _- r' 0/ IIIIIIl55\111�>>�'�'`O I`l'AS0k\S1 ,•-' My appointment expires: 9 9 ) 11 LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. REVISED 2/2610 Page 4 of 4 Comprehensive Plan Application Questions: 1. The following are responses to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment; The City proposes an emergency amendment due to the deterioration of the economy and the resulting decreasing sales tax and decreasing property taxes. It is likely not possible to have a large investment company to contribute to build in the City Center. The proposed amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve economic growth by expanding the land uses available for further diverse development. This proposal supports the safety, health and welfare of the community by encouraging mixed uses that foster community identity next with pedestrian, bicycle and regional transportation services. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The state-wide planning goals and policies provide the basis for the City's Comprehensive Plan and guidance in the development of goals and policies, The proposed amendment will allow services to be expanded for appropriate in-fill development with the City of Spokane Valley, The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new development such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, setbacks and height. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act, Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment responds to the economic hardships of business to locate within City Center due to limited permitted uses. The crashing economy has also limited the interest in mixed use/town center developments on a national level by large scale investment companies and developers. The economic climate has lead to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment alleviates the restrictions placed upon the area by the current zoning of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Page 1 of 3 The comprehensive plan amendment is a non project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; There is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. Balfour Park is the only designated open space within the proposed amendment area. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to a Mixed Use Avenue Comprehensive Plan designation on the east and west. To the north and south High, Medium and Low Density Residential as well as Community Boulevard Comprehensive Plan designations border the area. At the time of development, standards relating to fencing, screening, and landscaping will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads, public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s)and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation and schools. e, The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The proposal would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. This is an appropriate location to allow for infill mixed use development that can utilize services such as alternative transportation methods (public transportation) provide an opportunity to live and work in a close proximity and the beneficial location of-commercial, auto oriented retail and office uses to serve the area. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However, residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density, g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Page 2 of 3 The current population of 736 dwelling units is projected to increase to over 3,000 dwelling units as calculated in the City Center Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the Planned Action Ordinance, This projection would translate to the Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) designation, h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the only mapped area designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan designation designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the City of Spokane Valley. Page 3 of 3 poliane = GOMMSUNiIN.: VJ !�OPMIN1 DEPA RTME F • • ..00,- y Deter niunation.of*i Ign ca ice (DIN‘2).:. PROPOSAL:ECPA-01-10 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated, site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center (CC) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA); remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions,adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Karen Kendall; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; (509)720-5026 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The amendment area is boarded by Walnut Road to the west, Bowdish Road to the east, Main Avenue to the north and 4th Avenue to the south. LEAD AGENCY: Spokane Valley The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: ❑There is no comment period for this DNS. ®This DNS is issued rising the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. ❑This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2);the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106; Spokane Valley,WA 99206; (509)720-5300 DATE ISSUED: November 12, 2010 _ SIGNATURE: -ebdit 11,L ,c,I.G APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community Development rtment within fourteen(14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must he written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 17,90 (Appeals) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. THIS DNS WAS MAILED To: CIty of Liberty Lake,Community Development Spokane County,Fire District No.8 City of Spokane,Planning Services Spokane County,Regional Health District Spokane County,Boundary Review Board Spokane Transit Anthority(STA) Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Spokane County Division of Utilities—Info Svc Washington State Department of Ecology(Spokane) Spokano County,Clean Air Agency Washington State Department of Ecology(Olympia) Spokane County,Fire District No, I 1 Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map = Um'1 vrisit{� eci eliinil m Maim'q ___�__= — w— - I IBroadwayJBrod�way Broadwa}'_Br'oadway Broadway -Broadway Broadway .—V Broadway!•� 'c, {iellItsQiria#q — Brr'rdwal:Broadwa �— l raadt'aY €oth61.4n `ei gliiiariinnti C•unl•717 s! L la" i I PA -'■ G FAelin eat ary– �I J I I I ti. `' ,. I; " It1* f 1_� fr�la I l o Senn_field I F _ 13 Low Density'I I j __ p ' 7 -I-5—'-5. ! ' 'ro�Spr�ii gfield �ti5lgtietd I CSitl4tllliti I r [ �� v 4 I i Sp[in$Csel. I� v i r.. t :-a _ Alki lk;1 • b �� All i.— At I.-.Alit '^ l.ki_ St John I� M Vianney mm - f � I I I ti i^ I �� " 11 E � Tfl itv ResldentlRl � �- F� ,lc_ Y z Oliae live 44°— , 3 1"�tr Density . w , o�� F ti� Ia- �o 1[t sidenIM ■ _. i — �TI I I I . M .. 331 I �7 . ■∎ _+,arlC -,va _ vLlle«! s .i I' l- x:�r .. �_alley�t ty Valie)a�.a5 �talle}�3'aYt Y_}' ! • ,131'P�ilatriit I{ k 1 I. a- j_ lI Density , I' pp —. _ 7r; r a — �! - v 1 - EJ ' ,' I iVix�n z $ ltesidcninl - _ o� ICJ• ' '� r 1111111 F"" 1 QI j"' 'S' f htai t. � r 1 I .._ .. Mg ._________,,.• '.' „. ;iii .• :r M1 '; a yr '/ �` 8 - f--1-,:e.,...........-",;,'"-- Ili lbw • r ; ! 00 ' bra ue a i'�• : sF � _ u / ,rs l,/ `fp }Cti '. Sprague .' •j„...;-0----- ....?5":.... ---:-.2...,:".;;C"...0";.--' ' r i �Iix�{I Use, � �' � ; r' " Cotttrarl;•I3ssed,Edue�►1lnn All . I / Pir iKeit; T t :I Y re"-- • .4 l,tir :� ' � ECPA-01-10 �� • II " �� ". trrltli � ,� , / ��I� }�rnnitlnit+ BOW it! at' �', Du ile►;ercl.... •Itift1.----c.-- ....•°.--.. --....---t.:--..,4 4,2-g:-,-.-;----::-. .-- - :0"........:0°- ; .---:;:::-.--..";:re:-.....r.::.1---.--.."........--......-5:''..----r:::::.------.: :::.--'°';"`..1.------%--'....twil - ' % ly �� lf4r rrJJiF'+'biat. ' I t I . !.. ...., ....11 ..g.1471.11.7 .1111711111. 1 1a1�4l li[ c! 111/11/ 6 -• llediu t 4 t,tnni'�!r[stl ��' tl a It �]eu51ty1 • .! : N ,,, - 1 % '6 F +' L'Si 4�111Ifl1-��i. 5tlT i 11111111 t•••-•i I ,1'111 `w' III II r „ m. dth .tl, 3 3i 6th ,III Jr_,� -.I r` ■� 6,1ri cK'C 6th O th v 1111111111°E • •,p,u �� i oa r=' _ 4�. Y ■ 11 �,i5 �.,1, �11111_ 111 . ■ •' ff f _ I 11 t 1 & d1 II f II �— }_.041. hi '� �I I' 1 8th i I sthi:-f— 8131 , �1} a l I - 1 Y,I'!iII ! [ 1Tffl , a II II P. 9th - II a ' 9th d 9 � 911, 11, b � Low Density J Fci I 1 'F1_o3x' Ilolit _105.iarpt{a] o ,,, , � . � Resiclenlial I ' H � f 7 I Ia[hL�1__I_. 'Lath 3 it th. t loth s' g C_'2 r (1 1 .g -c 10th NE 1;CPA-01-10 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from City of Spokane Valley CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change from CCT to MUA. Community Development Department Exhibit 5: 2009 Aerial Map .,ri "',. '! _-["' T� ^- - 1 _ .-.r_----_- -'— -.. ., rTit,,-- ' —.• r _, _I, ry A_. _ a.. r air' k • Ir �y, r' ,3g{retksesultnd d lrz.t.- I 'i...l , " .:-,*4.J(M - :s.i •" � .▪ t' k ;7 - '1, ,1 Ji9f1, is1 . r '� a�1' -3L.•>. [` �VS6_Yd . u,r-'r'. 4,,,,..-0„Q....-§e.,,Q:�L•;!-+!I 'f7�} a , is ++tr. - '7 h:r!4' L, L,_ 4,._[ff ! 7b1_lr�.V .9 Je4'II , •..al ''('*III L.LIItIFAT.Tjr :&•61 ;A,1�.r�'r 'L.ir1+ r+M.- r{1 � i 'S '!• I li €. i _.. -w". �� ''� s � �y la:.�F� f I � t E� ,,3 1.7 L ,r,- h,rfra■o0 ': 'L 1. M. ;�!i+'tit 9 ;ji;.-,. w ''- Y.', '. ,rt KILT ,! '7T s tl, ; i, rii.ovlJt E- gBi.e„m �RI""•,�[� �Jp11. ► `� ,��L. I�; • ili tl AltAfA tiaYin';.d,•' il.::s.r siatA�y sa iB18 d}3',•v+`P3: -iY1Q1-'Y M1f� - ... r C-;' , ,di•a:► .rv )�' f uf�! n4g ,o�'� .a9 • Il �1f Bd iy { 1,�{' . �'.. {' f IV,11 s�,:r VIP' ,, F•r i }- t'.,;•tr � 1 ,,,�:vv-r p 'l' - 'B i''k fdlt '� - 17[f,�� rd, { 'w.T d rt. ' e�i8d� �• mil[7J Y` „ ,'ICI 1�'�I.[8l,}} 1!47 `+'IWKS[, 'Pre�.�.r{yy�5s,r...„, �i'i]..,1 ,..1 �Y�. l�' Ul't�ie v, 15 L � r 1�4 .:,j. , ,..f a•• ')}i; f$ykOli al(': nt i.,14 .-� G'illd ii 7'. .' }y T itl - ] ,;t 1J '1 t ry r�' f! r.. j�� lJ ►; Z �i; t ::._iiI 1.' 1.4 ��ITAilirk r r ° r ,�I *l ':i i:[f t �. J�, L'!]t�lllVll'ti'[f[}v Ir' Ll1 t r � Jfr , �v C�t°� (-7,11•_,..°,41k=�~� 5 vY�.?p�! �. ��a' '� I`i�,�atl: . L� � � �ll ,�.--..�-- Pf' ' ! L' g '`� °�S`plrngfelc€„ !, L� s�� " r�s►, ►^ :` � ii�[5� .a �(�5 ta �;�€ ;.I, �j' at-gc 1'P ce i�� Ds/4. '.1',1�r41 �rgif -, u -t rci.ifi fi �1( '`p IF4 }.,f kk” ''''1,'' „07,i,; i ItA,C` 1 li1,2.1 .. -' F+lA3tT4'i pe;eg1 i G a▪ it'`''_�d1 F;. . '-'55 t' 1 . 1114L€ � jj l.� \ ;i ,-1 ' >ol NI 1r t John -"- w?. F -4•. . lrr"''':- ly 3.'•••-1.'•7•11. .f5 147. W1,=..tr I f1 [ J�_s war 1,r ti - IC=9 , i aiefrP i*i �+ Oy!, , f', 1 _tip -;� i1I[.� .r �,` p7w.: A,f-i, i t .. • 4 rli ,t• ;�'.{ t 'I,4-al..0 jg � �-- �'y;i}Fka � ;�°�`.al EyN sr�' ,sl *1''++I � �F-? �+:1°`tr ,,kaki"_, I:. , 1 i :ti,_�`'��r � i t t c ��. I, i1' s- r ,T' L'-r 0.1S:c0. "°1•1l e.,pi 4`' lit I111p.• .:+' 'ii' ''E F,:, r- " ` i I y *-.Ear L ! iF�t'L`4; Ks _ - y , L r. 'i i •`)�'"'' i"is s; T�li,�. { 'F" i{,,1 -TA6',-" is rl ,f J^+ ,—_,2!•F�.,,• .,�, 1 r l i!}, ' s`•+ }Ti- . ,,, LL+ ► J rs•-l~C,r1 7..4• k 1,>.2l € , - � ' .1�s� - .{,.:. .i .f.-' rr .p {-��8y� ':::C. `A { p�+P ��`"}�. 1�['-'} ]' + aiv�- !^�Ih' •.?�rl''.• s .�I'g s..n.'.�1 ,%F:1: -r j!. f" :FA,e�.. ..,4••'' 1f Ls *,a. ■1. �;S '� Hrl. A t_7•3• `„t.L •'}'j �I L7;,. 1,L.. 'L f1A }:S � s� I��+ �V} � S''�” 9I i �i Iti. '•lS `Iiii12-1'' +' ''c_, .in "ik_'1ir lNsf kil�x V7r7',I � r e�Y sir �;,& , r0[..11i.'0'4,! -2 4!1" -- .ka •.. a ,i L F,l�alll�L11,h r r► .li 'V�/,111ev�ti►�a� V<allc`':Ha�4 �rall '''',.•..•�►'�a� :��ra11e�L ni,,, ;pv.wi� g .1\al! :y3'+�•rlll �}�r„iv '` I pt,14.-Y -IIPii ={' - '-' Ia "?'�` r• r�� d ir1 r, ,fit 41,11;n,.j 1-1 ..{..(gii , f f5" 111 =.tip;- lap ,14.-'AJt''7•i'II-Lit.) litir NritrIRJ„ II. 1 Lc I' {q `sgsg�T1 r� r14 CtkN s Frl ��'°•� 'v 9f If , ■ �f :•"'- '1 I, -" :w . �-' � + ,` ..-1 pf' y��'.��lDlj� "ej l-: F a � a1 . r �J I�i11. .. =i: '` I `+ _i .' .alr.�i ' ;i 1 =�.2� • k "L:•.;;:�:{.I:._ pL' s �B1k' ii[':,� ,�.� i'. 11�.;fi,,,. '. . .I +.~yffyC91+} ,J_.5,_• 'f V.-Ai�,_,s_',, '�+r-+7�'i. '� I `�•� L_ d�S_• _- �� I1a1! •L. .-''.•; .__ . S`.011Dl'. ',L _1ti;i!.: i1i an $, ZSLHiyI! Y* : f�{II[�it FYOIi€+-: r .- iTr49�1�1JF.,J' ....•.-.L....,__I � ; t ,1. ,,.1 ryi ,1 a,l',. � rf',.`'s'-- '. 1-- 'Ft 1l r K• M'NAE:11[r f'� +.. T; - oS {f '1y1'DI Y 1..r, :l f r., •'I,.r.�1 4 1-.0111,•.'1.1a r - w'f� G�'1 ,•,...,..,, I '•�� CO]riY q;r.-v!•-•74 �pn ,s � . #@� k}'I'', ,�JrJ'1001:-1..,•rrAS 1.,'Irani ' h�{ l J 1dr 1s• .••• +- . .1• 11 A-0: 'g.# 10 I 1 l 1[[Y' '•'3 '}� 1 ? 41 F1 r rr._,;k. •* ! . -- I'aur, �'iT Si7110 + 1 1! sipDlr![.dQQ' •yti. +, I 1• • '1.•,. +I]'� 1• ,� , ,..,_-7•!. � � - --{y� �LI�.V• L- I.. „', 1 ffi.�ilICILIi I.`;1.'It _ ;•'•'.. ry ,'°} � E' L.. k'. ' d ., >p� i14.1I111L�r'.I •''--. ' 4,,,..; 1 rti 6�'i .. r , y�7 ? - ■I.�•° _•1 *'•••.1'lis - "i , ' _ ' 1 4 1r s 4t1 L1!.t .'� �x }, y1pf,.k OJ,P.-' .I ' .Q?-'�!r' %'--`T :+- '` `}r - ' _II'll i - a1111',My'• � F sl ' ! �L • �!gg,IL-n *°s: .i.' �u 17.•.; .'.1•...- • -• , ti �C ' r�Y I�- Dili K ,I `mac ! � 1' �� i: -[ r 7 #' 4,110/,',e,(, L..75-..1:::,;4Ii ' I , ..� .'- i-1: '1_>;n• C i + _,./li.:„ti L`, s:�.y " .I••1'&'U`' • 6 ss']]L'. 'ue—�..4�ii'k F11~ `�Y l: ppr:,,,,r , [LR [I.._ __ �# �!- - ..•• ,?-•. v _:u•et r.--t,' ,,—, t,,,,rube ': �.,. .{� ,11. r _ti '�� .�" apt• • } r'_4. C`nllflBC l :lSfi{l'l [lilr:tl i;ii[1 ,. I ' t � :. + L.L. r I.. •r 1%'=:. 6l'� ECPA-01-10 I �1 1 1x ', • �-_ i — 1-- �' 91 ►t,!fin ; 3q? �l• �II• �., i I. i' ;VII,� C :1 •• ,' 1.>/:7.•+ rt•#1 i 1 .:1f lii - �~ — ti 1 i �I ., . y' �--5 1• ,r I' -7JZ' kw. _ ?P7.J � f: R - f1L1 ,r � • f k ✓• } tie .+.._ 4, �. /� ,`k , I .�s 1 ,'L i,1� t fsi i ..� -.' _ , ;.'1*; Er 7124 1 .11. r' r , �i �l a• i�., ;,..',', _ ';1il l$,. €I t1t� :a fi -_ W'` I - tr.. -- .r x }j • d't7l �-;611t1D ,• 1'l■i�Cp .I'- 11 :I,�) I 40^_: ■ I !.. .1.-:. .`,;• .-1 I , !'• pI+�'1 7.I �'1JJ ^'' {� { r ZR + LLis,lp ,[ L ..!.• j I �� ,} �� r... i t:i • .• ! -'yii viii i4X ; z::f 1 1 k ,y `nf i7%9 61,!1• '�.r}-R r7 L�h ' ��. x" 3fJ e t °� "� � ±� p!�'t . 1 .+ � ��Vi'ti:sl:•, •1 1 � lei ., 1i1- '-• .ji. 1 / I`,��n . ro. -S �. >_ n. cS-t• _1G 1 '7 '�.'�' L- 'y r�f:4 Diii ' ' f 24:i 1-• E l+l1 I . "rit�n• • r9.tiL . api. igir Id i'�.`- "5 '4143':_+ 2.., ' '' [� _ VAlli i_ 14:4tli '_,I"!.! 1.1J.- 0 ,:°� 11 � � •�._,�' I o 'j wit^' s:h L• „ q I _ a -Il i : - , �. -. 1, - F_'` �j gliw. `G.`T V,-��I€�e_,.ejy�.1Cr,�'y' '�' M#n �I�}i �!. �fr,4 � � 4� u�rf4i�lt'� i � �,r• J 1 1 'C.5..,... .I▪ 1 ''. — i ' Mi tli- .- U-1 e• _ , ,� , r ;3'' Ifo. .,;! ; r�1 dF j, 1 d 1`, Iw9J,�`�`sS r`�►°7 S �( �} �l F? 3Anita; •r i'4y :]' V. ' .74- X31 ►Ip�"6[!I1c4'' :1`.:4;-' �,i. P`'[`tr �F,I~P�v��,il�ll�Ykl�}�i�:'.',l5li- �13, ',I o . , f ,.I? {� �'''�'�� •P M, '�,[�"•�ar!I ( ,LI.E l I'jl'_- '�f - ,r:Il��t� ��'.i4� C J fy d�yl ,`hie s r,e �,I:`,CC�,.. ,�`�3" 'I.:4 __ f I�r" �z7 t ' .E>i +� .g1 i "RIPv-r4 �l :7 "40?';4-in•j 1"1..dr'� ' •{1., 1 4,..r it� L`" i-f'o,I,i .' A ii�� y!! ,d1.Jk�r1 I tr. 'y � if kt'ij 1.7 hi :. +7,'tlLp__?'I;r v :,� ,,k17't'lt 1 ,L rs .,. Ir1 } i• 'Y,r�`'O��11'iy� 't �,:-{ , ,r .^1I �f''3 '-�'i'•:A. I� v '". L� i'. .„--,,pi, �'1rr: air -!. 4,7 h I-,i 1 '• �.#,�n :tip- ,' 1� -.,.±�'-I; cJ FA :+: , �-•� .. s `•'?1' ► to,€' -, ,L,,, 1I1.'d�►. ilk. i� r+, r1 li:i_ ,- �. 1a' t+.d[ i '.fain J66i ,Lr- � �4ri 'Y,4R1era3f[t]! ' 1 1 lf.iij. .---, .iF,,1 op ��5'y�{�Y' �6`I'?'6D'...-.( �*'1i��/,'(�1r�{ 'I '�f 11 IL ,. . rt 1'�1 J[ €•i0 I JAL �.!r+1t 1' r��CF,1 :�l 2.,"*1f.: "LYE II_ }F 11".1•14L II 51 A: ri"/si--1: i'l�tl1,l 91"A' �1.,1gv--it l_ fl, T iYak ' I'1. fn ..a1 �t r ,f S`+! !•``3r�.� 1 „_� -`,.� ry�6q l42r11 1L.L�'�. �I11.. 1 t1t - ■B-4 t q S It J al..-1 Y►,'. h.L ++ .7_ . ',4-,r.:,,,•' Qqi , L` • +1. P-�:D,- •l ~1,it s af� Cf },,: C F,"„••;,.... 'rJ I * c',L",�.`g >r Y �''a!'= [J ' 0w..C, Lai•�.�f Fka ,:. #3.1 r 1 'I N 1. n1 I pi.„.'.i'ai_ 1� v E.— ;` . Eclk� l �, �(( ti p` e,�1 .j t . `y x •12E•4.i Al,�5+:�.r�l� ��+•,�.c71 ,i71�II�IS,;�I'�: � ��lp �Ei�9��Le',_f�°.+.S + �k�f�i�'��lw�'�' :`� 1 �:d k=a[�L��ry?'c�_Ghl f�+l il��ui��I'�#��:,'rol�f ff�`4�1�i.1"yt #�,�Y'�Ll i:�•,' ,II l_ i., � :, ��LiCi'f �rf� e 7� b��., �-11.,,.er1 , -Ij �. ii �:11.5 �„ t A3�'u `I`'.7 7_! Y'L] ali,._;11�J4 *4bVr�[,r' 3 �� 7 � , �!(5kp��yn ��{� -. � E�� L� � ��{- {�(�•{,7� , f�[�� w � :_��:}. w„ � ��_f1 �:"r-±,;�� _ .. � �- -- .-� .`•J €?•-4- [ -.+t'p,� it i10tf xl I�j,-��°`�r=.z 'f . } *I-1Ja �}1:ri ,,.,.l r Y� r_W,. .. .1:L....!It.t.r..,�`, GL !3„� . 1. -. ,.} - ,k--..--5• '•C .�f'_l� •,..,„1,. .,..:I L:' Gi! 9�iv_IL11'4`I''a .. .1 1'41ni 0.t10-5..'"Z'��r � i....i,.. 84..E ici U a 1 i ,"`r1 r �. ,1i-�*1 r �L;_,t7� '� 5 pfll { ! ;] w f{ � �II t 1 l f4 1 :rl �{Iif��.� I'„kr;l fi' ,kti�iilfr J��ur.,?7 }� i '{]BI}l=1 ',1! 1 {Lf { i � r aT �€ �i'J_ iiY`Atp J ' 1' , .{ _ s r,e+�,?ioi it .•R i t plriti F ttg1 +�i,``sm,A. F'j ��r L'.1:� '1: �°p'1L11i' ,•i r IrLll _ Mh 1+ ft r . '•I i1 5,-'•it,Vt111"1 "•a° ' �1Pis_ .I'Q:. -,; 11`, L ', .�i : Ir:r ' t ,��3., !1.4 - �:`'t • _ Yfl °▪�,A �11i t1,+��txi t'1 � ;,�� Ei.w„Lk� : '_` a.; � ,l`a,,s'=. {..-:s.._ _ 1f? ECPA-01-10 Request: Chauge the Comprehensive Plan neap designation City of Spokane Valley from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department from CCT to MUA. } I 1 Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map 0 LiiitikinT r u''' '� [lt[l■[l■ - - ------ I, a on e r15Clninl{� 16�o 'a� n P n I FE T-1 3T ! w^ I I — I'a` II II co , I _ Br adway ∎ J.L-�--I Broadway Er--Broadway--)1 L° ,� Broadway„ i...__ .■ BrURtivri”. _ J I �, �� - J— ElemrriltLr}'- _ u_ pringfield� C7 i —S riIi field• 3 0 , ..SI'T5ugo,id „ 1 , 11 Alki — 1 _� Ii - Alki 3 I all,--CI'I. 'CI - 'a: - •- -� live I I3 S ± 4 I I_ y<�y i Em.!. .i ,E1 A T Val le.- =a. !alleyway IV.all,.yw ly I U -- •C I I I�1 1[ M_ � Nixon _�Alifit -Main.- _ El El Il _ Ii• ^T Main hfaI t NII II. . - 1r ' $- f.a.,. .ar:. .1aIrs a I.1I #'�aV, Lill_ ' l I I J ! 1 I♦ •: llalfoiarrl;utl: _ �ive side P . LA-= Riverside o P i II ■} ,Sliall'oal��i rl:l_ , J i■■ In Sprague _ Sprague i, Sprague PI ia I I C4ou#rt4 Ii:ASCCI F.duc la�rq - - � L ig f ECPA—01-10 — �d 0 ny —� �� Ill f H mr-z-- ■r — � _ - ■ II I 3rd _, I 3 r.asn , kits j - .. ,Ill . , . • a 'Lh -- roll , ..,.t srs 7 f,,„ ,., dtI -� � I ��y li„..:, - _sill lilt L II �� IA 5th 6th = of A 1 E- Gtlr” 61th • •�� _ • _ 5t1i 1 111 111 � _ ' 1 ca l v ki 111111 �� 7th11�111 _ 7ih I_c_, 1 EM . ' L.. ".I , 1 8,, .0,0 .. 88, . . ...11 — s . _ ,/ 1 i z I1�— — _=3 a �� a . I � 9th Atli 4th 9th_ _ lLc_ J it ■■ Mil- Jodi_—_I— 10th � MO —1-othJ 11_ 4 nis.,L'slly - {'{ILLtiY p i f _ 3 4th 11 --I _ =III AY:— -_ 1 ' FITT Fl I Z ECPA-01-10 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department from CCT to MUA. Exhibit 7; Transportation Map I i I L L � I _An 5,- Gthsen>lanc Lutheran no 1 .- 'T- . - _ ,,„ 5" i 1 proauway �' 1 ,1= . J_I- �� - • II• �-11 ,Bread„-w , icrnentary III. ' I - in ° Springfield - I= e� ■ •■11- 7 -- Spriogtizld V. m� Springfield A--ui°• 1 - O M� I } Alki Alki A'F•,�II, 1•MI - - -1 St-John Vianney_ - I p - - --I , i 1 ■ 1 -G _Olin"c ■■II� - a N G r - r n 0 1 r i 'alleyway Is I 1— !Nixon C I c• Nixon v FFOT-1(1= II El 71' .. T I1; l _ W• iliiif ' L �3 MM •itcrside a, Ri>erside � gaff,- ,.F i. �IIM r- 7 6 — - a. �, 1 �i FIR: 1]ISTRIC7 9 t ` J I _'� . �� 1 lraene Contract Based Education t ECPA-01-10 — `-- - - - + Iri,iu , 3rd 1,- I iuL.' i. Ill Illpillell , am . .:> II = 1,11 1 /Sib _ i.,,• `o `.I Y Irmo se, ■I 111111.E a Ii , ii•_]1 6t 1� c 1 611, Iii.! •63h 631, _ 1[•• i� �� r _z , 6111_211 • • •OI . — MINN A 1 Legend J-11 .11I■l 11111■iMi la, Current Classification - —. - Am j I l 1 I�� r I - - Stale or Federal ' -- Principal Arterial 4 '-�Minor Arterial ii- EL- Collector _ 9ih _ - - - Proposed Principal Arterial o F — 1 I) Proposed Minor Arterial o _ _ 10th [. I '• 101h ■III 1 II 11 1 Proposed Collector k Nliv enteIri I k I I lh �� 111 x. i■1„I.lth NISI Ll Ih_ J`i • 11th ininnTAMEMMI rmr1� 1i LCPA-01-10 1 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department I from CCT to WA. 1 • H, JAMES MAGNUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 1250 NORTHWOOD CENTER COURT POST OFFICE BOX 2266 COEUR D'AI_ENE, IDAHO 83816-2268 TELEPHONE (209) 666-1696 FAX(208)668-1700 December 7, 2010 The Honorable Mayor Tom Towey • City of Spokane Valley, Washington 11707 East Sprague Avenue,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Mayor Towey: • I am writing on behalf of University City, Inc.,an owner of real property in the Spokane Valley. • I atn writing with respect to the City Council's consideration for zoning in the University City Center area. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague Subarea Plan zoning, The property needs a flexible, commercial zoning to enable redevelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs, Broad commercial zoning is appropriate and compatible with existing commercial uses, traffic mid arterials in the area, As such,I would urge you to adopt a flexible, broad, commercial zoning to apply to this area going forward, Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, II, irS MAGMA N A rney at Law HJM:slb cc; Brenda Grasso!(posit Ion 1) Gary Scilimu els(position 4) Dean Grafos(position 2) Bob McCaslin ositioi 5) Rose Dempsey(position 3) Bill Gotinnaun +sltiol 6) Mike Jackson(City Manager) Kathy McClung(Conununity Development Director) • • City of Spokane Valley 12/09/10 Planning Commission The City Council has been irresponsible and made hasty decisions that have unintended consequences. Special interests have some members making decisions without public input or research. It is quite obvious that some members of this Council do not(10 their homework or even read their packet before a Council Meeting, Making snap decisions to please one citizen or business person really is not acceptable when time results of that decision affect the whole city. Why would ANYONE want to work hard to expand their business if they believe the Spokane Valley City Council is just going to TAKE IT AWAY! The very reason a large majority of the business community supported incorporation of Spokane Valley was the poor planning and unrestricted development by Spokane County. WE DO NOT NEED TO RETURN TO THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT! OUR CITY NEEDS A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE! Some members of the Council say they have a mandate to kill.the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. I don't believe that, Some Special Interests would like unrestricted development, but I remember that hundreds of citizens participated along with business and property owners in over 70 workshops, public meetings, hearings and Council Meetings to help plan a future for the City of Spokane Valley. The Sprague/Appleway Revitalization plan was the result. Granted, not everyone is pleased with the result, But remember the GOAL. To revitalize Sprague Ave. and Create an Identity for Our City. A City Center and a Vibrant Business Community that every citizen can be proud of. I am sure everyone would agree with these goals, the question is how do we achieve them. The responsibility of the Planning Commission is to represent all the citizens and have a plan for the future of the City. Over the last 7 years the City has spent approximately 1,2 million dollars in planning to develop SARP. It would be irresponsible for the Planning Commission to waste 7 years of work and over a million dollars in tax payer money by proposing to abandon the City Center Zone. A plan is important. Without one,businesses are unsure of the future and reluctant to invest hi our city. SARP is not perfect and needs changes, but it is a roadmap to the future,please do not let it be destroyed. Involve the citizens and business community to revise it if necessary,but keep our vision of the future alive, Richard C,l3ehm 9405 E.Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley,WA. 99206 • Karen Kendall • From I Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/counclimembers Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7;49 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung; Scott Kuhta Cc; Karen Kendall - Subject: ' FW: City hall site vs. used car lot From;Joan nolan fmailto:joan1422 @msn.comj Sent; Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:20 PM To: mayor/ counclimembers Subject: EW: City hall site vs, used car lot We are responding to the ad In the newspaper regarding Philip Rudy's request to place the city hail on 8 acres now owned by the Pring Corporation. We are adamantly opposed to changing the one way Sprague Avenue back to a two way street to accommodate this endeavor, We have lived here 42 years and the one way corridor is the best thing that has happened to help the flow of Increased traffic, An area better suited for the city hall is In a "park like" setting near - Mlrabeau Park, There are many used car lots in the proximity of Pring's property, another one would be well suited to the area, city hall would not. NO TWO WAY- LEAVE IT AS IS - PLEASE Jim and Joan Nolan 1422 South Bowdlsh Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 i • Dean . . ...... , ._. ,._ ...... . . - - : :..._. :. - - r . . ... . ... . . na Griffith • From: Kathy McClung Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:41 AM - To: Deanna Griffith . Subject: FW: City hall site vs. used car lot From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councilmembers Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:40:'16 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung; Scott Kuhta Cc: Karen Kendall Subject: FW: City hall site vs. used car lot Auto forwarded by a Rule From:Joan nolan fmailto:joan1422Cc�msn.coml Sent: Wednesday, December 08,2010 8:20 PM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject: FW: City hall site vs. used car lot We are responding to the ad in the newspaper regarding Philip Rudy's request to place the city hail on 8 acres now owned by the Pring Corporation. We are adamantly opposed to changing the one way Sprague Avenue back to a two way street to accommodate this endeavor. We have lived here 42 years and the one way corridor is the best thing that has happened to help the flow of increased traffic. An area better suited for the city hall is in a "park like" setting near Mirabeau Park. There are many used car lots in the proximity of Pring's property, another one would be well suited to the area, city hall would not. NO TWO WAY- LEAVE 1T AS TS " PLEASE Jim and Joan Nolan 1422 South Bowdlsh Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 • i • • • Karen Kendall • From: Scott Kuhta • i • • Sent: . Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:40 PM To: Karen Kendall • Subject: FW: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site • Attachments: Clearwater Survey Final Report,doc FYI Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager City of Spokane Valley • (509) 720-5334 skuhta @spokanevalley.org www.spokanevalley.org -----Original Message- - From: Sue Passmore Sent; Monday, December 06, 2010 11:52 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung; Scott Kuhta Subject: Fbi: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site Original Message Front: Bill Gothmann Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:35 AM .To: danvollmer @icehouse,net Cc: Sue Passmore Subject: RE: Sprague Avenue and. City Hall Site Good Morning: I Thank you for taking the time to contact us. I have been out of town and am just now getting around to email correspondence. A couple of points. The land under consideration is already adjacent to a park, Balfour Park. The survey was done by Clearwater Resources in Boise Idaho. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their survey, It was a scientifically accurate survey. I have attached it for your perusal. 52% preferred U-City as City Center. Cooling in second was Marabeau with a distant 18%. I would suggest that it is time to do another survey to see what citizens think. One of the methods of -financing a city hall is through a leaseback arrangement, as you indicated. There are other ways, also. The word, "city center" has a multitude of meanings. To me, it means a high density group of businesses that provide synergy in their service to the community. A public building could or could not be a part of it. As for the one-way vs two-way, I am convinced that one way streets help commuters but hurt small businesses. The evidence I have seen is overwhelming. There are, of course, many businesses that can thrive if they have access to both directions of the one-way street. Automobilie sales is a notable example. Winco is another example. This does not address what we should do as a city, however. • 1 • As to the extension of Appleway, one approach is to wait until the traffic along Sprague east ' o-rUniversity is. sufficient to warrant another street. " a want to see some evidence before we spend city matching funds on such a street. (By the way, those matching funds come from Real Estate Excise Taxes, and not property taxes.) These are not easy issues. There are pros and cons to everything we do with public money. We need added discussion as a community to arrive at an acceptable solution. I appreciate the input, however. Sincerely, Bill Gothmann Councilmember • From: Sue Passmore On Behalf .Of mayor/ councilmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:15 PM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site Original Message From: danvollter @icehouse.net Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:16 PM - To: mayor/ councilmembers; plrudy @sbcglobal.net Subject: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site We are writing concerning Philip Rudy's paid political ad in the Spokesman Review on 11/25/2010. The size of the parcel that he is referring to is only eight acres.This is hardly enough for an adequate park, let alone city hall, and leave room for future expansions such as library, courthouse, city center,etc., which is what a "modern " City Center should include. Mr. Rudy also seems to like to refer to a survey that was taken in 2004, where a slight majority of 52% has been represented as "the will of the people". First off, given the reputation of those people who made the survey in the first place, I highly question. the results. No one in my neighborhood was surveyed and I doubt that anyone who didn't live in the immediate area was surveyed. This survey is now 6 six old and many changes have happened in our .city since then, including, by the will of the people, an entire change of City Council, which was one of the few changes for the better that has happened since incorporation. As for the Pring Corporation being willing to build a City Hall, I'm sure that they could build a nice building to lease, but it wouldn't be the building that we would want to build for ourselves. One of the long term goals of the city should be to own and operate its.own facilities. Regarding the Two Way All The Way philosophy, the project is only half finished. It's intended purpose was to traverse the entire city. Even a dentist wouldn't want the outcome of his procedure judged when he has only completed half of the job. The way forward would be to leave it as it is and complete the project as designed when the County used our tax money to have a design made and plans set in place. If it wasn't for incorporation, this job would have been finished a long time ago and people would be adjusted to it and businesses would be thriving as they do on all couplets in a city, as evidenced by the Division/Ruby couplet in 2 Spokane.- Have we all forgotten that two people gave their lives in the confusion of getting - used to having the two way couplet in place? • Now'.many more will die 'in the confusion of returning it back'to two way? Finish'. the project, then judge it. If you must have a City Center, it should be a modern facility close to upscale shopping, fine restaurants, hotel and motel accommodations, theaters, free parking, open landscape and close proximity to parks and recreational facilities. The old Opportunity area offers none of these amenities. Mirabeau Park area and the proximity to the Valley Mall is the obvious choice, but only when we can afford it Whatever the Council decides to do, keep in mind that city planning is a concept that by its very design is expected to change. To force future expansion and development will never be in the best interest of the citizens. If the people in Opportunity want their own city, let them incorporate into the City of Opportunity and they can then do anything they want with the old area. . Please listen to all the people, not just the few who are set on revitalizing that old part of the valley, look to the new. Dan and Marilyn Vollmer 3 Deanna Griffith. .. - - - From: • ' Kathy McClung ' • Sent: Monday, November 29,2010 4:18 PM - To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Slte From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/ councilmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:15:56 PM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site Auto forwarded by a Rule Original Message From: Dan Vollmer [maiito:danvoiimer@icehouse,netl Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:16 PM 'To: mayor/ councilmembers; plrudy@sbcglobal,nei; -Subject: Sprague Avenue and City Hall Site • We are writing concerning Philip Rudy's paid political ad In the Spokesman Review on 11/25/2010. The size of the parcel that,he is referring to is only eight acres,This Is hardly enough for an adequate park, let alone city hall, and leave room for future expansions such as library, courthouse, city center,etc., which Is what a "modern " City Center should include. Mr. Rudy also seems to like to refer to a survey that was taken In 2004, where a slight majority of 52% has been represented as "the will of the people". First off, given the reputation of those people who made the survey in the first place, I highly question the results. No one In my neighborhood was surveyed and I do_ubt that anyone who didn't live in the Immediate area was surveyed. This survey Is now 6 six old and many changes have happened In our city since then, including, by the will of the people, an entire change of City Council, which was one of the few changes for the better that has happened since incorporation, As for the Pring Corporation being willing to build a City Hall, I'm sure that they could build a nice building to lease, but it wouldn't be the building that we would want to build for ourselves. One of the long term goals of the City should be to own and operate its own facilities, Regarding the Two Way All The Way philosophy, the project is only half finished, It's intended purpose was to traverse the entire city. Even a dentist wouldn't want the outcu1iie of his procedure judged when he has . - only'completed half of the job. The way forward would be to leave it as it is and complete the. project as designed when the County used our tax . money to have a design made and plans set In place. If It wasn't for incorporation, this job would have been finished a long time ago and people would be adjusted to it and businesses would be thriving as they do on all couplets In a city, as evidenced by the Division/Ruby couplet in Spokane, Have we all forgotten that two people gave their lives in the confusion of getting used to having the two way couplet in place? How many more will die in the confusion of returning it back to two way? Finish the project, then judge it. If you must have a City Center, It should be a modern facility close to upscale shopping, fine restaurants, hotel and motel accommodations, theaters, free parking, open landscape and close proximity to parks and recreational facilities. The old Opportunity area offers none of these amenities. Mirabeau Park area and the proximity to the Valley Mall is the obvious choice, but only when we can afford it, Whatever the Council decides to do, keep In mind that city planning is a concept that by its very design is expected to change. To force future expansion and development will never be In the best Interest of the citizens. 'If the people in Opportunity want their own city, let them Incorporate into the City of Opportunity and they can then do anything they want with the old area. Please listen to all the people, not just the few who are set on revitalizing that old part of the valley, look to the new Dan and Marilyn Vollmer • 2 • Deanna Griffith From: Kathy McClung Sent: 'Monday, November 29,2010 10:64 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres From: Mike Jackson Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 10:53:44 AM To; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres Auto forwarded by a Rule • From: Chris Thompson On Behalf Of City Hall Sent; Monday, November 29, 2010 8:47 AM To: City Council A-Cc:•Mike Jackson; Sue Passmore; Carolbelle Branch • Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres Chris Thompson City of Spokane Valley 11707 C.Sprague Ave„ Ste. 108 Spokane Valley, 99208 Direct: (509) 720-5110 • Fax:(509) 921-1008 cthompson{a,spokanevalley.orq Web:www.spokanevalley.orq Unsubscribe: This email Is provided as an informational service to those Interested in staying informed on City of Spokane Valley programs, projects and issues. if you no longer prefer to receive these emails, please email cthompsonc sookanevalley.orq and type"Unsubscribe""in the subject line, Or call Chris at 720-5110. From: Meg Krelner fmallto:megkrein(@yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:20 PM To: City Hall Subject: City Hall on empty 8 acres To : The Mayor and the Spokane City Council : • Please consider building city hall on the 8 acre Pring Corporation property . A park like setting there would enhance the little Balfour park next door, which is used a great deal by the surrounding neighborhood . We go there almost daily to walk our little dog and almost every time we do there are people are using that park. In fact we spoke with the park maintenance 1 woman and she told uk„, out of all the parks she maintains, Balfour was the most used. I have lived in the Valley for over 20 years and have 'always thought the adjacent land should be used to expand' the park so that the Valley would have a nice "central" park in the middle of our city. A car lot is NOT the choice of the people--we need more parks (or park like settings) ; we do not need more car lots as Sprague is already filled with them--a couple I think are even empty at the moment so there is plenty of space for a car lot elsewhere . I would love it if the Balfour park could be expanded, but if that is not possible then the next best alternative would be to build a city hall with a park like setting . Please consider your choice carefully and think of the long term future of our city . Thank you . Meg Kreiner 12005 E 5th Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 921-6859 2 Deanna Griffith From: Kathy McClung Sent: ' Monday, November 29, 2010 8:55 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres From; Sue Passmore Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:54:23 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Chris Thompson On Behalf Of City Hall Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8147 AM To: City Council - Cc: Mike Jackson; Sue Passmore; Carolbelle Branch Subject: FW: City Hall on empty 8 acres Chris Thompson City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, 99206 Direct: (509) 720-5110 Fax: (609)921-1008 cthompson(a.spokanevallev.orc Web: www.sookanevalley.ora Unsubscribe: This email is provided as an informational service to those Interested In staying informed on City of Spokane Valley programs, projects and issues, If you no longer prefer to receive these emails, please email cthompson(a)si okanevaiiev,orq and type"Unsubscribe"in the subject Iine. Or call Chris at 720-5110, From: Meg Krelner jrnallto:megkrein©yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:20 PM To: City Hall Subject: City Hall on empty 8 acres To : The Mayor and the Spokane City Council : Please consider building city hall on the 8 acre Prang Corporation property . A park like setting there would enhance the little Balfour park next door, which is used a great deal by the surrounding neighborhood . We go there almost daily to walk our little dog and almost every time we do there are people are using that park. In fact we spoke with the park maintenance woman and she told us out of all the parks she maintains, Balfour was the most used. I have lived in the Valley for over 20 years and have alLdys thought the adjacent land should be used to expand the park so that the Valley would have a nice "-central" park in the middle .of 'our city . ' A car lot is .NOT the choice of the people--we need more parks (or park like settings) ; we do not need more car lots as Sprague is already filled with them--a couple T think are even empty at the moment so there is plenty of space for a car lot elsewhere . I would love it if the Balfour park could be 'expanded, but if that is not possible then the next best alternative would be to build a city hall with a park like setting . Please consider your choice carefully, and think of the long term future of our city . Thank you . Meg Kreiner 12005 E 5th Ave . Spokane Valley, WA 99206 921-6859 2 ( . Deanna Griffith From: Kathy McClung Sent: Monday, November 20, 2010 8:07 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: Use of the Pring Corporation Property From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councilmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:06:63 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: Use of the Pring Corporation Property Auto forwarded by a Rule • From; chetandbol nieVcomcast,net fniailto:chetandbonnieC comcast,net1 Sent=Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:17 AM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject; Use of the Pring Corporation Property It is time for the leaders of the City of Spokane Valley to decide whether they wish the City of Spokane Valley to develop into the fine city it can be or let its best asset continue to deteriorate. It is time to opt for establishing a City Center in the logical place for such a development. Opt now for strong public use of the Pring Corporation Property rather than to let it become another Eyesore on Sprague.. I strongly urge you to refuse the proposed zone change and retain the option to make that location the center of a progressive and beautiful city. Chester Nelson 18719 Fait-view et Spokane Valley, WA 99027 509-926-2083 1 Deanna Griffith • From: Kathy McClung Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:07 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: Support the Pring Corporation Property From; Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councllmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:06:39 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: Support the Pring Corporation Property Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Bruce Robinson{malito:rbrucerobinson©gmall,coml Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010. 10:10 AM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject: Support the Pring Corporation Property To Whom It May Concern, We have an opportunity to make a statement as a city to build a user friendly,efficient and class facility that as citizens of Spokane Valley we can be proud of. The City Hall is the center point of any city's proclamation that we are In fact a smart, forward thinking city that attracts a positive business and community climate with a first class City Hall In an area that would not add yet another car lot but a park like setting that promotes a centralized theme of class and beauty. t support the purchase and use of the Pring property for a City Hall we can all hang our hat on and feel proud of this city as a true city. Bruce Robinson cell; 509-879-7899 E-mall: rbrucerobinson @gmall,com 1 Deanna Griffith • From: Kathy McClung Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:07 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: city hall vs car lot From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councilmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:06:25 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: city hall vs car lot Auto forwarded by a Rule ' • From: Jeff Brooks rmallto:hollywood6870hotmall.com] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:16 AM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject: city hall vs car lot Dear Mayor and city council members, When will the city of Spokane Valley develope Its own Identity? Currently it appears to be the city of car lots and strip mails. Why would the idea of adding another huge used car lot even be considered when the property directly North of i_1- City would serve perfectly as a city center with a city hall building as the anchor.This community is floundering with no direction or central gathering place.The city of Liberty Lake has a beautiful core park area that people in the community call their own and they identify as their home. We have nothing like that here. Just uncontrolled building and poorly kept structures with gravel car lots, We can do better. Please DO NOT allow an "emergency zone change" as neither of the parties are in distress and no "emergency" exists. Purchase the land for the city and design a beautiful city hall with a park that could be "our" city identity, Sincerely, Jeff Brooks PT 4813 S. Low Way Ct Spokane Valliey, 99206 509-370-0645 Deanna Griffith i From:. Kathy McClung • Sent:' Monday, November 29, 2010 8:07 AM • To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: City Hall Slte vs. Used Car Lot From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councllmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:06:11 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: City Hall Site vs. Used Car Lot Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Sabrina Gonder f niallto:gonderfamllyWomcast.net1 Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:48 AM To: mayor/counclimembers • Subject: City Hall Site vs. Used Car Lot My husband and I would both prefer the City Hall of the Spokane Valley to be located at the proposed site in the park like setting over a car lot of any kind. The City of the Spokane Valley desperately needs a city center and currently seems lost between the City of Spokane and the City of Liberty Lake. With all the available commercial space and land, why doesn't the car lot look for another location? We have Ilved, worked and supported the Spokane Valley our entire lives and recognize the value a properly located city center can provide. Sincerely, Sabrina Gonder Thomas Gonder . Deanna Griffith From: • Kathy McClung Sent: Monday, November 20, 2010 8:06 AM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: (no subject) • From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/councllmembers Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:05;54 AM To: City Council; Mike Jackson; Kathy McClung Subject: FW: (no subject) Auto forwarded by a Rule From: TIMO1535aol,com [mailto:TIMO1535 @aol.com] Sent Thursday, November 25, 2010 1:37 PM To: mayor/councilmembers Subject: (no subject) HI City Council members, my name is Tim Hatton . I have lived in the Spokane area for most of my life .1 have been a Valley resident for the past 18 years. Is The City of the Spokane Valley here to stay ?If yes then we need to step In the right direction and Not Build anymore Car Lots/Dealerships.We do not need anymore of them. Don't you think we have enough of them ? Build a New City Hail and a nice green park area for all of us citizens, not another car lot. There are plenty of other property's for a car lot, Lets revitalize the City of Spokane Valley, Make It a better city to Live in .Plant some trees along the back of the old u-city ,along Appleyway. Drive by the new Valley Mall , down Indiana street, Mtrabeua Park Area ,It looks really nice with all the trees and green areas,That also includes Sprague Avenue ,where the green spaces have been made. Lets Go Green Not another Black Parking Lot .Thank You Tim Hatton 1 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 9, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Eggleston, Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard were present. . Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor; Dean Grafos, Counciltnember; Brenda Grasse', Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the December 9, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard reported he had attended the City Council meetings. Commissioner Carroll stated that he had met with a citizen in regard to an upcoming proposed code amendment on adult retail use. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung stated that during the next council meeting the Mayor would be announcing the new Planning Commission members. The director also stated that this would be Commissioner Eggleston and Sharpe's last meeting and thanked them for their service. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Study Session — Code Amendment CTA-D9-10, Adult Retail Use Establishment Associate Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation to the Commission regarding the proposed code amendment to modify the definition of Adult Retail Use Establishment. Ms. Barlow explained the difference between an Adult Entertainment establishment and an Adult Retail Use Establishment. An Adult Entertainment Establishment example would be Deja Vn, they are required to follow different regulations and allows for viewing movies, arcades and live entertainment. These types of 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 establishments are governed by the zoning code Chapter 19.80 and must be licensed according to Chapter 5.10, Adult Entertainment Establishments. An Adult Retail Use Establishment example would be Castle Superstore, where themed merchandise is for sale or rental. Adult Retail Use Establishments are governed by the zoning code, Title 19.80. The current definition is being proposed to be amended as follows - Adult retail use establishment: A retail use establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade, to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, or transferring, er teievwing of adult-oriented merchandise. The.relail use i t,3hlislinetit 3nay permit patrons to view the adult-oriented merchandise for wssiblc Purchase or rental. but such olr- aremisesAe ing_ a Il, l hL in e7cc ange Ectmo11ey 01 .any otll t_rpransfc n idprittiQ Ms Barlow stated that the issue at hand is that the final phrase in the original definition the viewing of adult-oriented merchandise' is becoming difficult to say it does not allow the viewing of merchandise for sale or rental in an adult retail use establishment, and that you cannot charge money to do so. Both uses are allowed in the same zoning districts, but are regulated differently. The proposed language will remove the incentive to view the movies in the retail use establishments since they cannot charge money to do so. Commissioner Mann asked if an establishment showed a movie for free to get people in the door would that be would be ok? Acting City Attorney, Cary Driskell, stated that to look at the question in a different way: that if Blockbusters or Hastings were to show a movie up on the wall or if an Adult Retail Use Establishment were to do the same we could not tell them "no" because the City cannot differentiate based on the message. The appellate courts have stated that would be unconstitutional, it violates the first amendment regarding freedom of speech. The City has drafted the language this way in the definition in order to protect the first amendment and still restrict viewing in the retail use establishments. We cannot tell them they cannot view something, or that they can't look at the cover, that is considering viewing, and considered part of the decision to purchase or not purchase. Within the constraints of the first amendment and the case law, we can say they can show it, but cannot charge for it. The reason we can enact this regulation is that we have defined the conduct, `viewing of adult themed content for a charge' is adult entertainment. It has licensing requirements, it has different zoning requirements and from that aspect we have drawn the regulation as close as we feel we safely can within in the law. Commissioner Mann asked if the City was attempting to change behavior, in the retail use establishments? Mr. Driskell responded the City Council defined that activity, viewing for a charge, as being adult entertainment. It has been brought to the City's attention that that the "or viewing" can be interpreted in such a way that it allows that behavior to be conducted in a different zone. So this change is to simply identify which establishments this type of behavior will be allowed hi. The goal is to clarify the definition, if the change in behavior would be a consequence of the change of the definition, then that would be something we could not control, Commissioner Sands asked about video media to be separate from other types of media. Would it be possible to define,the media in another way? Mr. Driskell stated he thought that the amendment had been written in a way that is constitutional now and he would rather not rewrite it. However he stated he thought they could go back and look at it a little more closely, but he would have concerns about doing that. Commissioner Carroll asked if the proposed definition had not been tested in the court already, would the City be at risk if we changed it now? Mr. Driskell stated the prior definition had been tested for other challenges but did not believe it had been tested under these grounds so he has no great confidence that it would be upheld for that reason. Currently the City feels it can tighten up the regulation and if it needed to be enforced this regulation could be upheld. This is why staff is currently recommending this change. Commissioner Carroll said that `viewing' had been removed and then added back in to the definition, would it be better to say, not allowed for viewing on site? Mr. Driskell stated he could also look at that option, but would rather not. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Sharpe asked if this had been an issue or was staff just trying to clean up some items? Mr. Driskell stated it had been in issue. There have been complaints received by the City. Mr. Driskell stated he did not feel that the complaints received by the City were relevant to the Commission's consideration of this amendment. Mr, Driskell stated his opinion was that staff reviewed the issue, made the determination that the definition needed to be refined and are presenting that to the Commissioners for a recommendation. Commissioner Carroll stated he was concerned that we were still allowing viewing when we were hying to stop that. Mr. Driskell stated he did not feel that the City was trying to stop viewing, because there could be a constitutional issue with that. What the City is trying to do is stop the viewing for a charge, which is defined as adult entertainment elsewhere in the municipal code. Staff is attempting to harmonize the two code provisions. Commissioner Sands stated the same type of viewing could endanger staff or the community in those establishments if it is not regulated under the adult entertainment regulations. Mr. Driskell stated he would take a look at this issue and report back to the Commission. Mr. Driskell asked for clarification that the adult retail definition could be further amended to prohibit any viewing of adult video on adult retail zoned places? Commissioner Sands stated that the two places were not regulated the same. In adult entertainment establishments there are rules that regulate where viewing is allowed in certain places, certain circumstances, and protect the staff and community. In an adult retail there are not. Mr. Driskell stated he would look at this. B. New Business: Public Hearing -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment, ECPA-01-10 Removing the City Center designation from the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. Prior to the presentation, Ms. Kendall stated that written comments had been received from the following individuals: Dan and Marilyn Vollmer, Meg Kreiner, Chester Nelson, Bruce Robinson, Jeff Brooks, Sabrina and Thomas Gender, Tim Hatton, Jim and Joan Nolan, and Richard Behm. Ms. Kendall then summarized the comments regarding the Subarea Plan, the City Center District zone and car lots in the City Center zone. Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding ECPA-01-10. Ms. Kendall began her presentation with the reasons the City Council has stated in declaring an economic emergency for this Comprehensive Plan amendment. An emergency can be declared by a jurisdiction to process an amendment outside of the regular once a year time frame in which the City normally processes Comprehensive Plan amendments, but it does not allow any of the other normal time frames, like noticing, hearings or to be waived. This is the first time the City has declared an emergency to process a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 1. In the last 12 months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011, and property taxes by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011. Funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 for 2010 and 2011. 2. Funds for significant private development are not as available and significant failures of large commercial investments within the City have occurred. 3. The economic development anticipated by the Council when the Ordinance adopting the Subarea Plan was passed in June of 2009 has not occurred. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 4, The restrictions on development within the City Center zone, as well as the design requirements, contemplate significant public investment involving both the purchase of property and construction of a City Hall as well as adjacent infrastructure improvements. The projected 2011 budget does not contemplate the purchase of any property within the City Center zone and funds available for the construction of City Hall are projected to be reduced by $2.2 million to fund other capital projects. 5. Because there is little likelihood that any significant investment will occur by the City, the City Center zone, as currently configured and restricted, creates significant immediate economic hardships for the property owners within that zone. Based upon these facts an emergency exists and an immediate change to the Comprehensive PIan pursuant to the RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(b) set forth above may be appropriate, The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal is to change the area currently designated as City Center district zone in the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan from City Center to Mixed Use Ave District Zone. Ms. Kendall also reviewed the development standards between the two different zones. Ms. Kendall stated, based on the information provided by the declaration of the emergency by the City Council, the staff recommends approval of this amendment. Commissioner Eggleston asked why staff was recommending approval of this proposal. Ms. Kendall responded that this is a directive from the City Council to proceed with this amendment. Also, based on the current economic condition, and lack of community support to move forward at this time with a City Center, by changing this area to Mixed Use Avenue would provide more flexibility in the development standards. Commissioner Eggleston followed up with another inquiry, wondering if there had been the same amount of time and effort and out pour from the public in recent times to cause this "lack of public support" compared to the hundreds of hours and days, weeks and months of creating the Subarea Plan? Mr. Eggleston stated that from what he could derive it was infinitesimal in comparison. He said the creation of the Subarea Plan is far better put together and thought out than the current public pressure to dismantle it. Mr. Eggleston asked to have someone help him to understand this difference, Mr, Carroll asked if any additional surveys had been done. Ms. Kendall stated that she was not aware of any other surveys. Planning Manager Scott Kuhta stated he would like to address Mr. Eggleston's question, regarding the amount of work that has gone into the creation of the Subarea Plan. Mr. Kuhta stated that since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, a majority of the City Council was newly elected, and they have gone down the path to review the Subarea Plan in great detail. Staff has spent a great deal of time going through each zone, district by district. There was testimony at the City Center zone about the impacts of the uses in that area, of how the current economy is affecting the area. In the long term staff would recommend that the City needs a City Center in this community. However, staff must balance that with the short term concerns that were heard consistently through the process along with the direction of the current City Council. Staff believes at this point and time that the best thing for this community is to have some more flexible zoning in this corridor. Mr. Kuhta stated that hopefully over time staff will be able to revisit the idea of a City Center. Mr. Kuhta said that specifically based on the question of how much time has gone into this amendment, not nearly the time and effort that went into the original analysis for the 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 original recommendation. Mr. Eggleston asked in summary the hours that went into creating the Subarea Plan is far greater that the thought and hours that were put into making this emergency recommendation? Mr. Kuhta responded that would be a fair statement from staff's perspective. Mr. Carroll asked for the expected time of development of the City Center, 10 years or more. Mr. Kuhta responded that would be a good long term projection. Mr. Eggleston asked if the Mixed Use goes into effect and then City Center concept is thrown out the window, and buildings are constructed, what is the average lifetime of a building that is constructed in the City Center area? How long do commercial buildings last? Mr. Kuhta stated it depends on the economics and demand. Mr. Eggleston stated that what Mr. Kuhta said was that the life time of a building standing is decades, 15-50 years. Mr. Kuhta said he believed it depended purely on the demand for that land for a different use. Mr. Woodard asked that if this is amendment is approved, is there anything that would preclude the City from designating a City Center in the future?, somewhere other than at Sprague and University? Ms. Kendall responded that there was nothing that she was aware of A City Center will remain within the City's Comprehensive Plan, to allow the possibility in the future. Mr. Woodard asked to clarify that it did not need to be at Sprague and University, could it be moved to another part of the City? Ms Kendall stated that could be done. Commissioner Sands stated there was a great deal of public input when developing the City Center, is there any talk of putting this idea to a vote? Director McClung stated that would need to be a City Council decision. Commissioner Hall asked staff if they felt they had a truly statistical valid survey on this issue? He also asked if that would be the next most appropriate step. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to know for accuracy what the community wants. Mr. Eggleston stated that in an earlier question the answer was that there has been no survey since the 2004 Clearwater survey. Chair Carroll read the rules for public testimony. Richard Rehm, 9405 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Behm stated he owns commercial property at the address given, which is in the Mixed Use zone. Mr. Behm stated he wishes his property was in the City Center zone, he believes it would add value to his real estate if he were there. Mr. Behm stated he did not believe this was an emergency, by any stretch of the imagination, not for the reasons given. At the City Center meeting, and he attended each of the Subarea Plan zoning meetings all year long, there were very few criticisms of the zoning problems within the City Center zone. There was no demand at that time for change to Mixed Use. In fact the City Center zone had less comments about the requirements than the other zones. Mr. Behm stated he felt that was very interesting. Mr. Behm stated the Clearwater report was done in 2004 and it is very specific and very well done, Mr. Behm stated that off the top of his head between pages 20 and 30 there are 6 or 7 pages that report the desires of the citizens for an identity for the City of Spokane Valley and a City Center and over whelmingly they chose the University City area. It wasn't specific to University City but University and Sprague. It very well documents the desires of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley and what they wanted for the future of our City. If indeed the City Council does not want to reply on that, then he stated he thought 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 they should ask Clearwater to update that report to find out what the desires of our citizens are right now. Not to throw it away and say that's not any good. Mr. Behm stated it was very well done and many of the citizens count on that report in their own planning. Mr. Behm stated that only one property owner asked for a zone change in the City Center, on the west side of the City Center zone to build an auto lot. Mr. Behm also stated that during the discussion at the City Council meeting, one council member stated `why don't we just eliminate the whole City Center zone'. Mr. Behm stated that this suggestion was voted on, by the Council, and sent to the Planning Commission with no discussion for public input. Mr. Behm stated he did not feel that was the way the City should operate. Mr. Behm stated he was really, really upset about this. Mr. Behm stated he worked many years and very hard, and that he was involved in practically everything, in creating this City, and that this is not the way to run things. Mr. Behm stated that if `we' want to see what the citizens want, then the Clearwater report should be updated if`we' do not want to rely on it. Karla Kaley, 10516 E Main Ave.: Ms. Kaley stated she and her husband, Richard, own a property management company in Spokane Valley and have owned property in the Spokane Valley for more than eight years. Ms. Kaley stated she and her husband moved to this area deliberately and on purpose with the promise and potential that they saw in this area. She stated they have lived in four western states. Ms. Kaley said she has seen firsthand what can happen when Cities have short sighted, narrow minded planning in our local communities. She said she has watched this city struggle with the shoes that were created, approximately seven years ago. The city serves the needs and colors the futures of 86,000 people and growing. The city is approximately 42% of Spokane. We think we are small, we think we are insignificant, and yet we are 42%the size of Spokane, already, after 7 years. Spokane is the second largest city in Washington, it is 31.6 largest city in the entire Pacific Northwest from a municipality stand point. In 2013, when the Federal Government combines the likely combination of Spokane and the Coeur d'Alene areas for planning, statistics and budget purposes we will create a scenario that could result in the 4tn largest metropolitan area in the United States. What does this mean? This means we will meet the criteria for attracting Fortune 500 companies to this area. And we need to do this right and we have the opportunity to do it now. We talk about the economy, we talk about the things and how they are, this emergency that we have and waiting to do a City Center. The time is right now. There is simply no reason why the City of Spokane Valley cannot be cooperative even competitive with the City of Spokane and Liberty Lake and our neighboring communities and attract these businesses. But you need a plan. And the plan includes the Subarea Plan and that provides a City Center and without a City Center you are not a City. Without a City Center and not being a City you cannot attract businesses and it is that simple. By supporting the emergency zone change before you, you are essentially killing the Subarea Plan and eliminating our chance for a City Center. You have asked the question twice and I've been in both meetings. The answer to your question, does this prevent us from having a City Center in the future is yes. And it is not because it is a zoning problem, or a state regulation or a planning commission issue or even a public issue. It is a practical issue. If you don't provide the space and the planning and the mechanism for doing it, you will have back in-fill, infiltration and the hodge podge that we have right now, with the composite planning that we grew out of the County in the first place to become a City. If you want to continue with the look that we have right now,just do what you are proposing to do to do today or been asked to do by the City Council and support the declining, unappealing properties we have lining our City corridor. The 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Subarea Plan was three years in the planning, a million bucks. It is one year in the implementation phase. I don't know the last time anybody read this, but I read this a couple of weeks ago. There is some really good stuff in here. You got your million bucks worth. Everything you need to build a cake is right here. You got the ingredients, you got the planning, you got the chemistry, you got the science, you got the technology, maybe you don't like the flavor, maybe you don't like the color of the frosting, ok let's fix that. But you got your money's worth, This is your road map, this is your plan for the City of Spokane Valley's future. Its purpose is sound. Its purpose is to address retail uses and issues that bring in money for our economy. It addresses the appearance and the concerns that investors have for image and ascetics along the corridor and it addresses new development and what it is going to look like. So here is what I would like to propose for you. You have more options than what you have been given by staff, I would like to support part of those. Don't be fooled by the idea that this is an emergency. Ok, don't be fooled. Don't be afraid of the economy. Here's why. Ms. Kaely stated 9 different cases of businesses expanding or growing in and around the area, Trader Joe's, Red Lion Vandervert, The City of Cheney, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Rockwood South Hill expansion, Greenstone projects. They are not here because our City does not have its act together. Not because we have the Subarea Plan, not because of architectural standards that are too onerous, not because we don't like our setbacks or because of signage. We just don't have our act together as a City and we are not doing anything for economic development. I would like to help change that. Here is what I would like to propose. Keep the City Center plan in place but do your modifications. There are lots of parts I don't like either, and I would like to help if I could. But the flaws in this plan are not fatal. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it is not worth throwing a million dollars down the drain. I propose you make this modification using something I have not heard yet or seen yet. A community stakeholder process. I have participated in them before in other states. You get a community group together, you invite them, You have strategic, surgical goals. The purpose of surgical is deliberate finite and focused, You give them two to four months to get their act together and come back viable recommendations and suggestions for changes and you have those stakeholders composed of the public and interested experts. Like experts in architecture might be one group, signs and setbacks could be another group., parking and open spaces another group, economic development another group and the most important that I don't hear anything about. In all of these City Council meetings nobody's doing much that I see. So in closing given the development stage that our city is in, seven years but we are still an infant really, you have a more important job than the City Council does. The most important job we have right now as we are growing and developing our City is to deal with the local land use issues and as the Planning Commission it is your job to assist in determining the highest and best use of that land, to assure that adjacent land uses are compatible, That is part of what the Subarea Plan does, in conjunction with the overall Plan. You can't do this without a reasonable plan and you can't do it without a City Center and you can't wait 10 years for a City Center. I respectfully and courteously request that you do not approve the proposal you have before you today but instead explore more options. Especially more options that take a much more active role in economic development. Phillip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill, 720 N Argonne Rd: In my opinion stability is a huge factor. You talk about economic downturn. Now is the time to make investments. You can buy land cheap, maybe. But not too many things have been said about changing hands 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 on East Sprague. But not too many things have been said about that but I think that is because people are waiting to see what is really going to happen. They are hoping for stability in their government and in the decision that is going to be made. In my opinion in the last few years the City Council has spent a lot of time to put City Hall or City Center in one spot. In my opinion and I say this positively and complimentary, they should have had the big boys, and I am talking Magnusson, Pring and Douglass duke it out as to whether they wanted to have City Hall. I think you would have had a better project rather than have City Council say we want City Hall at this one spot. What they did was eliminate their ability to negotiate a decent price. You need stability in government and government decisions. If you do throw everything out I think that the most important thing that has come out of the Subarea Plan, and it is this one thing and I have been talking about it, I think the most important thing of the Subarea Plan for economic reasons, for development reasons, for safety of neighborhood reasons, and for environmental reasons is that the roads be two-way all the way on Sprague Ave and on Appleway. Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Listening to the questions asked by the Planning Commission I am reminded that you are looking for the public that was in support of the Subarea Plan. Indeed there were a lot of people in support of the Subarea Plan, but there were a lot of people, who we all know in land use, if they are neutral or not in favor of it, you don't see them here. And they spoke and they spoke when they voted the council in that is here. They all campaigned against the Subarea Plan. They got voted in, they got voted in by that public that you don't see and don't count noses. This Council said they wanted to get rid of the Subarea Plan. They have ordered the staff to review and consider that and for whatever reasons to have an emergency ordinance declared and you know the story that is going on here with the City Center elimination. I don't think it is a matter of revisiting the Subarea Plan and whether there are enough statistics to put on the scale to equal the weight of what was done. That is a moot point. This legislative body said we want to get rid of it and this is a recommending body not another council. You are here to assist, to facilitate through hearings, conduct public meetings, this is a public meeting, there is not standing room only here to try and protect City Center. So read what is currently going on, not what you remember. The new council is saying something entirely different than what the previous Council did. Yea, I am against the Subarea Plan, it is impractical to put it in just a portion of the City. All of this economic growth that has been in the paper in the last two months, none of it is inside the Subarea Plan. That is not why it is happening. That is not a reason to preserve the Subarea Plan. Because everything I have heard about it, it is going to be difficult to attract people to something that is more expensive to build in especially in the recession we have. Robert Olson, representing H&H Molds at 119 S Adams: I have had several clients in the last week talk to me about Spokane Valley and I did not have an answer for them. I told them I was going to meetings. I think they would like to invest. I think the passion of this lady is phenomenal, but the Subarea Plan isn't the answer. It's direction from staff, or from City Council or Planning Commission of what you are going to do with Spokane Valley. There are developers, there are outside businesses that would love to do business in Spokane Valley but they don't know what it is going to look like for their business in the future and how to grow. I know I have talked to past City Council members, have mentioned, well this doesn't affect your property. But you look at the Subarea Plan or you look at a plan and it does affect. Don't tell me one thing and do another. The last year, I have been looking at all the studies, all the history, the past notes of the seven years of the 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 lady was saying, was revisiting, there are a lot of mixed messages, mixed signals, they are opted out of it, or making some deals on the side or saying some things. And that has been the biggest frustration in Spokane Valley. And I thought you should hear it first hand from developers saying to me, `Bob, I would like to put a big box store in the Valley, but I am not going to, because what side of the street are they going to impose certain regulations, and what is it going to look like for taxes' and I have had to deal with issues with tax. I just want to say just representing a lot of businesses out here in Spokane Valley or prospective businesses that your decisions matter and you really need to listen to the property owners and think about your decisions and how it affects. You are a beautiful city and I think you have a long way to go. And you have beautiful land, you got a river, you got more land river property than anybody else, and it is beautiful out here and it is flat and people like it, and you know the history of Spokane Valley, I just want to say that the decisions you are about to make are very crucial for the livelihood of the future, As she pointed out they want to invest but they want to know what the return on investment is going to be. Steven Neill, 10820 E. 18'x`: the one thing I have noticed about the people speaking in favor of the Subarea Plan is that they have a vested interest in it. They stand to gain financially. I don't, I am just a normal Joe, who lives up on l8`11, who can't get to the freeway, unless I go down Sprague or unless I go down Argonne. Thought this is not talking about returning it to a two-way, too much, to do that, would delay my trip a tremendous amount. I have lived in the Spokane area for over 30 years. I know Sprague, I remember the way it was when it was two way. I know the traffic jams, I remember it all. People can't deceive me or confuse me on that. I remember it. This to me is an important step in saying enough of the Subarea Plan, enough of this whole thing. It was mentioned that people spent a lot of time and money on the Subarea Plan. Well, having lived here this long, I don't recall a large turnout of people asking for the Subarea Plan, or asking for a opportunity for a City Center or anything else. I haven't seen it. In my mind the decision, the poll if you will for where the people stand was decided this November, where three new City Council members were elected on totally against the Subarea Plan policies. That's your poll, that's your direction from the people. I think that it is wrong to be directed by a few, certain people, who stand to gain financially from this. If there is anything to be done, I think an actual poll would be good. Or just put it out to the people. Vote for it, get it over with, end the garbage and get it over with. That way you would know where the people are at. Susan Scott, 205 S Evergreen Rd. (business location): I would first like to speak to the Clearwater survey. A whopping 69% agreed that the Sprague/Appleway couplet was useful improvement to the overall roadway system in Spokane Valley, yet the Subarea Plan calls for return to two-way traffic on that portion between University and Argonne at considerable public expense. In my opinion that significant detail such as the massive rezoning and the public and private cost to implement such an undertaking been disclosed upfront and understood and disseminated to the public a considerable amount of time and money could have been saved. I believe there were flaws throughout the entire process that lead to the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The Planning Commission has an opportunity this evening to begin to address and correct some of those flaws. I sat in the cheap seats and observed every hour of the Planning Commission deliberations on the Subarea Plan. There was an overwhelming amount of information to review in a very limited amount of time. There was a sense of urgency that over rode any in-depth analysis of the actual impact of the plan. I found that the need for the plan was over stated by completely 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 ignoring the existing centers and segments style of zoning introduced in our 2007 Comprehensive Plan zoning and instead the 2003 zoning inherited from the County was used as the base line. Critical questions were often asked and put off for later and never answered. Others were answered with casual antidotal information clearly lacking any real research or hard evidence. I found it interesting that in the final analysis of the plan there was never the option to do nothing, Proof of public support was based on cherry-picking questions from a 2004 survey and siting over 60 public participation meetings that were so lacking in substantive data and detail they were little more than dream sessions. Public opposition was ignored. 85% of citizen comment and testimony for the public hearings was in opposition but the City Council went on and adopted the plan by emergency ordinance with the disclaimer that we will work the bugs out later. Tonight is later. As the facts of the plan have come to light, with the prospects of a City Hall and City Center at that location unsupportable, tax payers, landowners and businessmen are beginning to see the inherent dangers to property rights and problems with the new form based code. We need a plan that tells the citizens what they can do, not what they must do. There is a very real emergency to begin addressing the real economic concerns of the corridor, starting with the City Center district. This is an opportunity, not only to mitigate some of the damage caused by the errors and omissions that lead to the adoption of the Subarea Plan but to bring jobs and much needed investment to our City. Thank you. H Jim Magnusson, (Mr. Magnusson asked to have this letter read into the record, letter originally sent to Council) I am writing on behalf of the U-City Incorporated, owner of real property in Spokane Valley. I am writing with respect to the Council's consideration for zoning in the University City area. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague Subarea Plan zoning. The property needs to be a flexible commercial zoning to enable redevelopment to increase tax base and create more jobs. Broad commercial zoning is appropriate and compatible with existing commercial uses, traffic and arterials in the area. As such I would urge you to adopt flexible broad commercial and apply this to the area going forward, Chair Carroll closed the public hearing at 7:13. The Commission then took a break, and returned at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to recommend denial of ECPA-01-10 to the City Council. Motion was second by Commissioner Sands, Deliberations between the Commissioners included the following thoughts. Supporting the motion • Fail to plan, is planning to fail. • Need to have a stable plan for the future. • Plenty of time spent with public meetings and planning to adopt the plan. No time spent to dismantle. • The City needs a City Center. • City needs a heart, with no heart the City dies, economic challenges have nothing to do with decision. • Our City is young and needs guidance, leadership and planning, • The Subarea Plan is good for economic development. • People without vision want to go backwards. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 • Commissioners do not feel this is an emergency. • Commissioners would like to have an updated, scientific survey of the community before eliminating the only plan the City has. • Does the Plan need changes, and can it be changed? It can but we need to have something to move forward with. • In favor of a City Center but not sure current location in the Subarea Plan is the correct one. • People don't want to locate businesses here because we keep changing our minds and they don't know what we are going to do next, it has nothing to do with the Subarea Plan. • Not allowing more than a year for a plan to implement and develop is short-sighted • Plan can be changed to allow for success instead of eliminating the City Center • Declaring an emergency is reckless • Felt the consultant listened to the community and was detailed in incorporating city vision • Only city's indecisiveness is causing economic problems. • Do not want to make a knee jerk reaction, economy is getting better. • Lack of vision is the reason the plan and City Center zone is not working. • Eliminating the City Center zone indicates we are no longer a City. • Plan is the basis for decisions, absence of a plan allows for no basis for guidance. • City Center needs to be closer to the river • City needs an identity • Would rather modify the proposal, instead of deny • Proposal driven by one property owner who can't do what he wants to do and had the money to make this change. • Change is inevitable. Spokane Valley does not want change. • Not enough input from the citizens Against the motion: • Commissioners felt the Plan is too big, not a vision of the community, • Felt center of the community is someplace else, not at University and Sprague. • Need a plan for less than 10 years not more than 20 years. Don't have 20 years to wait. • Only one permit issued along Sprague in the last year. • Plan is too big • Form based zoning is a fad, does not work for this area • Plan makes too many businesses non-conforming • Size of the City Center zone is too large currently Vote on the motion to recommend denial of emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment ECPA-01-10 to the City Council. In favor, 5, Against, 2 — Commissioners Sharpe and Woodard dissenting. Acting City Attorney asked the Chairman if he would like staff to prepare findings and conclusions to send forward to the City Council. Chair Carroll then asked staff to prepare the findings for signatures, based on this motion. 12-09-10 Planning Coirunission Minutes Page 11 of 12 C. Election of Officer for the year 2011: Commissioner Eggleston nominated John Carroll to serve as Planning Commission Chairman for the 2011 year. Seconded by Commissioner Joe Mann. Vote is 6 in favor, 1 against, with Commissioner Woodard being the dissenting vote. Motion passes, John Carroll Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2011 Commissioner Eggleston nominated Marcia Sands to serve as Planning Commission Vice- Chaimman for the 2011 year. Seconded by Commissioner Joe Mann. Vote is unanimous. Motion passes Marcia Sands Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2011 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Carroll stated that he would like to thank Commissioners Sharpe and Eggleston for their years of service to the community and for serving on the Planning Commission. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 Comments from the August 19, 2010 City Center Community Meeting: Director McClung welcomed the attendees (there was a head count of 22) and introduced staff. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta gave a presentation giving the background, intent and design of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. This is the discussion that came after the presentation: Mike King: There are a lot of details in plan in developing. You want to really set up a meeting with us if you're looking to do anything with your properties. You need to contact myself, so give me a call and we can sit down and talk about the regulations and how they affect your property. We represented this to council Tuesday night of this week and we will be reporting back to council what we here today and over the next couple weeks and on the 14th of September. So any of the comments we receive, any concerns that we have, we will be reporting back to council. We're taking verbatim notes of this meeting and everything that's being said today will be forwarded verbatim to council. We're going to record everything up here on the sheets so make sure we capture everything. If you're not sure you have any comments today, you can write them down and submit them anytime till Sep. 7th'. We have to get the packet ready for council by the 7th. So you have until the 7th if you have anything specific to write down and you're not sure what you want to tell us today. We'll open the floor for questions at this point. Question -- Scott, I want to ask that you remove the temporary restrictions to the city center on the binding site plan? Mike King: Request to remove the temporary restriction which has to do with the building until the binding site plan is put on. Any other questions or concerns? Dwight Hume: I have some concerns that I've expressed in previous meetings of this workshop type that we're dealing with symptoms and not the cause. You realize that the council was in the beginning of the year trying to repeal the SARP plan only to be advised legally that was something that had to follow a process of input. Unfortunately, the input that is being sought is an attempt to tweak the plan by putting in other uses that may or may not be acceptable to both; but none the less be brought in to it to make it more compatible with all concerned, Yet the real issue is the plan itself and to get rid of it but be that as it may, there are some issues here about the plan that I feel like we're treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptoms are allegedly the uses now allowed or not allowed and what we should do to add some back in and that doesn't really solve the problem of the plan itself. I think the plan is premature and it's not something that the economy can deal with and it isn't something that market forces will implement and well, the city center is the center piece of the plan. It has, as the gentleman just said, it has problems that are serious in nature. One in which is the moreitorium or the defactomoritorium the need to wait until the core street is fully permitted with building permits and everybody else waits indefinitely to put uses on their property. That has to change, that is not an incentive. That is a serious flaw in the plan. Second aspect of this is that well in 2007 there was a pre-sarp zoning matrix that says certain uses are allowed. Now it says 34 of those uses are not allowed but we're going to give you parks and medical supply sales and bed and breakfast, none of those are necessarily strong tenants to your properties. Based on the changes that have been made would be far better not to have had the SARP plan and have those other 34 uses again. The other aspect August 19,2010 City Center Community Meeting Page 1 of 6 of this that is hardly mentioned and not today that the pre-designated streets affect numerous buildings that are already in place and probably cause us some traffic problems in terms of the introduction of intersections every 600 ft along Sprague and Appleway that are not in place right now. Appleway was originally sought as a bypass and the more intersections you create the more problems you create for traffic flow. So, I think I would suggest, I've even talked to people that received plans, maps, GPS base maps that show land use and show the streets on top of them the pre-designated streets. They show, therefore the reality what those pre-designated streets system does to existing land use. You've heard about some of that in other workshops but there are different maps out there and they show different things and they all came out of the city. I'm going to suggest we have a workshop just on the entire SARP on pre-designated streets and maybe the public information that goes out is on a GPS base that shows the land use and those streets and just have a dialogue discussion with the land owners weather or not they want those streets. So, 3 things, 1st we lost 34 uses. 2nd we've got this pre-disignated street system on various exhibits that's sent out by the city or given out by the city that controdict each other. Some of them show pre-designated streets within the CC area on the north side of Sprague but your adopted plan doesn't have any, so there's misinformation out there and then 3rd issued addressed initially and that is the memortorium thats created by your building permit requirements along the strreet frontage of the core street. Thank you Just a little bit on the pre-Iocated streets, the plan does call for new streets throughout the corridor, certainly this city center? Scott: The plan does call for new streets throughout the corridor. Certainly, this city center needs new streets if the city is going to develope new city's blocks and the core street would be one of/hose pre-located streets. It does allow those pre-located streets located other than where there shown on the plan if you can still show you can still meet the objectives of more connectivity and circulation with cars. One of the things we have cr challenge with in the corridor is circulation for automobiles. I think that's one of the things we heard early on with the couplet and put more cross streets in and have more connections that would make things clot easier for people to move around. We have wide long stretches where you can't get from Sprague to Appleway throughout the whole corridor so that is one of the reasons and it also makes more the principal behind the pre-located streets is to make more developable blocks, manageable block sizes rather than the large suburban type blocks. That's one of the reasons why those pre-located streets are in. We have heard concerns about those pre-located streets that they are identified where they go through buildings. When we first laid out the pre-located streets we tried to avoid buildings where we could. The only way the buildings would be affected is if that street would be required to be built is if there was a redevelopment of that properly. So, that is concerning to some people so one of the things were looking at right now is changing that regulations so that was brought up earlier in This process and were going to be working on a text amendment the way that works if you have a development that is 5 acres or greater the regulations say you ore required to build a new street somewhere on that property meet the objectivity of objective to the connectivities so the council will be reviewing that as part of these tweaks initially and then we'll see there will be a full review of the whole plan in starting in November during the next year comprehensive plan amendment process. August 19,2010 City Center Community Meeting Page 2 of 6 Jack Pring: First, I want to thank the council for taking a positive stand returning the zoning to make it the way it was in 2004. We've got some issues here. The city center non-conforming permitting core streets is going through buildings and so forth. I don't understand all this. We got to make this thing pretty simple. We got to make it easy to do business. We got to make it easy for customers to do business with us. We've got a little strip mall over on Sullivan Rd and the setback the tenant that's in the mall that's doing very well. But he's also has some space with us on that strip mall and I'm happy to say were out selling that mall out completely. I'm happy for my customers and happy for my tenant. In closing how many buy/sell agreements have taken place on the zoning area we're talking about today? And why not? Thank you. Anyone else???? Kirk Owsley: Just a couple of things, I agree with most of what Dwight said earlier. This is becoming more and more restrictive. Completely 34 less uses, taking away free trade, taking away the choices of land as far as business owners. Scott, one more thing, how do we determine the degree on nonconforming use? Scott: I'm not sure of your question? Kirk: Replace with a lessor agree, lessor of nonconforming would be ok, versus... Scott: There are some criteria on the impact of the transportation system is one, noise, what we have to do is look at the Hakes code, it's a code that codes industrial and commercial uses, similar to another classification, that is something we look at. It is an administration determination which the CD director makes. We gather the evidence and the nature of the business and look at the impacts and make a determination. Kirk: One thing this fails to address we look at buildings and new setbacks and it doesn't address the impact of undeveloped ground. I think really undeveloped ground really feels a pinch in this because of the restrictions in uses that they had when they purchased it. I think there was a memo out to council from Lori in 2008 when she talked to some appraisers and bankers. She stated there indeed would be an economic impact to undeveloped ground if this goes into effect. We have less choices. The last thing I would like to say and it is a questions Scott. If this does go through a city center, is city hall required to be there? Scott: -No, there is no requirement for a city hall be there. Jim Magnuseu: I'm a part owner of University City. Regulations are way over my head and I think I need to speak on this. Perhaps the concept of when this started was a dream. The economics and the world were different. You could borrow money if you could build. People bought and sold things. What's happened and the design was by Friedman and those people out of San Francisco and it was fairy dreamy. Good goals but the world has changed. You can't borrow money. You can't sell property. You can't buy property. I think you really ought to step back from this SARP idea and make a fundamental, philisophical decision. Does the city want to go to some type of zoning where they're going to encourage growth or do they want to set something up for utopia 10, 20, 30 years down the line. I think the plan right now is sort of utopia goal oriented but it's not functional in the economy that we're here with today. 1 think you really have to look at where the city wants to go and just like Mr. Pring said, how many buy/sell agreements have happened in the past 4,5,6 years. It's impossible to sell your property. It's impossible to do anything with your property because of the uncertainty. That's going to stay August 19,2010 City Center Community Meeting Page 3 of 6 here. The economy is not going to bounce back and it's not going back to 2007 or 2006. We don't know how long its going to be here but for growth and development the vitality in the area there has to be a plan to enncourage multipal uses and uses people can finance and be successful in this area. All I have to say. Karla Kelly: Good morning, KSP Management. My husband and I both own property in Spokane Valley. We also have our property management company here at 10516 E Main Ave. I'm a new comer. I do know one thing, we've been here over 7 years and focusing on growing our business. We relocated here from another state, born and raised in Alaska, lived in CA. for 18 years. There met and married my husband, He's from Oklahoma. We're here back in the pacific northwest which is where we want to die. So the bottom Iine is we've been in a lot of places. I've lived in cities. I've lived in the country. I've commuted from the country to the city. I have a few questions, Again, I do apologize because this planning process has been going on for many years before we were ever involved here and I know a lot of hard work and good work as gone on. I have a few larger picture questions which I thought would be important to keep in mind, One of the fundamental questions I have is: does the city of Spokane Valley actually have an identity? Do you know who you want to be because if you don't know who you want to be then you're not going to know how to pattern or flavor your city center. Your city center is going to be a direct reflection of your city identity. That's going to be a huge marketing tool. It's going to be a business draw or not. It's going to be a reason for people to come or not. It's going to be useful or not useful, so that's one thing. I happen to think a city center is essential for any community that is serious about its identity and serious about its economical growth and viability, Without a city center you don't have an identity. I don't know what the identity is and I apologize if everyone else knows what it is and I don't, that's my responsibility to get caught up. I'm not sure we do know what the city of Spokane Valley is. Are we recreational destination. Are we senior services retirement community. Are we gateway to a recreational area, Idaho/Washington inland northwest. Are we commercial. Are we light industry. What are we? Are we a satellite indentity sitting next to the city of Spokane? I mean, I don't know. How many people like to do business in downtown Spokane? Ok. How many prefer to do business where you don't have parking challenges and have to do-that sort of thing? So you're city people or you're country people. I think a lot of people in Spokane Valley are country people. That's kind of why we're here but you need city services. So were in favor of the city concept but we want to make sure the city center reflects what it is. What Spokane Valley wants to be and also how we're going to do business here. I disagree a little bit with some of my colleagues. You are concerned about the economy and planning takes a really long time. When the economy is down it is a great time to plan. I've done planning professionally in a former life. This is actually an ok time to plan as long as everybody is really smart about what your goals are and what you want to do because here is what's happening when you don't plan you get a hot economy. You get a hot economy and everybody wants to spend money and you push projects through that probably weren't well thought out because everybody wants to capatalize on the hot economy so because the economy is cool right now doesn't mean we shouldn't be working really hard on something for the city of Spokane Valley, for our city center or the corridor area. There are a lot of things we need to work on and I'm not going to go into all those details. There are smarter people who can handle from parking, to streets, to traffic patterns and all those sorts of things. But here is what I do know, I've lived in a community where literally the city center shut down at night because nobody wanted to stay there after their job was done. They went home. They had kids, grocery shopping, pick up dog from the vet, or whatever. If you don't put a lot of thought into August 19,2010 City Center Comtumunity Meeting Page 4 of 6 your city center commercial business entities are going to be you have the potential to have something that shuts down at 5:00 and everybody vacates. So you have to look long and hard about how you're going to use your city center. Then, also; I don't know about anyone else but snow removal is a really big thing. We want to be really really careful. I think we forgot who we are. We forgot we don't have building structures and traffic patterns and street layouts and sidewalks that you can see in CA, AZ or FL. We have to deal with 10 feet of snow. So this is something. I want to ask a question for the City Planners which I know have an incredibly challenging job. We have an opportunity to look at some of the other models. As you said, we are patterning our plan which looks wonderful after some other development. My question to the city is to the planners? Are they working? Since we have an opportunity to look at models, can we go back and see ones that have been built by other cities and see if there actually working and what their problems are? Does the city shut down at night and just have lots of places for panhandlers to stay overnight? That's one thing we want to consider. We want to be a little careful we're not playing God. Does everybody really know what everybody really wants? We have to make some decisions. You can't have a plan without some decisions but it you don't have an identity, you don't really know what we want for our city center. I think we need one. We need one or city of Spokane Valley is not going to be taken seriously. You're not going to be your economically vial entity that I think everybody wants to be. That's good for business for everybody. Looking at other successes and basically making sure that what we do put together makes good sense. There are restrictions in zoning in places. There lots of really practical reasons for that. I don't think anybody wants uncontrolled growth. I'm not a big fan of controlling anything. It's one of the reasons why we live and work where we do and we have the freedoms we have in this country. I don't like change. I don't like change for change in general and I don't like change as I get older. I like things I know about. I like things familiar but sometimes change is good but it has to be with an identity and a purpose. So, I'm interested in participating more certainly as a business owner in this community, but also we own a number of single family residentials and my family lives here. I want to know what this is going to look like in 10 years. I want to know where they're going to park. I want to know whose going to be visiting our city center. How can you have a city center if you don't have city services? I think city hall should be in the city center. I mean things like that, If you just create a lot of boutiques retail places, I'm going to tell you right now, boutique retail places struggle in any economy. I lived in cities where it has, so I'm not going to take to much more time. I just wanted to make the point that I really really really hope that we have an identity because without an identity, without who we want to be, it's going to be very hard to design the buildings. I know we have big columns of wood or we do have a lot of concrete and brick, what are we? I don't just want to be a cookie cutter from some city in CA, because I don't think that will work up here. Thank you. Jim Bonrresely: I have an issue with a non-conforming use cannot be replaced with the properties that are abandoned or discontinued for 24 months. My reasoning is that as a property owner of commercial rental property, given the market place the way it is, I'm seeing anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of vacancies on my property. If I have a single use property, in fact it could be vacant for a year unless if I find a tenant that's a conforming use sign, a one year or two year lease, then I'm no longer to utilize the property in the non-conformed use that was prior to the vacancies. I guess my point is I like the 24 month limitation expand to a longer time period whether its 3 years actually 5 years but whether the council will approve that I'm not sure, I know that given the market place right now, I know we have Spokane Valley has multiple August 19,2010 City Center Comm-Junky Meeting Page 5 of 6 buildings along Sprague Avenue that are vacant and in fact those buildings are losing ability if in fact, a non-confoming use before to have that use in future. That's my point. Thank you. Scott: Sept. 7 is the deadline for the comments. Again, this process will be ongoing. Look for more notices and information coming out once we get through these individual zone meetings. Next year we will start a full review of the sub area plan. There will be a lot more opportunities to speak to us and council. Thank you for coming. August 19, 2010 City Center Conuuinunity Meeting Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent fl old business RI new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading of draft ordinance amending the development code and zoning map. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.130 (1)(d), (2)(a) and (b); Section 17.80.140 Type IV applications - Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones and Section 19.30.010 Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Matter was referred to Planning Commission on October 26,2010. See October 26, 2010 Council packet for additional information. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2010, the Spokane Valley City Council passed a motion to forward an emergency comprehensive plan and zoning code amendment to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The proposal is to change the City Center (CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City Council discussed the following basis for the emergency amendment as follows; 1. In the last 12 months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011, and property taxes by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011. Funds available from the real estate excise Lax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 for 2010 and 2011. 2. Funds for significant private development are not available and significant failures of large commercial investments within the City have occurred. 3. The economic development anticipated by the Council when the Ordinance adopting the Subarea Plan was passed in June of 2009 has not occurred. 4. The restrictions on development within the City Center zone, as well as the design requirements, contemplate significant public investment involving both the purchase of property and construction of a City Hall as well as adjacent infrastructure improvements. The projected 2011 budget does not contemplate the purchase of any property within the City Center zone and funds available for the construction of City Hall are projected to be reduced by $2.2 million to fund other capital projects. 5. Because there is little likelihood that any significant investment will occur by the City, the City Center zone, as currently configured and restricted, creates significant immediate economic hardships for the property owners within that zone. Based upon these facts an RCA—First Reading of Draft Ordinance(zoning) January 18,2011 emergency exists and an immediate change to the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(b) set forth above may be appropriate. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission at a study session on November 18, 2010. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2010. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. The City Council received the Planning Commission's recommendation at their January 4, 2011 study session. Following staff's presentation and discussion, Council directed staff to proceed forward with the emergency amendment as proposed and prepare an ordinance for consideration. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.140(H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for comprehensive plan amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: 1. Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading; 2. Do not advance the ordinance to a second reading; 3. Modify the ordinance. If modification is substantial, the council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council's discretion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall—Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Draft Ordinance Amending the Development Code and Zoning Map RCA-First Reading of Draft Ordinance(zoning) January 18,2011 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TIIE SPOKANE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY THE SPOKANE VALLEY SPRAGUE APPLEWAY CORRIDOR SUBAREA PLAN; DELETING REFERENCES TO THE DESIGNATION "CITY CENTER"; AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION "CITY CENTER" TO "MIXED USE AVENUE"; AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 09-021. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, (The "City") is a noncharter Code City organized under the laws of Title 35A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to amend its development regulations pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, ( The "City Council"), pursuant to that authority, adopted Ordinance 09-021 on September 25, 2009, adopting the development regulations implementing the Spokane Valley Sprague Appleway Subarea Plan, (The "Subarea Plan"); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010, the City Council passed a motion to forward an emergency Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendment to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at a study session on November 18, 2010 and conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Findings and Recommendations and the same were presented to the City Council on January 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Ordinance amending the Zoning Code and Map and the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning Commission on January 18, 2011, for the first reading and on January 25, 2011, for the second and final reading; and WHEREAS, one of the land use designations contained within the Subarea Plan was the "City Center" designation; and WHEREAS, at the time the City Center designation was approved, the City of Spokane Valley intended to make significant investments in the City Center area through the purchase of property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, (The "Comprehensive Plan") envisioned that certain uses within the City Ordinance 11-002, Amending Zoning Map Page 1 of 5 DRAFT Center area would be restricted and limited to encourage the development of a City Center that would provide the community with, "its symbolic, social and geographic heart,"the "center of its civic and social life" and provide services such as shops, cafes, restaurants, community services and the offering of"comfortable public streets and public places;" and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan further envisioned that the new City Hall was intended to "preside over the City's main outdoor gathering space and its vista will be the iconic image that stands for Spokane Valley," and spur development including a new regional center including retail, office and residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Center designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of specific uses including vehicle sales, convenience stores, gas stations and thrift stores; and WHEREAS, the Mixed Use Avenue designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations does allow such uses; and WHEREAS, the City Center designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations, once the development of the "core" City Center Main Street commenced, restricted retail development in areas adjacent to Main Street until specific development thresholds were met; and WHEREAS, the City Center designation in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development regulations imposed certain design restrictions and construction requirements that were unique to the City Center area; and WHEREAS, in the last sixteen months since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011; property taxes are projected to decrease by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011 and funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 in 2010 and 2011; and WHEREAS, funds for significant private development are not as available as they would have been at the time the initial ordinance was passed, and major commercial investments within the City have had financial difficulties; and WHEREAS, the City is not able and does not intend to make any significant investment in the Center area as was contemplated at the time the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations comprising the Subarea Plan was adopted. Specifically the City Council has, by motion, ended negotiations for the purchase of property on which to locate a new City Hall and adopted a 2011 budget that does not include sums for the purchase of such property, and further reduced funds available for the construction of a new City Hall by $2.2 million to fund other necessary capital projects; and WHEREAS, the property owners within the Center designation are burdened by the restriction on allowable uses outlined above, the further restrictions that would be in place if and Ordinance I 1-002,Amending Zoning Map Page 2 of 5 DRAFT when a development plan for the core was adopted, and the design restrictions and requirements unique to the city hall designation, without the City investment and infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the City Center area that currently is precluded by the current designation; and WHEREAS, a number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the adoption of the City Center designation and development regulations implementing the same; and WHEREAS, testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission has demonstrated both the economic hardships and desire to remove the current limitations as is set forth in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS, the issues and factors concerning the creation of the City Center designation has been the subject of three years of study and analysis, and public meetings and testimony, specifically as set forth in Ordinance 09-022 and in additional public hearings and meetings identified in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2006 prior to the adoption of the Subarea Plan, recognized the goal of identifying and creating a City Center for the City of Spokane Valley, and the Council wishes to continue to pursue this goal with staff, taking into consideration the existing economic situation and the City's current financial circumstances, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendations fail to take into account the specific factors set forth in the findings of fact below; and WHEREAS adoption of this amendment to the Zoning Code and Map must comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") as set forth in RCW 43.21C; and WHEREAS, the City is required to notify the Washington State Department of Commerce of its intent to adopt this amendment to the Zoning Code and Map at least 60 days prior to final adoption pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code and Map has been provided to the Department of Commerce pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on November 3, 2010. 2. The City of Spokane Valley has complied with the requirements of RCW 43.21 C and issued a Determination of Non Significance ("DNS") for the proposed amendment on November 12, 2010 in a manner consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. Ordinance 11-002, Amending Zoning Map Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 3. At the time the City Center designation was approved, the City intended to make significant investments in the City Center area through the purchase of property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall. 4. In the last sixteen months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the city's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011; property taxes are projected to decrease by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011 and funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 in 2010 and 2011. 5. Funds for significant private development are not as available as they would have been at the time the initial ordinance was passed, and major commercial investments within the City have had financial difficulties. The City Council has, by motion, ended negotiations for the purchase of property on which to locate a new City Hall and adopted a 2011 budget that does not include sums for the purchase of such property, and further reduced funds available for the construction of a City Hall by$2.2 million to fund other necessary capital projects. 6. The City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the City Center area that currently is precluded by the current designation. 7. Public testimony has favored and opposed the change. Specific comments at the City Council meeting of October 26, 2010 supporting the amendment include comments that businesses were struggling, vacancies rates were high, and that the property owner of property where City Center was planned to be located supports removal of the current restrictions; further testimony at the Planning Commission meeting on December 9, 2010 supporting the amendment indicated that council has, since taking office in January of 2010 reviewed the Subarea Plan in detail, reviewing each zone, and has heard testimony concerning the impacts of the current regulations on development and how the current economy is affecting the properties within this designation, as well as the desire of property owners for additional flexibility for development within this designation as well as testimony by a property owner within the City Center designation requesting more flexibility to enable redevelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs. 8. The City of Spokane Valley has provided notice and engaged in a public process to ensure citizen participation pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 36.70A.140, providing the public an opportunity to be heard on October 26, 2010, December 9, 2010, January 18, 2011 and January 25, 2011. The notice provided and meetings identified constitute early and continuous public participation in the consideration of this proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan and map. 9. The City Council does not accept the Findings of the Planning Commission for the following reasons: 10. This amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended by Ordinance 11- 001. Ordinance 11-002, Amending Zoning Map Page 4 of 5 DRAT BASED UPON THE RECITALS AND FINDINGS OF FACT SET FORTH ABOVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code. The Spokane Valley Sprague Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan is hereby amended as is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or lack of constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of January, 2011, ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 11-002, Amending Zoning Map Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION December 9,2010 Background: The Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan) was adopted in June 2009 and became effective on October 15, 2009. City Council passed a motion on October 26, 2010 to initiate an emergency comprehensive plan amendment as follows: 1. Change the City Center (CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA); and 2. Remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan); a. Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and b. Book 2: Development Regulations; and c. Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 9, 2010. After hearing public testimony and deliberations,the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan). The Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendation are summarized below: Findings: 1. SVMC 17.80.140(H) states that the City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments,based on the following findings and factors. The Planning Commission's findings are italicized. Findings a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment; The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment was processed too quickly and without sufficient public input. There wasn't sufficient statistical information and/or survey of the community to gauge citizen support for the City Center to be removed from the SARP. The Commission believes the City Center district zone provides guidance and stability for future economic development; and that a City Center is necessary for the long term viability of Spokane Valley; and it is not in the public interest to move forward without aplan to implement one. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The City's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies that support the creation of a City Center. The proposal removes all SARI'language concerning the City Center but leaves in place language in the Comprehensive Plan that generally supports creating a City Center. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The Commission believes that a lack of vision and indecisiveness for a City Center is contributing to economic problems and the Subarea Plan and City Center zone has not been given enough time to develop and provide guidance on its function. The plan has been implemented for just over one (1)year during a time of economic difficulty for all development in the region. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and The amendment does not correct an obvious mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in.the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission has not identified a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; The proposed amendment is a non-project amendment and will not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The City Center designation is compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation and schools; There is no appreciable difference between the Mixed Use Avenue and City Center designations in terms of impacts to community facilities. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; The removal of a City Center zoning designation strikes the ability for the City of Spokane Valley to have an identifiable area with retail shopping, open space, residential and cultural, civic and quasi civic uses. Changing the zoning to Mixed Use Avenue will allow vehicle sales and other auto oriented uses to develop adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However, residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and The projected residential density would not significantly change under the Mixed Use Avenue designation. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 oF3 h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, The Commission finds the proposal would eliminate the designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan which is designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the . City of Spokane Valley. Elimination of City Center zone gives the perception there is no City, specifically the absence of the City Center gives no basis or guidance for economic development. Conclusions: The Commission concludes that the proposed amendment is not in the interest of the citizens of Spokane Valley and is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council that the proposed emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center(CCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) be denied. The Planning Commission further recommends that the proposal to remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also be denied, Findings and Conclusions reviewed and approved on this 20th day of December,2010 nhn G. Carroll, Chairman A w_EST De na Griffith, Administ i Assistant • Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Conmiission Page 3 of 3 t'roposed Emergency Amendment Zoning Eli. Broad va.C' t:13“aadmixj ,J--L°' Br.adwaj'--_I r L .I I I - --I I _ r�_, 1Br`_adty"iy_ 1.i 1 9J—i1f • , ' It-i ' J . I'oath%L ~ I I Lur#Iteranh 1[MI 1.1 Idi �i ^` iiiemcnti��y LLJ11;1 1 ] ( , 7 5 ri g I .- 1_ tdd -1-1F 1 i M'� iIE , r 1lispri,,getteld 11 - _ -•yy •lic LJkLJ11 _1i .y { A�lGki_ ' SttJoiin- I I Li ° 1 ' I�� .-r7gH---- t I Vialiney �� I tv. is III I I _ _ _ I F. I .• II , 1 1 „alley�y_a} ;altc,�y .. .Yalle}�y�y 1�10011 ti = HI �^ I _ I-i -.I 1.� VFi1- . _7 .. . r �-- _! ;�I FT1 1Nixo,,� 1 ^r; 81 1 i.ie ...., C - I, ! ,ra 2 rend i 1 e falls , i�Idu _ r -'I-- ./iii�r•011,, r I ..� IL, 11T�- i 1fi ri 1L}L�S}'CC, 1-11:�;Zr( >trk{ I 4.Riversi e _I7 ! 1 iri LI—. BAI[0111's' L!...____ -=u 4 �1 �+ a ----- -E7,'"..11' �'li�,ly `' r I 't_ Ci _ 'Q I a " . II1JI_f I 1 ^ LJ Rltsed•-I Al SpraQlie WI _ 5 rague • I L pi -1 -� - _:r -r_ - �;i X13 il 1 is 1 11 I I - rcPA-oi--7[fl r r I �— ` ii L W _ _I_.1-'PI . - ---7------ [ r _I11 I . �__ -- T3ru`— — � I - • �.. •.t•-- o € ('iI JI� CC! —111-- PI, Ill I 4- I_ -Id_.f d. _ -1 1� n aJ!' I ' :..r .� . . ,- ...L� 111 �. cn �� ,, II_ L. � tr-z - • jl___ �:L I I i; Y �,- 6th _. . — -- _ — --�*I I f T _thif I I 1 T k ��,_ I •r _ ;1'w!;'.- ilt-3 ' �! �J.7.C,.-:-� - - - - 7th_, . 1 ��tcj'r _ ll N{—i— �I1rrj Y _t..l 1 I I J +1� 1- f 1 J , . 1_ _L1 ,,,..1_11_,_ I N.,.1 i i " 4 •. f I lil "I I U l "l . �: f �� I_I�t1� 11 It IrIr - f _ .+ L - f , I.> J i -__ - 11,11- ,�! rid. t�� pi tr, t��- -]G _ r� _�.," , i 1 f75.' ''''• JCPA-01-10 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation nation from City of Spokane Valley CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change from CCT to MUA. Community Development Department BOOK H 2.0,1. APPLICABILITY i}—,Yril}�{:'YN{Nr��1i1�iCl-��Ye�—�FkwP-1#gU�14�01s6-ilk�l��j�rrl4'-�AF Ni+lt-filet i uj lisbuinr-IniwwV, ° F c46111I -eeski1.g--mare-FHxu P"./‘ Snide--tri4ae H..g.._.4 Q....r._.. ...:w_.r....i...:...F.lr;-dl ruHfur*r-k nrhltmuni rzgl4wi]HS-FrLHHeH,'J-in Book III—City Actions Page 6 of 23 2.0.3. HOW TO USE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS I, 1(:.2 , 0 .3. ll o n' Ti) t1 S L T II L' D 11 V L 1.o r'?I F.N T n If it U 1,A T 1 o A F Bout;IL:DEVELOPMENT ItEOln.ATFO.NS • 2.1. 2.r, _. _ _ :1 I Fes., '1L. IlisriiI,;r%.OYES MTV.111:x'1!LOFJII:.ti'F ` . . 1'.511k11II ,1111:IIIrE+:I l'At.1L X;IJ,',lIIll 11E1J17..11 IONS ' ,, '.I IIF U4'I,,17111iti I I 1o:fi1i....TIILNS LII!uI11..5.7I6%a 11 L'r,l'1..1'IUL�S E • 2.1. 7,1..1.ILL 11 IXY,:1 :12.X.SII. %'i' 13 IIJ„Y,1.I.,Y+I�',3 Iita.Nal a1}sy 5,.,.I ILS1n L'.Ti rrl I )141' Inc!.11.51 IY I ILr XI-E r Si,1 IL,ew {•, SIi'4711'tk f '''it 1•'S' I h o IIr,'.fen.\' • 111r.1'1.5TY.a% "S111 r—" I l 2.2.7, 2..{.9.Inn! 1 4- 1- 1 E` '1'f--•.ryJi III 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1'a t. Vol I I.ti1.TX 5,'A .,1.# 4y• -.11•%',n x1..-!14 46 11. r FS..4"}n.... '.t [,211. 2.'r.111.Fir.11.. •- 1r1.Y Tn., d:•-'.'1+-.h=.•.''..[,, 4. �'IIL Il is,“Ir.v IT Y5ub SI.TtlVA v v } •f 4,1M l 1R:d.1.lu1arl,w1l y:?.1 I. .11 :S,2,ld r:un i 74Y l .5.1.1.E1'SETH 1,K ?I5tE1..}h 5h',Y TTrL 1°.5414.5'11„11 r.-. ...„ - 11'111'.15'F Tlr k51'wm l 1:Ir41'+1.IIl,!Y 111,11'1.%HMI ] l 2.1.2. I .:1..%.R'„1.1'1 '1.2,12.FXn.V.,i,I I 4. 4, '.1:i.r.rs'l111 1 4, :YEI,11 m oa to.n1 1'n1).Y T.S,:I. 1+1,'1:11.5+11' `21%,..1,i A 1'ESTEX. I �c'Tw r�x-c r..-.::rr '.Z Y, r. , 1 rc,vrn). .. - J, f:"af,15111rtY y ,vJt•�1�.4'}�. 'r.i_L 1 2:1.11 Pa 11'.s r,. 2,1:T.Ili ILU-11h1'I --- 1 1 - 1 - - ,,,....00„:!f. .NLs,o IIFE 1121STNi1_ C:1,1151., -- IS I1 i4s., ,,.:`•E', f.,.a 2.1.1. 2.7.FXO.v I 22.16.2111111121 i ,e„1'..r 1 r ,,.1::.:. I+y ccv1'a1:T1T' I!Slat 1.r$111nr nl rb1'a 111,511 1.1 wr a 1 1 4 ` IE,11.15:.,111] ,- 1 4' f`I 2.1-5.n-SiLw%Y '1.:..#_ 5 4 I:e1114EX1 La1. .. L ArIe:i I III:11'X.51. .1,T- <.SF r_... .I,..te r' 1.-f6., „l.. Er I II15IS 1 2,1.X,fi5r111,15'!1 4'1A - IADIHL%11,1. r.s . G:!r1,1f1 , 4- 'r 0.rri,�51v. T 2.0.3. HOW TO USE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Figure 2.1 District Louie nip—relnuvre CCT And Add MUA designiriton 2.0.3. HOW TO USE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 1) The Development Regulations are divided into six sections: 2.3.Scree! and Open Space Regulations set forth minirnnin requirements for the provision, design, and configuration of new streets and publicly aceessible spaees as well as regulations governing landscaping of front, side, and rear yards and other on-site improvements to ensure that new development creates attractive and livable -Corridor environments with amenities for pedestrians. Book TIT—City Actions Page 7 of 23 2.1.1 l T—ZOPE LOCATION! CITY CENT City ctnterr • . .,'I—. I - . F� ��f ,+• ..r at:llr"'.r' I { l r cam" '° .. -• r . ' L • -I-I MF-12isln[I is II_chenrl . - -.- - • - .-e-9�- 13e3I i Lriet 5tirll:�:;.:�:;.;-„�acIi='i4 -t -Pi sl Ii4i91 -wna-lerbc:2Tn: 100 51 pedfOr4s111. 31iI"-' ec;.icd. it hi:o parr of eiiiNLlli , . .rte-sly+I7arl'l by ii pi;jl i 4eiy�w -ef Willllil-41W4il� C i Lvt Diet_:4. v4...1.:..n.....t ,.....r�;R,pp;ir i s1 CH}'CrlAIer CLUJ Slfe r l4-4 fretrllon�EH} C'e� Lily Cclt;@F-€.01.0--.Slrc'zl•-11ds filOfw lt4isP-4-111w-FW65t-Hll►Brl $e4'eloi iI se411-117--.111J-- --44f41+-- wl i:LeiIL lF2dtliidl4krMFli-INlAkI1Q - - !` a 91�+EKYr1�F--5h}�lNb'kl!-4rJdHHtl-NIi41-IYEfic ••"••'r'•r-..v..--vvi�--r.rrcrs�'�'o'"`� ••••••x1••:11 FoIAS Jrigkllbhiing its i+ g^ i I , Use 1nLrHai a ..- iI3err retail.,tid- _ • • • - - , . • •- Me-Ia'Fgest - eea.easlr.uioll nt' £'irie egrL CLllturAl use 111 the CI1}- tAli.,tlicalriflLy of City CerwleF-Gofe-STEM -Itegdatiorrs- i p"r" e.44.4111 illicit liy2.1.1 (2)Cilr Cod Z1 Calf I'r. ILeal# eFa F+krai ^4 1LilrlliOn L vislee err 4-14Ls siia;r.in rcrrzs. is an •s,im1riz cf thz iyf1;col des'elaplttollL "i oiir' .I,:r a:_..:... ti d..c -iioi> r2xes.NtnsFtirEr-Elr41(.4 14111 .HIfirrk .5411EFIWilliArliefryr Ekrs er#�Is l H-£�1 X @l�I d ae+'�l4ai 4 9legre 1 nlcl l Li`i li Coy Ccn _ lfes-51 itll!4-Ieii r.rti:,sa , !id-sti Le Forti1 4' C.1-2 Thrre parts of 11E9 City CenleFF-ore piilaInFi1}r • 1!u�:.• :#"•E I a-nlix of affit IOtI 41Eg-anel-�imisi g-C-s�l4e4re�1 .,• f:Jp u'"„nom te:;;meriraag}-E3OU1 �NiAioge 1Liglllighia Nw Use • {_'' €.-pnv ie rvt9H 1.1Iv,-vellitB 1ii0R 4144PLIMg-iIIEL1-CYFH M4116 I' alfie 1i11ae 3il�, yl1�..w., IS .I ird I'1 h i I,L-,Me4w�rk [ - ( Lu ++li.t 1.4r .:di..i 1Ln ostil sltet.1.. cal Floot ig l)11POSrt504 • 1x11 'r inn-eLiilnpI 11 a LYf t rt1e+xlopn enI ei9 is siFial-a+ lotks-plot-Feiriesex-uella€ifie slguriigtiiik elaany-parr-isulr slleeFMLU +t}' In-nFtf.r to "IIIOIl4ata�lF F i�IrieF{aw•willlill-Uw it [:a*r1�1.F1i+ir iel Ymnr- �Ie, Pre-ioeel:d Cord-Suokyx-estall}islre,1^1'1144-Pro-beak! Book IJI-City Actions Page 8 of 23 •• • - ' 1 i"' •IL- • . CEve-Sifeei-ira-the-bem.i5-kuleffor.orinw.egHle1.015.1403-1-rioitms-rda41-tel-eRti.e • ; 1 • Crly Center District •i tk-letibeNE..1n-111.111.g.wing sectiorreg.e ni4i4efierei-ifrior.0-11 -0-illie.iii-vm4-414414.4e.r44.1-epoitHEE-1eyel-peis4 . . I I I ime-iiir-ilre-eligfiel-bafori-ei-oiare-k1466.4§-rM1efu-of--Feitil-is iHuwd tn. 491*elark.-Omea-th4,41-aiifnaifi City Comer Core 13 fulb-oofisiFityELEIT :• • • • • PrC 0,-Zr CO:2 57021 • - °I-fte•L' Pre VIC1 Sand B- _ al) Pm lueeded Cere-E.neek 4--1140-4.PAHI-er the CPIEL€F-gure-5.14-1-16H .FIN PIN T,OtaiiiII-G5P0-SVIN1011044-044.11rOWn 104:14.-C4.1.5knE.ed-C-Rri.Atr?..-.1 Map la the r Ir.1L siek of-1-149-rag.e-(Ihiirtire-flociiiati.affeet igiim,14eid-nifh-t-lw-F-twe 211 (21 Pre Laeetoti Siore15-ipiap7) - - ri - in i inrinitee-c-suffs.ienHy-it-h-ilt.e-ktem. or B0014 I,-Y4011-1111re-mti. 1-.01--140..Gsoilimi.i.Levellopmesl-PfEeetefirPesigibee-3Fpferill,e Gart-&ifeetilaast-be-a44eilai-6O*-fivi-1£14, 14-MiRiumf4ty.-Ced1.1. COTS The-wri4R.H.R.HH-GiiK-eiNclr CON*1141:11-1.1.a.liki1i1i411.11444.14.04.R.O.h. Ilse Ire locaied Core Streei 1.5-1441-1-0.u.p.v4IFeWilnied.1.9-4:40,41'en.104-4.ekt.1-141-Fu4'naiik.anti .10L.)wrceni Orwitlase-e.ova9fA-efl-tfill. 145-0-f-the-mmel-tifillavy-a-gaii-4-Liia-faiditage along 11w 1s ItiCaled.Core Err pithl:c open woo.? Cler*Sire.el..Davelepffea--T-empeifil544.€5.:PiEFivi5. 4) Car fC.:1 Fktjii felifittifliK-bii1111-119;1-44411004141-1.1. EN ample of City Center Core Development Sallsfyin A-F-FE14-a-4:1-aril-fiitirling-gite-ga4 .7'i I 111111 City Center Core Polities iRSP)e5014slilig-amiLy-crith-F com,,S1m#145-Ekfilfffiwtb , ' t01711. " 31111,1' - - . it) Aft-r the t3111 REP co,mting. thic. 11 1 ! 3 tJ C-11.5. -eiller Cafe Streel—i5 041 fifffiWett•M1y Ceake-Relail-is a iiiVil2.1":14Vod I I old "73:1 (1-.)'-114-,14H11)4134144-1314fle-41W-14. ,/.."111''""r"16' \ ro-o_..11 ii,k44.4c-efiisiFet4 .,„ ) P . (2) IF! - i115 Example of st City Center Core Layout eem.filmin.851y eNkethri FF61111 ohoro.cfr)03.-111.01141.4.-P40-1.0401FLie.k (a) A itigt-tho-5.8411+-erldie-ofStaffirp. tlEIHIra -a14+CE-aae-Elfee45-50NIVI-ar-EllalpFe-AVat (0-eftialitlikeiifit-Sitiel-0.441.40154)44£1. ig.)-4,1king-tite-Rsith-side of Appleysny V.H.img-01. 11-5104.3-19e41.140-C-9.1'44.14.040,7C-.44Z-efilef-14N.A211-52-FLETRiEtt.ed on. 1+14-pftifFeflieren4riri-thtter,liirs14i4:4 • I - - • - Reittiktoofo, ell-Gme-ttilmai-CLoWigamlioft-A4.1*.iiga Book Ill-City Actions Page 9 of 23 CI.sM_ 4...li bo ges ,.J .. ..,..:14e Em I}.2i r t.k}i .....I O..rn E..,.._ Ite;t4M111rl5: 33.-1414501i r a..Ci_.i.. .:a: i.rya iu ....; �xi I)--As 61armik-in-Denier: Pre-Loi Ht I side of this p&p.a now-g+c i (611021 E)MIifl-11r-milli-eoima if like Pra Eurgitd Curt SI c -rww€aeilrt+es r -t+hai jig Faz1Io14.4 t 4 nw:. ..._4.........r . I ,hash the figure- -4( 444-1 4 1 re S F t avli raged-4N-IF+Heaiivf-r-RiwislaNt wetli Ihe-IHI.?1 -Of 511 il_Camiliimiih'DeV,114thr i,z°-.-`'o4 •i;t. J i I�______ I1 .J t. L .J L JL—J-J t x•e3 L ter.,. �.��. I t I L.. inple of Core Streets Example o .' .e Development Layout Streets Layout - .;}- pept nl-F41-Aiog n nJ-FirTotA..r-_...._. r,._.t_,,....m T+;e-rall ftip+g-941-a-atuilm-lo s--aptAW 4a+w4l0•Fin nk 4k1ong Sp•rugui A,t. Pre-k Ied prlg2)-Hi .Q1Isar61ire? i} Co:a Street!)nekkpmoii-44111.0-414Leil +r that-filer 1 F i i -1 tkliip-tk1" lac ro4lowl•irg-skfiLi r,-c-oli thiffs149N i19ikN7Yil4#iwii+nHx-Frwkke Evd,ate.-c-414"."=UyReek4E€I trt.)-SpRii•of.A. ;50°4 Iiiinimiw-Irarwkrg tak,rrugrr 44 rtI.Z 8A7'a-HliuImurn r_....t _t.. -a- (4) r alarm gi II5 ri......glE-E2.rti.....a +ka'AVW410111ilitalurl-Aii (4-}-4 fiGee-i',iI:II. Tuts Burvi.Ea-iii Is Core Street a.+eAipaIN1it-iIii-Fkivi*+ 01k' t114ewi ree-s Ilh#OlRlrrn'3uri""""�'i1""r1:rFixHH19-{9nMg�-E9�r2Po12-cii $��ilbnftndi1k =---- {hj- Ft 60 '.Hh11i4Hiii.it l eplegc covemae (44.4) Book III-City Actions Page 10 of 23 2.1.1 City Center Di:atriel Zone Development Regulations Matrix- Remove L1.1.CI Cen14I+DI ,t Zane ..�..�..�� - +`..�.ra ••-■ .tea, ..,r, ∎..`a sscaa—tea _ •. ur�ar r_ aea _ ZOCE _ Iw -r_�r was ra a -� Y • a®te ._ -rF= y ■..rra® r saris .rr.t-ra @GEM .... ...:d �...... aa� 7. [7:7:72.:.":4 1111° imMag lima..._ ri s+sra�ae rte:. 4 ': i .. ' aQa 2.2.1. BUILDING ORIENTATION • 2 ('Front:Street"and"Side Street"Classifications: Some regulations throughout Book II refer to"Front Streets'and"Side Streets." For the purposed of this Specific Plan,these terms are defined as follows: i) Front Streets shall include Sprague Avenue,Appleway Boulevard,Cl..'gee°_Core 24.-- II Cl t)'ernIeFfr4 e� ii) On corner properties along Sprague Avenue m Appleway Boulevard, Sprague Avenue or Appleway Boulevard shall be Front Streets,and all cross streets shall be Side Streets. e-e sli' EJ'•tl*711-i1Ht14`+--IFriH--t�ho-IHSlt]lis'64Ftil�i'+}ilYly OFF-IIIJ .il}��o-011L+ir4Flia'#t•RtaljiF&�rIJ l'Irv"iiii1-m-Ii-iPt1.C14S 40111-$}4Fdgtli-AisaVH 1318-tEIF(=Or13-r1. o'anrr r.��ra6:r,.e P0114 $firms Book I[I—City Actions Page 11 of 23 2.2.2. BUILDING USE 1) Retail l-ff .. - .. "' @FPFIPC.l €, e1JiI 2IFIans�--cr_Hi!'S 7FHk[3F i.fctore- .....1 g ...1 ...,..,i.....a:..a +..HR` Brtlll2-61k1�$IIIMIIbluf iNei! R:1ril•reu a+I those n l special l4IF.i _ (2) ReNHI mass.evietkicrJHC1-ali g44-lolli.irlu& (a)- ,raHl"drum-Joel dingy-he461-1 ing and-ritailer-sfeeialiy-foe&-oliocokrag44§4 gel - , -• • ; • - ; r#+dn i+y7.-40 g]w.,, l. . T' % p�' R;�wp-ertgt4sjry'Ijinr Spfeirlik}`fee4, {Pi) Srrr in�4} aAk+zlilineliHg�Ilellawlxg;Fardimtl _.. ....I_.a r_ I_: Q roirlle5ienlimw,—g nipkii-t" ._ •'-....°'...#wend desisn c'utcs (including tile, 1 ft x �H xrlii-to cliff s +aialtg' -.-• , '-' __• • _ • • •• _ - • g u e 41-4 1F i 4, ! '1 • ._ •- ' • , - • -• &N llukisrkuEdc=s:an' . . ' E}-#+iH1iE a,•[•�--••a;_ ,_ ii:1ii !t$FH$�3`iF1h1}l�fii$I1��',-6�#Ylik1Y�' ' i'rY�'�M1v vb'rP'7�F°rrr'4 geFeds; hic)'eaa--sue_•.ostldaar Spans--13-11[141 x,14- pl i t x.44+2 " ', .eiig} $ehi1I{tIh!.W iHl}'ietis'IH ISEiwt iI" 01HiFeEH-Fr(ofe`a ( 'i'S(ill�liib lisinbQ4flime m .. l...nig i 1...r I1....:.....+r He betel a etirto l; vuktonaininmt-p ri tied i2u1 s ilrti ti ity is t.10e;Nitiie-€e•st s:rsies (e) Chairs and tub ns fol eheul-di-54ay-eud-sales-(+e -ha4-deg ICI- Fes!-(+e-in-side+4aWt-araea.}-k+ievidrd-dwL ({ 'I521iS- ri7FIQlils-a-H4I4Ii s�_ 1441161 ii v Ieal--a4 E!-iH I 1 l....,._�,�I-.......I-,eti5.k„-1 141'n 111-0(# C-biki ktii erar ll%ee-defir-fmd-Nl}IIroad,444I-1441-4iag { H62sr.I,.ra:ti;I IIiIgg-'.IH!-1 1a lowit 0-4,4evirrlieaiff-6 flr fl.x ne antiorimI'tiwy-s•lt-f-boWflingv-F)ii WCg-°e glen 51441 .. .:ijL .A.....,.. I...II., m;11t ciF llz se-winf oolrnllea-n,v°"44/4 1-6Hina:Fr.._. eeR-Txk-usr ($)--Niusi$-yrFints,ilk it-e/.11r billiar _efli1.r..,,. o $eF4fllg- (5) Art galleFi2.s-air `J tpft1Iem • (6)-14144114•04• 9•1inmt. (6) Business services bvsinesse5 1JFRt r rnte,}a Dignifle,sift-FIFFIOuni-oF-Eeet-iii Fefi--xs - ipb•ate-IIiFi`vf,n �.....1..:..4 nL.....� pk59aki Book III-City Actions Page 12 of 23 {')) I'arsoi 1 Fetfi-Heirlar neiObeft-Reti-F511- l 'ii`-.4 ildi+ft4l ie-f9H$'rti`ng-frod-si i'811411k8!e-gbPQJrlFil'il-eg'..."srm9L-1�rwn'"--r""s''riiail-SHIftti ir1Mi d+1Wky-tF AFFt -51M}H5,Hiwtr- yAih •1`BMhllg-of-erctiitliiiona4k45.e-Pepork- !1i Iy.... i...1 ni..I - �.. p.oNLi-d i..:....ef+1 .....1 o-rrr� :r1105, rRL' HL� l'_I.l I 1 Im�prurruHi�IR""rrriaarn , giskob...._..i5 ..:.16.. ei.r 10512S12l:4idi-cl!'2If ilueiIIlry 10 food-sepriee ( ) r_....,cr r.._r- e.r and nlh:v sea5enal s es. (3}�A11w�61R1WhF=Ir1Fd--'F�lFitpdEi#,k�irxr•••4 r.Iiti.1 y--haK--L innuipiiky•-1 ovlty,nkuF14 P3 irceh oli Nsigkee4641KreWIId-E4kuntiie iIlliIIhein04IIunf'I,o-i• +�F�--�;�apeleJ!C�+raffFfnlF.� (I) 11in1 iI of Fill k}Fos is 14 F1 from Floor Co cc Hinz Ti ( ] Prish#-4FJ't #fieau rwiiitleis-s- a idlkowerl.rwileffniMiliso-H5ifd-Hi3'1 erhr1HNjirek-1-HROYA (1J $aiI 13o!Lds oiti4T5 M--fi-51111k48F15 2.2.5. Public Frontage Improvements 2) Sprague Avenue ii) {'Ely iktor-E Grit.om-ses T•aie14Hr2-C{x.-Lti Hit-lick;-u€ 1e4�rrlkl;-44'+11-s=i�rdts}iDI� ,?iiln:lkcl}`ku EI49-eoccs':°•.^.. ,k sldrti+,ill4: { pi 5reir +il b4}4ie fraIEl;e sI1 Il-41K--r; E;4"•Felopers IL'. nd Psiral-r Fr-onkag 4 rt-v—Fe—� inieiri s tihaI I EL bukk kn II]. 1r co744...-..1 't'3}}r LLI F fof_LLL \r:LIH3E c-EF4'4f. IYIiY$441IkW145-P.5 .i f;1131111-P-ret3 { r Villa-fflwa-c4ffir- 'FIi•t*,i•I4:tcaN9- roaha-Puknre4ac ofaidka•x�ilk-rill-k Jmiad irtomimnkel}F.-1A F221-9e14411-0�khC�b�i4siuv-r Ii�k-OF-s�r9y- (I) Prior 1v SI^_•_=5fap.—;._pFeP.�I::i: :LIU.rL rieFNS-sk:+11—ba--rc HH. - - . 1••''' f-:;bi+ife 17HCI:of rllzx'illi,)I1 }ii*FIFiE-14.0, .�nw}.. i....nl....atiu' .f.o �:..a ��"-�'� ^ -^"'Irr,�rA.--::Rrrr��NWrC fP1Nxg' '..'_.---rrafil-fH-bO-1+.41-r+9 riISi kwon-fA+'n '',"r•",•`T`,;ikro/ hroo-iyN+rn'+Jr+rNfriRSITY#3e J+NrNf- .4.-16+W{+'M+ owe r - eoa Erectei. Book 111-City Actions Page 13 of 23 Remove figure 2.2.5 2)rt)ii) City Center North Properties Remove figure 2.2.5 2)n)ii) City Center South Properties 2,3.1. STREET STANDARDS 6) Street Types New streets within the Plan Area are also recommended to incorporate bike routes that enhance the Comprehensive Plnn's Bike/Pedestrian System. Appropriate pavement markines and signnge shall be installed where appropriate..I11aie.t,ImuIII;gnu Igo-biey" ahint'RraNihr-apksapfiallMp led- 14-City I.t.oka, I tj..tl id/-oI IL' L,. (--1.rxbfretI I) P'Jrpci e: 17f i-eam--i+n-L4n r Hiiiriit SkHFRk}-e—r-134—rolIETpi q—ElliFl rlF#IlII-Pig-111414g-I1etiVe_et..il atI.... ....,J ... iHine+1' r 51-e _id:e.iII.__kei4 de itsfki ie1451-R r a-a i1ite r$Hk - ..i1I..r ..e.. gi..mow i iH'img io{'klI1....r r.i-:.vA_ r...a....r.t anti li......r r... 16111.111.17(111614.4 (7} taeli block shall Inure-e-1iwght-5.peeie3ef4erte rerrdLntaH-deekluoi s-Crean Kith-Fenixikriun rpee-kto ^v;eei—oo eRtdh-ki i-sI9auId- a-Iftatei-i-yrf c2- fF IaS ihfkl-r ia-Illurs4HniminWdrrlbIlw 4xie#of o+Itlil ar y-lta-listed-iw-irtlw c14.-wuafial:nefar-king-fam.. (fr� Trees iik kHYff!nir-,..-rr-narr H' r .., _r . .4..H fovJi 93--P440sh;;,n-5F0le wrrkva E+e•rl-Iiglhling-in-sitiewilll:-vriilr ,rl irrium-s kele:rr¢of-B4-r-M-anr k iAaw-l•-Lghi prkr-6'iookil.l lia-I6.e, s44-I-hl-fM41 .fiuislu;kgRily, (1) 1'I13 hy-dfaHli-s1IRI:LT IackVed till i'.ith vt es Of E110.....LEert 1n{1 Instail{-1-R--sime tit Book I.II-City Actions Page 14 of 23 2.4.2. PARKING STANDARDS 2.4.2 PARKING PROVISIONS l'e tl{ICdlaxuswm;inimum Fnril ul h hared Parkin 1.,a I i..;1.t I ,: ( �i-,•,�:1f, I;trkli.Rlrovlded RNlsIucnaont svl3w�ace Psrida 1t€qulrrnl&I( Hew; v.I iF i i i .:- 1-Retail(except for corner store) —441.1-EYI}�ti iwreM ft.,.1-:..• ..• H• :-:_ti_:. = I on-site,or on- 3 space/1,000 sf or in• street spaces b)In Neighborhood Center lieu fee 4 space/1,000 sf Required within 200 ft on-site,or on- street spaces c)in other District Zones 3 space/1,000 sf 5 space/1,000 sf Not Required within 500 ft 2-Corner Store Retail on-site,or on- Fterp t4r'ed-e.u4-it street spaces 3 space11,000 sf 4 space/I,000 sf (isti "H r within 200 ft 3-Eating and Drinking Establishment _ 5111'.C c#.1Ra[! -- - aClue!000' t N si Lf 1°-_ r!kl:i.-A y.-111 1-1, L.:1 I. on-site,or on street spaces b)in Neighborhood Center 6 spacc/1,000 sf 10 space/1,000 sf Required within 200 ft c)In other District Zones 12 space/1,000 sf N/A Not Required on-site 4)Entertainment&Recreation +s °mod irsgiec.rk 0 sr 10-5:a - 443...E I x-iP14100Q-11 b)in Gateway Corn mercial Center 12 space/1,000 sf N/A Required on-site 5)Vehicle Sales a;Services 3 space/1,000 sf (for showroom) 5 space/1,000 sf Not Required on-site 6)Civic,Quasi-Civic&Cultural on-site,or on- a) In City Center & street spaces ,Neighborhood Center 3 s.acel1,000 sf 4 space/1,000 sf Re,uired within 500 ft Book III—City Actions Page 15 of 23 .4:1# R IQY$ • 1"rrnitl re11 II{NMI ltrd laz4nstu1r M.11111E110 aI rkl leg LIRC Jdu� 11�rai.rriFar 055 Calttorin Ite:inl�rwrul >'n 0414Faaridrti eal ttcc�uL•at l vaurftct E nrklug PnrFFUSg on-site,or on- sheet spaces b)in other District Zones 4 space/1,000 sf N/A Not Required within 500 ft 7)Office on-site,or on- a)in 1.457 1=1rl..r•&Neighborhood street spaces Center 2.5 space/1,000 sf 3.5 space/1,000 sf Required within 200 ft on-site,or on street spaces b)in other District Zones 2.5 space/1,000 sf 4 space/1,000 sr Not Required within 500 ft 8)Lodging _. on-site,or on- a)in r iw entrr-ScNelghborhood street spaces Center 1 space/guest room 1 space/guest room Required within 200 ft b)in oilier District Zones 1 space/guest room 1.5 space/guest room Not Required on-site 9)Live-Work _ on-site,or On- ]space/unit+0 1.5 space/unit+1 street spaces space/employee space/employee Not Required within 200 ft 10)Residential 1 space/studio 1 spacehmit 1 spaceflbr unit l.5 spaceflbr unit 1 space/2br,'unit 2.5 space!2br+unit 2 guest space/10 DU 4 guest space/10 DU Not Required on-site On-street parking within the indicated distance may be counted toward minimum parking requirement with the approval of the Community Development Director/Designee 2.5. 4. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS 1) Facade c) Windows ii) Guidelines (1) Form: (ii) In the l r+drr- id-i-n Neighborhood Centers,a vertical proportion of window panes or window openings(3:2 to 2:I height:width ratio)should typically be used. Openings may be composed of a series of vertically proportioned panes or frames. Book 111--City Actions Page 16 of 23 3) Color ii) Guidelines (- - -Di4.141 t: air• (n) LTti C'rxrer: rre 14i4 mad re re covigionf r'.,f {%., r4ym..--r4 llay- n ielir ln "jrerel. I ICS,:Inelltel i4netihw+r-. lexe#4144-eolord-{91 nhrj,-ret4 r_WWlr +sre4�rs� �efr! Hr 1:..1..c- 4reirio),-r Fil- swrvni--rlr.J...r'rir...eo EF-Weria-& #rr keolrNrt-IO i4#eFir eri erydc l.•sir 2.6.1. GENERAL SIGNAGE REGULATIONS 2) Standards 1) Animated signs are permitted as follows: a. In the Gateway Commercial Center and Gateway Commercial Avenue Zones. b. Anywhere along Sprague Avenue EXCEPT in C!tt alter-DIsfri444r►la 1. Ili iliki"NHIt iii er# one. 2) Billboards shall be regulated by Section 22.110.130 SVMC, - fir=! r'1L11_.:.: •• • • •• C Inserted:. j :r!un -Further, in all other zones within the Subarea Plan billboards may be constructed only on Sprague Avenue. 1;1 Wire Z.1 UIIstrici Zaue MAI)—reiilo 'e CCT uud glad IVIUA Ilesigilatim 2.6.2 Sign Type Regulations 5) Monwnenr Signs iv) Monument Signs shall not exceed a maximum height of seven(7)feet above grade.v) The maximum area of a Monument Sign for permitted District Zones shall be as follows: I) C1ty CenieF--Na+wl;gE.-Sat 32 sgru re-trer Book III-City Actions Page 17 of 23 suo!13V,C1D-IIIxoog -d m CD 0 h U) FIG.2.6. SIGNAGE REGULATIONS CHART .6 SIGNAGEREGULATIO S — `- --,- r. • 2.1.1 City Center A 2.1.2 Neighborhood Center 21.3 Mixed-Use Avenue 21.4 Community Boulevard 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Centers 2.1 District Zones Streets Non-Core 1,-Grand Projecting Sign ;er:7.ed permitted — — — permitted permitted 2-Marquee Signs ._-'::evt red permitted permitted — — 3-Wall Sign perm d, , :red permitted permitted permitted pemitted permitted 4-Roof Sign gam"„ rued permitted permitted --- permitted permuted 5-Monument Sign - ed permitted perrrdtted permitted permitted permitted 6-Freestanding Sign — — -- permitted — permitted permitted 7-Blade Sign punted permitted permitted permitted restricted permuted permitted 8-Prolecd rig Sign permitted permitted permitted permitted restricted permitted permitted 9-Awning Face Sign permitted ' permitted permitted pentted restricted permitted permitted 10.Awning Valance Sign permitted ji permitted permitted •- ..ed resbided permitted permitted 11-Awing tide Sign •- died, Alk permuted $� permitted permitted restricted permitted penritted 12-Above Awning Sign _Pertniled r'ermited , mated permitted restricted permuted permitted 13-Under AmrmingSign perry 3drmitted permitted permitted restricted permitted permitted 14-Crop FaselaSi.n penny:-. muted permitted permitted restricted permitted permitted 15-Above Canopy Sign •- .t:• - riled permitted pemrmitt d restricted panted permitted 16-Under Canopy Sign of -. lid permitted permitted restricted permitted permitted 17-Recessed Bitty Sign ! it p. - ed •remitted patrctted restricted permitted permitted 18-Window Sign tied pear • ,tted .- r ed restricted permitted permuted 11-Time and Temperature Sign .died panel: . "ed permitted — permuted permitted 20-Building Identification Canopy Fascia Sign ermmdted ,•- Ir permitted ed permitted permitted permitted 21•Bttitding Identification WaJISign pemmtted permitted k permitted permitted damned .emitted permitted 22.Building Identification WindowSign 7 permitted permitted `, permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted 23-Temporary Signs See SV dC Chapter 22.110 for temporary sign regalaticns for au district zones Legend: —:Not Permitted Permitted:These signs are clewed.by right.as indceted. Restricted:Signs are restricted to corner stores oily. Book III Prrnrnble The revitalization of the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard Conidors mid#Fre-derel t}l-ef Ilse.Ireit+ -tt}•Fktrtler-will be a program of actions and investments. Given the substantial length of the corridor and the multiplieity of needs represented,this program will need to be implemented in phases over an extended period of time in aecordanee with the availability of City resources.The prioritization of City Actions will be guided by the goals and strategies outlined in Book I of this Subarea Plan. Complementing the regulatory controls contained in Book II,the strategie investment of limited publie resources planned in this chapter are intended to accelerate the revitalization process and add to the appeal_and success of the corridor as the central spine of the Spokane Valley community. City Actions will be guided by the community intent described in Book I.As opportunities arise that were not known at the time of this Plan's adoption,the City may consider alternative investment strategies and projects to more effectively realize the community vision for the Sprague and Appleway Corridors. 3.1. THE CITY CENTER -I4 rdjnc ;tiµ, AlalaletKty Corridors Stdia.me.. r`r P lair-kletni iiie-5-ih riui l}-eFakxr,C43 i eat-ie++--a-€ - gue and LFniu rill) a5 the--Fonnicc it* toter-foe-Spaktiie Ynlley, The Center will h the effon-wrii ii-y=a-t+wtw-reef,►- ith-alrtr}s. t4r ttairtit3 I,-El_ - . -- r , .•--- -• . eonteil*rH++tg-t,.....ev, u_ban e....:_o.. :di5-gerthefi-Hrpoee T _ ..r. iIl r-,_tti . , - • ,• .- . . • • • • , witl rent►rre+f-Frail-eoxkuunity,TPAlielprich- -it +4te +akt-itttemf-to-ltilny llie-pa*i l el t xopeFty-otivllt:r a104#1e;-Ci4Hv+t4-laeslc 1r• i enEeppa t>-frelrobilit}-4rF-inSt rHing.th4 type if tlrve]apari:nt i1itis eliv9ierked-by-il14-SoY. tart Plan°"•'' ailed by'1Fteeoinnn hy- l.ttr+ng tleveFal}nlrut-4Ilusiultarea-Ixlwr,-the-f�1tx's cansldtat t-dewlutrrrd-e-aeln=al+ttlel-,rx w,l-ff pl al-art+; the lira 1+1saiarof-1414-rit entst. 11tr-Lily-will eollsider the following list of strategics and iooial+l-its -1-3-ikii i if.) norm t,aiItiex-fa-twihlicinf ruw,ti.•'-,..�riitt. .vrAw melltintl Herr of-th.c'ily Cant{r,espeehtfty-1-ia-prrlilic 51111 CO 2- ERCOUHL8C pri x-derekahrr ;nvetik.r46,-unr+un+Hnily-41-the-de:;0;;ofth Cit-Oe:'.e;, ,4J,. . . . ••51. ..iii allow a City Center-to•InAntilt-in4i dirt iltio--ii-een'aiate4NYitlrtlre-U iiy=s-4 IorL- . I{lri{t{Ii unJ In,r.,ttr fiui,aii,z ii.tih.,iiisan gin tt,4451ais ;Illsri tiL=rt_td-urrtrl vrrlrcnrlr-Iliac-r+tll fr,—Prelrtii' F�IrAJ - ' - • - - •- • . , • '1{d its Oa City Ccutre. 4. Purchase a site-for-faturr-0t561I6l., y, Cm`p Part the efforts of the Sprstl;anz County I.ihritry I)isstiut-to-lot nt-fau^-oitm/ii€?-aaibiaio.;-a et citric anc hor in the City Center. 8--14ttlipsrtl cilium cir•io eniiEiestola ale iii Iliz City Center. Book III-City Actions Page 19 of23 3.1.1. CITY CENTER CIVIC FACILITIES it is also a plum tht L ilit e-tnek -i++rpnt1nru-1ttlwlie-ewe - rplinem, r e ;i4et+w;x-+is. g:Fetni-apeteel-eind-euldaomealin T.; 1;-t e4 oFI 4-wHIw-13th-i++tCuF-eFes.IdI3 4 hing ik CO 9r+kN - , , . . • -. Ike €+*++iawila++iea I'Iieirtg-mot ek- a ;:.;le--gtilheFthtlrl-illhFL;Ilre-0i}r- i13 A.lenefvely-engrtrr-91 t iele a-it' igrriieeees 7hie City also intends.tabs.iiehasc land and cvnsitnet-a City Hall. The Cily I Intl-wih-kelJ-estaltli9h4lte el+r deitliLy icr the unto-anti it will 1sc CItkei,eiil-aitd rt,xfartoavta fps.-Iaroltle-t++{l,+InVines5 1-PrvilkkK oanalwut g ustaatakit en"prarliees-•• ' .,. - -—. inhlike-Ci{+ neutral lieSeel}tllil IniiHdle-n-WWL1t1.40y- rii_ -,trio l-oihkik-ol]ic -0-rothc gore,a,x tt-t+arrtanye 3 .1. STAGING THE STREET NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS . .-•Inserted:I 1) Stage 1:Establish the Transportation Framework and Enable the City Center Sprague Avenue is poised to become Spokane Valley's Main Slreettxi4-1+ eat4.44s.+a.ii,-a p; ilrap.ry_sisr L Inserted:. iofthe-p e:sil-City Cei However,its present state limits it from supporting a strong aclivky tauter.Its roadway design prioritizes speed and through movement. In-ord enabLe-!fis wlty Crater-te City_will II Inserted:r reclaim Sprague Avenue to better function as an urban retail street;as this reclamation happens,Appleway — - - - Boulevard must be extended and configured to two-way traffic to complement Sprague Avenue and enhance the overall capacity of the street network. 2) Stage 2:Strengthen,;€4 ceoi-e fled Extend the Network Y"..r`_nler i - 10 enat`te[toe-=-;ate City sci.11 continue to reclaim Sprague Avenue to better function Inserted:T as an urban mall l street,as this reclanialitan happens,Appleway Boulevard must be extended and configured to iwo-way traffic to complement Sprague Avenue and enhance the overall capacity of the street network 3.3. STREETSCAPE SEGMENTS MAP I}-•#rpm: ',e+lHe--C--14 enter - - _ ••• • • ,' Yt`Ey3rtkgtle r+r4e+++lerw ill-t-einSi44-ur-roof-NH,w,gh-Innus,- n Iandseaplxl e,tttc,nee I rit+t-Fett-I1r.,, ;egtr,aferelleil mi- rag-tare-al tl,e-wants.-ti~Jo-ef ia-irtfeist-ead u p acted-aGos.s4nn+wNii-fr001-64- a kixg-alor glide-eF-thit-sa.*et la k-sitte-Eles fiai-tita et IN-eviitit 3 bock-ol iderwalik-oki tile-+leHttt-sade-u1 u s _• _.t=::_!:=tteiie ;K.cl.ur.mow--Si. w;mixi 41:4tl-tF ay-ale;,g l!: s+1141 sid c of 11k4-st+eei I.F mac,f Fe-eive+evg-i-ilrL1. i ortli-ghk curbl nit-flee. tt;ra-algal•lighting 14iN+4anna-S•44Wut -within-410-i445A-al1. W+HIhrtt-FnetiN»xtt-E131} at-44W4Nkln•c Zile—fagot-4-moo-altoold-1*-le'aalad23 35 feetet,ere-Fntlshnti su :1 lighting-and 12-1-1 1xl alsatro-fai-ish;tl.grAd.s-fils•rteatriw+l-611-i4+sk,tat AIa,.w.l...i .I...ne ......I...... - .Je..l.l..uu�. Io,,...,.J �.�,�-,tee.............e-�dotrsi' rir.the porli-tle� ]bnn-endlips-im-48514-ISee-grates aleas-t iag-e-IQ feet an eau;, Book III-Cily Actions Page 20 of 23 Ali F..t.i�;As� mll, I L.3ti4 ongalr� of t�HJ��{6)-Gael-f�El--Ia�r.Jiala llaa1e-5.4,*+ Inc. ...........J � I I,.. ..�:. - "..;n;:zc+-„=LIuLg•ntl I�r�^�,�--..err. h+N-1a le,if-aL rt with a IrL7tiiRRIr ii-.g or 120€k.t.eH-seater. LIg1H-source shell ld he lemed 23 3 l••..-r�.wi h: ed - ttidasirielrl-seole-deeotaii+a-sLr i-ligkitott•leeiked-»iLl iiiL4I40-sIdaw0+-vrilLO-441miLmno +ueFner.oF-2•! €e a 14141-#a►ilcg,--1-4141-m4H s1444I4-40-1enaWd-1- --P-Faa+-al y•1.t.i°L=fig: • • .- . m kea-esl n.R.010 ...1...:.1 oN {)l ”ILI- City.C'euter.lSri„IisLearlF uWavwng-llei rskxreesyf111-hLStegdiim-efii-iye i i erri Ier-Cliky-re 11-0 r-lueWi�tg euls4SulWHw_�t �1 alrt the[;LFI E=emNL I lip+ill-Nie+t+utiative-11~1,-€2.il} yd +xwtwil-al.+eC-1.1elj Fi+-Er'E pealge-t+,tntlscCity Cen• -. e--"•.:4--H= • • . ••-•• # f re • • T T i�-...L.. 1 I 1 I. - = I :.t+. '_ r - +'-- lL North S ide South Side Book III—City Actions Page 21 of 23 \11# 1 ..',.7- -I ; 17:. iii.1: 1 . F.. . :., fi • •Slt 1 31 I 'i I I 7H; ;.q:1 ; 11 t tip ... Core St it_ i ' :; 1. ' i i interw Trion :,,:1 r I :I.. i �:, .I : i: � _' 1 J r r o •o" Li ,,•1,0 9 � lF 1,ili;.,..... i• . ", ,1_,, 1 F.t l t Nea•[ki3kdt -Simih BIIi Itisvil 4111+Nt.ghle M. City Gale ± _ C Inserted:i The City will consider locating and building a City Gateway near the intersection of the future I-90 oft-ramp and Sprague Avenue that announces entrance into the City of Spokane Valle}`:,= lk o. moo Inserted;, 1 £ily Cr .I r. The potential location of a city gateway is shown in Fig 3.3 Streetscape §egmeitis Map. Book 111—City Actions Page 22 of 23 GLOSSARY erfAir9cdr +ii}sl{ret Out Is !inc.!wkly--I l HreN -11 sili5fics CENT. r vt reguknfir.ns. CCU Slf ek4 pmVida•adiV! 4�nFH'It '�iI�2 Sow ro aNd e�Ne�4xHw�atnl rr4iaiapl�Hlr Appendix A—Starting Point Page 23 of 23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DrvISION CITY 01' - ::� Spok - ane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE x5.Valley PLANNING COMMISSION ECPA-01-10 STAFF REPORT DATE: November 9, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: December 9, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated, site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center(CC) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MBA); remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). PROPOSAL LOCATION: The amendment area is boarded by Walnut Road to the west,Bowdish Road to the east, Main Avenue to the north and 4th Avenue to the south, APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Karen Kendall; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; (509) 720-5026 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) from Book 1: Community Intent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission approve ECPA-01- 10. STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Application Materials Exhibit 2 SEPA Determination Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 5: 2009 Aerial Map Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map Exhibit 7: Transportation Map Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-1O Page 1 of 6 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A _ Determination of Completeness: N/A Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): November 12, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: November 26, 2010 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: November 12, 2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: November 12, 2010 Date of Public Hearing: December 9, 2010 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 225 acres in size. The site is relatively flat. _ Comprehensive Plan: City Center Zoning: City Center (CCT) Existing Land Use: There area is comprised of developed and undeveloped land with one Park(Balfour Park). SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning—R-3, MF-1 and MF-2 Existing Land Uses Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential South Comprehensive Plan—Low, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning—R-3, MF-1 and MF-2 Existing Land Uses — Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential East Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Avenue, Community Boulevard and High Density Residential Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue(MUA), Community Boulevard (CB) and MF-2 Existing Land Uses—Commercial, Office and Residential West Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Avenue and Community Boulevard Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and Community Boulevard (CB) Existing Land Uses—Auto oriented uses, Conunercial, Office and Residential II, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ,SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).. The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Staff Report and Reeoinmendation to the Planning Commission for PCPA-01-10 Page 2 of 6 Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The following are responses to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The City proposes an emergency amendment due to the deterioration of the economy and the resulting decreasing sales tax and decreasing property taxes. It is likely not possible to have a large investment company to contribute to build in the City Center. The proposed amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve economic growth by expanding the land uses available for further diverse development. This proposal supports the safety, health and welfare of the community by encouraging mixed uses that foster community identity with pedestrian, bicycle and regional transportation services. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The state-wide planning goals and policies provide the basis for the City's Comprehensive Plan and guidance in the development of goals and policies. The proposed amendment will allow services to be expanded for appropriate in-fill development with the City of Spokane Valley. The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new development such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, setbacks and height. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment, c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment responds to the economic hardships of business to locate within City Center due to limited permitted uses, The crashing economy has also limited the interest in mixed use/town center developments on a national level by large scale investment companies and developers. The economic climate has lead to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 3 of 6 The proposed amendment alleviates the restrictions placed upon the area by the current zoning of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan). 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; The comprehensive plan amendment is a non project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; There is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. Balfour Park is the only designated open space within the proposed amendment area. c, The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to a Mixed Use Avenue Comprehensive Plan designation on the east and west. To the north and south High, Medium and Low Density Residential as well as Community Boulevard Comprehensive Plan designations border the area. At the time of development, standards relating to fencing, screening, and landscaping will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation and schools. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The proposal would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. This is an appropriate location to allow for infrll mixed use development that can utilize services such as alternative transportation methods (public transportation)provide an opportunity to live and work in a close proximity and the beneficial location of commercial, auto oriented retail and office uses to serve the area. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However, residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for PCPA-01-10 Page 4 of 6 The current population of 736 dwelling units is projected to increase to over 3,000 dwelling units as calculated in the City Center Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)for the Planned Action Ordinance. This projection would translate to the Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) designation. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the only mapped area designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan designation designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the City of Spokane Valley. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19 (ZONING REGULATIONS' OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL C ODE Findings: Section 19.110.020 (Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan) Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from City Center to Mixed Use Avenue and corresponding zoning map amendment from City Center(CCT) to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA). Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is contiguous to other mixed use development. ECPA-01- 10 is consistent with the intention of the Mixed Use Avenue designation. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive plan states that Mixed Use Avenue is characterized by multi-family housing mixing with commercial, office and lodging uses. Staff analysis is italicized. 1. Mixed Use Avenue is intended to transition older strip commercial development into a mix of vertical and horizontal mixed use developments. Development intended to orient to a vegetation enhanced street. 2. LUG-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states; "Transform various conunercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residences and enhance the community image and economic vitality." Staff Comment: The Mixed Use Avenue designation is consistent with the surrounding parcels. 3. LUP-3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states; "Encourage transformation of Sprague Avenue Regional/Community Commercial corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the corridor, exclusive of the City Center should be concentrated at arterial intersections and designed to integrate auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open space into retail and office development should also be encouraged." Staff Comment: The proposed area has several arterial intersections along the Sprague and Appleway corridor, The proposed amendment area is served by Balfour Park located on Balfour Street and Main Avenue across from University City Development. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-10 Page 5 of 6 D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff lias received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for ECPA-01-10 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Mixed Use Avenue and change in zoning classification to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans goals and policies. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ECPA-O1-10. Staff Report and Reconmiendation to the Planning Commission for ECPA-01-I0 Page 6 of 6 Spokane Va1�eyL COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 10-27-10 Received by: Fee: City Initiated (N/A) PLUS #: File#: ECPA-01-10 PART Il - APPLICATION INFORMATION ® Map Amendment; and ® Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Department MAILING ADDRESS: 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 CITY:Spokane Valley STATE:WA ZiP: 99206 PHONE:509-720-5334 Scott Kuhta FAX:509-921- EMAIL: skuhtac spokanevalley,orq 509-720-5026 Karen Kendall 1008 kkendall @spokanevalley.org PROPERTY OWNER: N/A STREET ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: See attached PARCEL No: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City Center PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) ZONING DESIGNATION: City Center PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): City initiated, site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center (CC)comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue(MUA);remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan)from Book 1: Community Intent,adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions,adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). REVISED 212610 Page 3 of 4 S nano p Valley' COIVIPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, Gk\ A Or ad (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses onses are ma e r thfully ado the b- if my lc owledge. i cal fl . l I0 atu.e) '" (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ( day of k70X.104-C, 20 16 NOTARY SEAL NO I ATU E -,\\\\\\\ 11,k111 � � !1��/ Notary Public in and for the S ate o Washington i_ 4$``' '`Vy Residing at: (-` �1k3-1 ,C \ U3 Pc ;f, cc\ /r0;"0 ba 9,1 i lid S 111�� My appointment expires: L( LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application, REVISED 212610 Page 4 of 4 Comprehensive Plan Application Questions: 1. The following are responses to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The City proposes an emergency amendment due to the deterioration of the economy and the resulting decreasing sales tax and decreasing property taxes. It is likely not possible to have a large investment company to contribute to build in the City Center. The proposed amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve economic growth by expanding the land uses available for further diverse development. This proposal supports the safety, health and welfare of the community by encouraging mixed uses that foster community identity next with pedestrian, bicycle and regional transportation services. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The state-wide planning goals and policies provide the basis for the City's Comprehensive Plan and guidance in the development of goals and policies. The proposed amendment will allow services to be expanded for appropriate in-fill development with the City of Spokane Valley. The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new development such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, setbacks and height. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment responds to the economic hardships of business to locate within City Center due to limited permitted uses. The crashing economy has also limited the interest in mixed use/town center developments on a national level by large scale investment companies and developers. The economic climate has lead to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment alleviates the restrictions placed upon the area by the current zoning of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SAM)). 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Page 1 of 3 The comprehensive plan amendment is a non-project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes; There is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. Balfour Park is the only designated open space within the proposed amendment area. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to a Mixed Use Avenue Comprehensive Plan designation on the east and west. To the north and south High, Medium and Low Density Residential as well as Community Boulevard Comprehensive Plan designations border the area. At the time of development, standards relating to fencing, screening, and landscaping will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation and schools. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The proposal would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. This is an appropriate location to allow for infrll mixed use development that can utilize services such as alternative transportation methods (public transportation) provide an opportunity to live and work in a close proximity and the beneficial location of commercial, auto oriented retail and office uses to serve the area. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The Mixed Use Avenue zone district allows less density when compared to the City Center zone district. However; residential and commercial projections have been fairly conservative compared to maximum allowed density. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Page 2 of 3 The current population of 736 dwelling units is projected to increase to over 3,000 dwelling units as calculated in the City Center Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the Planned Action Ordinance. This projection would translate to the Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) designation. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the only mapped area designated City Center within the City's Comprehensive Plan designation designated to serve as a social, cultural and economic focus for the City of Spokane Valley, Page 3 of 3 ' S orvot am COMMUNITY y DEVELOPMENT DE PARTMENT® alie : 1LANNhG DIVISION m V• of Non-Signific1irlee (DNS); PROPOSAL:ECPA-01-10 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated, site specific emergency comprehensive plan amendment to change the City Center.(CC) comprehensive plan and zoning designation to Mixed Use Avenue (MUA); remove all language referencing City Center in the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plait) from Book 1: Community latent, adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Book 2: Development Regulations and Book 3: City Actions, adopted by reference in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Karen Kendall; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206; (509) 720-5026 LOCATION 01?PROPOSAL: The amendment area is boarded by Walnut Road to the west, Bowdisli Road to the east, Main Avenue to the north and 4u'Avenue to the south. LEAD AGENCY: Spokane Valley The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request, DETERMINVATION: I-1 There is no comment period for this DNS. El This DNS is issued using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. n This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106; Spokane Valley,WA 99206; (509) 720-5300 DATE ISSUED: November 12,2010 SIGNATURE: A 1A.�` APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community Development 6 s..rtment within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's tIu•eshold determination, Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 17,90 (Appeals) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be Iiniited to a review of a final threshold determination. THIS DNS WAS MAILED TO: City of Liberty Lake,Community Development Spokane County,Fire District No.S City of Spokane,Planning Services Spokane County,Regional Health District Spokane County,Boundary Review Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Spokane County Division of Utilities—Info Svc Washington State Department of Ecology(Spokane) Spokane County,Clean Air Agency Washington State Department of Ecology(Olympia) Spokane County,Fire District No. I Exhibit 4: Zoning Map erroo.dway Faro d+�ayt3road5say—F d �Broad«,ay �, Broadway .131v 'dway&oad51•ay I.Broadway Bro•d`:a G ItiSenlutge� Broadwa' —�. 1 I ,� I .-1— - ,SI��ICrilfl �= I ° - T Hi-,tr ngfi lld �i - - I J;• Sltrittlgfield 3 I l� j t a�dws4y x—l- g _ �Spra:tgR Id��_ I S lrit . Flcnienfur►' u f a 1 , sSprurgttcld'P— G —� f kT — u -T E Al •i_ I r�lki I �p1 •c I ,II, J_, Alki- I Alki • t _ I_ Atk' I.__._:klki R-3 • 1� 1 �a J� .- U 7_�-- — a -I P �I t -rtr— Y } ? live �(-)]itie� _ Si .l,}lit] _,, - a' _ TT:.:i V in inky_ � 9 � f � �� - ,1 1 • , H7 r., Fi --f V'':Icv±Sav li'alie.�5a i r..y.alle.Ives_ .._ �y�ll lv! �� l?ailLay v ._- K.,„, _,3,a,! .:,.... �,..„..L ..Vancy.„av Ij vi lieyccay� { O a.. , Y Y ),_) _ Y�Y ii- L_L 1 + II11- — .�—.�_L L I II Wri: • 1 1� I �i _ 1. - .0 v. /-1 a r�- 6 Main ..}?5.ue \:; I`,— ll.11n ';:=.ir '� l 'i15s_ '; "w . plait Vlal Mai,'” I • i 0I�;iI1nItIl' 34 3fi5i,i:1',',ti5 .11� 1,:;,...-... .!1411 :''f•ll 1}....I' _.;•-• '- ...ie.. r...' c -_./.4 _ail.. or ->.~: ;I i - °5..1....::"'�� i tie'./ elite Sprague P pakE5 pttl tte r ?u' ,-p >:ue D — Sii gIc p?apt pr 1=M, roans {Contract-� •, : i:� " ii Based.Edii tion in —1= � >NRIA - ECPA-01-10 ruP ? 1 I .,-• , :,....0.".A .....e............00...r- .... ....::71....00.7.0°-.1'Se'leeff......7.0 -.0 ..'''..'°':0:1........10:.+Of,r ......"....peee"-r -.0.°Fe, ..per ....0 r ...L.;....... ifl( 1Imir � % � rx ill illin• -' '� ' - I1F' 111■■■■_.- ff-7 ill;,2 1 I_ „S +?1F l • 111111 s�lt� Stu ;— �' 1 11111 GI. -. -1, I 1 �. _ r I CII° ��H1, -- -C ry..I .I 121 I I 0111 . -- -• I I i� , 11'-•2I Ll� 6th x-Gth ',fil:--' n ' i�_91:3 I _ - wry' I I_I �, - { 7..th-t__PE Ii tI -_ i 7111 III r-67 1 I .�• l s„1i 8tl III t•, •A.t MI st t 18th c l II. stn_ h 9th a It-3 9 19th o 1 th 1t _ILEL{1E ! ,� F R° •It 91h _. ._ Li 1 =;:al r _ . 1 in. . I _MI , E 11:1111-Q, 0th 10 th a_IOl { ECPA-01-1O Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from City of Spokane Valley CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change from CCT to MUA. Community Development Department Exhibit 5: 2009 Aerial Map -,- ;zi.3-,f!i:'S '_ • .,•, s.„ ,,i.,•• _,... ..'•,-.Y. ti_ ;ji -F. . I -.S i�f _ . . �i�] Clr-tl -'-j- A11C 'L.--.�7---; . . F r fl'a7k 1 a c+ ▪1 )}� ! : :: IS 11.Ct1' j I} 'lFfl l .f r fuc N. 14'rK l 1 7 l � 7 p� �+.t J � 73J t [ r J ��f�� i�'c�i��i .� �� ,z '`�` '� � � `a� �rLuthel all �l(>�fz.�J��jk�'; r...:,,E.Iles`c i-il,xv_a„01.1.t's...[..; i_x ;. • ,-"i3ti,,-'? a •'1A;p B►o vit a 7Birrprxim, ::A_ B_i'aa Aviiv,]3f o.,r(.tivaN.-c.,_ : e .; $ ( .iy GI r :1 r 1 t . i. i ,i.: w tom" r 'i 't . . Iptec Y-{ s �3y '.,. s �1g � -' ” �Z" ;_AWMUkall ovii• ,4 � f� ▪` 11. , r -i3roadivay,J rmu x.,.�# ,;1Fr.1[ •EN�a lgtmo ' i. PA 1 Ia n r.•.�r'..' �, .�.i1, ,.'T. LjEIeinentaryier ! f'1~ n ,a - f I I p 'PA CO r_--',,,% 'S iv'TF41i2'..v. ••',r: 71�H}f�� „ 1�!.ng'Li 111:,r .11_ c am' 1 '`) /[_;II I °1 F � P �h�` f! It,r -y r l 1 �fS�X41 ' .. . yry VII Pro.l''�l ,(J i - '- s L L'wilts g l 1-n tell ,i, �� tit .t _ I4��,,,IILr ç�5 I IIri P x�� i{.;�'�f i[ MIt_ r rm�P f?..sv a �fCr'mPrl', .:1 � P 6 =1, , ` 5�'F� LFJ 4 Cyr r-i- 5ftlek1 C Al aI; c ; '11 _yE?4eli _}��.+ IIf �ll� a.�1 Cir .; A11cF Wit:. �!>�i�_..f�T St Joll , a,� ..�- �. ` , 1 Caw:C IVD�-: �~' RFL2 � i J � .1[ V a e I>`r-: �' �y{®;!��I� �i :.� .•� :_lrs�:.�� I '� LF:�'r,aa r.� �+ar�,l FIE 1 • tl y� �� '.'_:'S1r�.',.� -'�' ,�r15�:!.f�PT,C71L�a�tY_':._4. �' i '�L.•.�g�f�'f� i� i ' � �..7N -/q�1, q rt r l' t �''' k-7,i ,.0,0°1'?: f' r i ,iv,Rtiv.-0/14.;ggi CS�irs. .fir`=' ('2• •-t "' '' P9' V }r h 1 rill y1 Ii, IF'-'I; ,.i,. �6 1i , 5i ;:c.I r� P t'.7fr r r -' Ion—. • r T;�; fi. ,,1a � ;5 r.k i c+ i, �} � 141.I' r- C: �JI >{} a � [ . j 0piC i Ur,Y 7 rr �Y.f.,•-.. g `� '� { -a tv 1 .Va uY,l_v 'N:-.`-ll$1'i, ..O 11 �t,t P1.1A4 0 all via- v 43_`1!fd5��1'fd��IlU�'zlfd FkiO fL`lalv^WS�� ,ral.:syt.��Br�+.. hi:^-'��^-- •.��.�-'„� - , -:-tid'L._'_ ,.r_a_�---s_r ��. i.c�.c -:'.*..�� r. �In'al /34 �7 �[��/g4?yQ'I`�',CjfY('l 1l Fop lw ` AA ' 't€ k.,. . I i47-[[j+{yf■� . �.. .�7 1�f �� 5 1'.IGfK ill Y Y ~I { . ,, (:L' f 9L�.Ii W+}".+i 6 '''� Lai,, ] sviJ, Ij\1XUU "�� r ' •N.:.,r.6a< i� fKJ;i.r:allAef 7�� L r4 f4 ��1(It_Cl4: " I�'_ ^ vim_--ibv__.▪ ::.• r 7 we x d, �E 1 °- ; SI r.]m uliPRi >r 4w I �3gt:ii ,-�s'i _ } €f I�'�i�atai ,.?',r .5.1 1 ✓ zr y 15 e, r p ` [ _ "...M4-L4NkrgErip f ^; 91 FV rte-. y[.4 za o' €�:_'_ S X .4 p1 l r r # r. ; 'T:it} r Eo � `jilii�:• C• i'l;t Twin: 7•"PV,T,a►n tila4; 4141 :l :i4vi 11ti`, la a , aG ,J�L.r7�{LLI;IILI'�[t'tII} r.:. } � �CiLT p'dElk•;1:•.0�-., { 1" I f�y''ztf3r7'r�_ ��' r- �J-1i _ ,%I 'r! -- -1 .iC�. 7,•! °gY!_; ?�i11'.� i y F `E�'rllaA I' bl�'�+f}47+Js�Cir kL '�i1 .G �ey - •I'v,�` °C�i, i7-%�p p�1'� .� a { -'M _ . :I�LLIL�....li-.�1k 1111 � 91:' :'„,,,' 1,:. I * m� ,. Q 1 : ,31i1l a 1' IItIU{"t'}rl `r r ,•• _ ."5. F 1, a . i rare" 1 � jrk! U a ue S'1 ff u d U'6P"..I'.'^-t.?Fr ' a Ixti h�i l�' 'g U1- S'p�' 'gUr�lU.O, A1�gUr � lLt� 1s•''ai � •gj • c' '�p .'gig � 1}� gL � : �1�^ ' .:4__ _ w s. sI L:f = -C 1:_r .• --I -'▪ �'. , l t _ 1vOnt1'aCt) `ISCIi);dUCat1011 ,f� 'J { "4 '. �� u'if;F 'i1 {*' �y,,r •�a{^, �� .. ' U F g II� �,� II I ig I [ (� 1 _."k . 1177.-i.x( I 'fey{{!�.i f, 'I'� '�1,. f- .'t� ', I i ' �'" 'I•r� •'4 �`'�L .. - 2 i 1- '- jt ki j d l ::3 d'L l'' �`L�-�1 1 _ •` {_ . �gm i '�▪ a 'C } 11. 1:' : ' '1_'f r .: m _'' - Il L,;,. b,-,.`, —r; I'll 11 .' 1' �rI.a7 •- .••,.1I `; ...,• ,' ` 41, "S{+1{1 • I iv i qa -_: ail , -I iJ1tiiI . ' ECPA-01-10 =4_.�' ; i 1] i •I 1:` � +{ �io- I r'�. � +R ,1 .=y:x r .[ c" .{ lr ,(;k' .i 7r`a� _1J.' I.e ▪ �J il i• -`s1 r { i• r b' .bi po�r*i"�� s,+ C: `3 I l� � � ��' l y;g;.,,,,-17.7,..',1 •,.-. IL }R.i A 55 i, z 4 i r 4F T :g;P.:.•.'" r 7 . 1f [e{z-�WW.{; 170.-5'.. OVA P ss (111r ii.+e d[,'.r 4 Y e.,..-7N-1. 7 i-4, �j. 4.: .15 '3 '' .'t+ r` ',„.�',,iMfi4 ''' •0 .�%+''ol.t...te:i .f:. Y66.1 1`,-'r`-,r- 1 r: �{y k, 1/4.' '� p.�- �ef'. _ ,1�. -,9;;.�zx,.TM_� 1+�},1;.:'=-;. -_. ��!�� f�"� i��1.: f�l ." ILt "roll cx o _ i_►a ,� =?uLium.Yi}lihlklp ® �, �1,iu rht eB9,� .[:.1 d "�` I[j lt`SSrb. 'rr r t'iIr!�t.l .�5 ��ggJ{{Jtt��pp 1 CCul!ipr1,� °�lii� ' l w �+= G' �[] l ,i '� k / C•, _ 9C ti9},1 -1 _,I1� L '_i ,.'Y F t• 1P r 4 UNgial6:1.1e` +dr .' L'.it . '� ry1 ;."1,4�'".+ g0• • ? ;. t r 5 ih Ili 4 ;,1! £� �Erfv, .;: ti,+4.i'.:tA.s '-,1.,• ' Is lv .„-, mfg oin �: `p3 1 k± + .11 win t !►, , r, su( fth. •. _ k t� �� S fl`.177�� r r: i › I' izfi} ,� {�-j� F!L U: 1I? •1 i 1{r'k1'�,•= iwza—- ..1.1 P g.�r w �� ;'J� ti. . +�. �0 C um�1.." �z� ��'rs7�l�� r�+�� 'la�,�. � +J �� ' �]` y �� - �? ,•- �. 'T (N "ti rr �P7 t M1 I 'a l i; 4s.>r ri },, -,L,. x .„- - ■�v�.n�� I g�7t� 1r{�9 [�J ililigri� Q .w�► =� ;[�,�I��s�°'n ;v - ';r'' �.fk, •��y�+��Iw�..-p�� rc��{k��ii�;�'J:r'� (1.761,11_ !�® m '�ylil�ru_F _�'� �; _Ali.� 4��l��a`r,:[,�l(1,L�1+i_�[�]j' :sal • 2• -,..!9 �,. L `' ' ` ..1.4K-1' isi-;- - "�.L ,..4,,-ACS' f .* _.0 -D' - YF 1- SRI.+,... F +4' [14.. r� .� .,.,,�' .'S , ..•,i'•w� ......i�f iii: •6•E} 0 ,Y r .`,.,L..'EI�ILi1 G3 • 3F?+ p�'.'��L. l,,e:,. 1 j �• It, .0•°i,,,.. Y_.. 1 4ye. -:mot'-.:_ 17-..,_z. : _,-.,=...-,1,-.,.74 �qqq �., EL:, 7 �J ., i, s :.,. ''k•-• 1!E4 s .n lj IN ••! M EN ?P; 5® PYPr`.,,1i rrA r1 ,q :� � �ji1 P;1 Y:%_ `+II,If J7j� �' Y G v d."i+ ir_ ▪1 ,f ,-,x 1 F'4,1!{� a � I;j'.�-.� s,'t-'��ry;; • rgt -r-- kikinriF',89 ' 1Psel,. e4 1- 8 'f:!.. -/A"-,- 4� I'�''.- ;4.1 ,... ,,J,l' .1 _ .'r .�i CSC'1. I��J1;=- -f°�="�,;'- a� i-!►1'k4%•.,��,� -=°�f.'O r --��-'.- us3. _ �-.:�-�. -. �` -- � �-�'- }:?, 0,4 .. 0I2 �rC��•p.,f! ! [�7ap g rb I{��O iN, . Mg m - HUN-,- ' '—iv k �1 �p�I 4� �� " ar • 't PTO rF■5�•�:� 1 }/1 f, .�df'1,i11."l..,ry��►�''W':A[p��!�'�i .L �� l�'s27S 11,'.y1 C �i�r�{�'4[{ •`� .�'`gPilki og j?t] x IrgswgJ..1•E LI L} I 1. t±W .4 .'L1 -'i+fi• ti •■Jl. _ 'OF e. O d : Ifff ; , El_g�-YI �a �, -,1F._ k FF22::�[''i 3i SA:.fI. .3�'�. . tttl+l++- i ,-. r+■1.�,1F�1._ �.I_:= 1 ,mot 1(h,_ k7.,'+.-5. ..+5+(•��-i�il. 1,['11 �. l -��,'.-173;-'•:•11•--- —a--7• '''Z''Z'''''"7- (' .. Z-._ r. [Fi$- .. •∎ r;*2 Pi; 6rf116kr li 1Gr .71•i 11; f Y} lf.3 .;. V''P f l'ala/F� E Elk.rnrill IIALIPPl l y�} ialiP �g �_7! 1 !!!Dlr.'s-4'1 � I ~/ i ��q l=1yq�[�ly��5i yp 1y�lpr��y�},(��A3�ry1 y,}�"�^J !.� y�r,�� }777 �1 �^� {V self '' rr 111.x._•7 {� gF- F1119Egir atll flt la1:!1'''..*o!I�. .�r" �wTri �: t .h..;:.4 � ''. n. ..x 1 ,1:1 P7 rtP:2 .119 . _ iIf .*r _i�l { �_ F� 1- _'A{V.,7 �Y :,'1' � f �i!:'1 ` L y ' fel slty• `. El‘` 3 p�4 ��f ,� 0 'ill L'1r1kh:��`�e mitt` Qg 11y1p2 411E a(2yry_i Mme. ;-` ';ifs"e''t.,) , I-I f'`"71 YI[r��, ili'1 ITIN tt'_' !a i ! _rl_,3 ilti 1-11(tu . E 1InC �i l[•",M i. I., r ...Ji -. 1[4r ��1 g ; r' tut li t-ri':,,,,„Ati, ,+uw- t3-a w, _'_x._ , r'I ,,,....5;,: — -_i ..S! ti L� ,f_ 'n-ft . °"."71-.:_--1x4'._ .4 Ali _ M. 7` =:0,• RCPA-01-10 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department from CCT to MUA. Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map i ' _r I I ( 7 1 �\lallo n� Gethsemane I I I tlthn_ , a 3 I , III a� A 11 I 2 i .1 BrL way_ ±Broaliway� --_ Bro.dway I 10--1— oad�vay 1 Broach.ny —.__ J III� ■■ l—S rin field � Blemcnfar' I 1 1 - /NM. p g - 6 I) —Sprit gflielc I U i❑ . . . . III II �� ,5p�ingfelld ME 1 A ki i i Vianne 11111111 I _ Viaunc} � I � � l y o Olive-�� IIII IN. _ W �� ^�A — :� - III -- Nil _ i ,V-a1le7tra. I— 1 ' J_alleyx.ay • - ••Vall-.-vay 11 L '1, -a l f1��1�I1 Nixon_xan_ N. 111111111 _..0.1.1 _Mat 5 J N _ �� nlarn III .� S: DOL-Bs7'- fat' ..4.stfa. -1 a— . ,: i. a,_s .a: r 1.y.� ss ..1.,ra. -it,3-.ilil. . J , y 11 Mil ow aanoDID, ]. Ballau.. ,roil; i,�erside ! d Riverside a 17.13 rN f tU al la T�,u.11ul ■■■ NINE I '■I■ • Sprague Sprague Sprague t t¢ 1 . I Contract Based Education - 1: i 1 - ECPA-01-]0 2nd " rumor , j Apleway ■ • �Aa4- yy air 1E — — _� gip �` 3rd— ,, t . .... .-- gll Vl 1 ;11, 4th 1 I 4.111ir.' -'rrv'}a�'9' - "@i17� i''�F1111 i:7 _� `z-84�`s}rg 1'- i N2 � 3�7:�1i'i i' `- `::`k' i1.7. 3�r :.iii 111 ' 1'U _J- — imm 11 5t1, +ut w� s 1, d �.. E� -LII = 1 ■ ■I I1 tfiti II■- I .th1111 ■ 6 h 6th a 12 I .1. s 6th—,i.N . — 1111.. i 7th— 1 k 7 1)- I7th QO . N • — III 1 i 1 8th „ S.t ■ , t ' th . . III I_ - —� 0 + ■ t ;' 9th- L: i 9th— 9th I ,I o 9th -- h u 1 1.1. I - -,, O i th 1-0th - 1 Qt University IQth� 1 :Hi _L., N. Cen ter — :ii I1-tl 1 firlolla� I� t ■UIIll■1■• ■■ MI ECPA-01-10 Request, Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation , City of Spokane Valley 1 from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department from CCT to MUA. Exhibit 7: Transportation Map P1I11IUUJ1iT1I11W!1m101i' I r Getl�senrane I,uther:rn mm t_ troadus, pnanli ■■ mpg ■ g [3ra�d y 'ientay El �� II.■� !- :■ Springlield . „ - , 1M M INN wiS rin tiickd A �� 11111111• g Sri to ri7OWN ■M1 1118111,oomi Q1 mom s y 1_ 111/11/1 ff 11111.' 1 _. S[_Johit iaune _— �■ I_ _ 1- ■iIII!i1 Olive ad im air • Jillililif. vane va 111111 1d�°- • Ns N ____Im a ■ ■■s moo -" •1�' _ m i ■ 11 , 11111` al ■■ ■ !� ■■ ■■■■■ . Front ras I .f 3 a i :S;11.P.AmAItal ! Ltil p#.i`I U �7l353l� 93 •se:�; 3 .: j' ,Ya 3 a � E,4_] s_ „� lk s a.� lliiii ■ 1Z er,idP ■ Bal{t}ar r Riverside ■ j_ inl ■■ ■ C7 ■ �� ■1 FIR: DISTRIti I i_ : Ii ■■■■ U■1 ■■1 •• moll C4 Sprague a I „Thin . . 1 ' II T1:ie ! TI - L. 4 I 1 ECPA-01-10 w Ap&A,:ay--------__,, , ■ A „ taw i I a- 11.,•,m1. . 1 � liiiii•1 1111611 i ■ ■r ■r II. 1111 1111 ��, mi �� P •• 111 11_ i _ ■ v ■ 5th ■ i4 � �EN Il m��i sth I . P II. MI 1 111 = 1 r�T o 1, ■ GA, I■II■. ■6tt, 1'��Il��o g• 11110 ■■ � � 111111 � � 11�� 6t1,_ umo mil 1 I_I■1 ■■111 ■1 ii Legend •` 1111 ■ 1i1111II1�U1111� 11111U111111i me ii Current Classification ,■�� ■ ,1„ - 111 .■■■■.1111 �� II ■_ ■■��■111 11111 1 11�1� 1■�� ■�� State or Federal ■ i Principal Arterial $11.1 ��■■�11 1 —_1101111111 " 9tlr ■ Collector 1 ° Proposed Principal Arterial ■ I -00' 1r u _loth ■ m Proposed Minor Arterial o I 1Or13J HE =1:■■■■■ ■111111■■1■■ ■■■� II — d � Proposed Collector I 1 "ltth rersity Center■1� ■�_II m 11t>r mmaTd.■ ..1f■�■■if.■■.■rl—i•.■ Si ECPA-01-10 I Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation I City of Spokane Valley I from CCT to MUA; subsequent Zoning change Community Development Department from CCT to MUA. I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: West Gateway Project GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN BACKGROUND: : I contacted Bob Bruggeman, County Engineer for Spokane County and he indicated the County is willing to transfer the property at Appleway and Thierman as it is not a buildable parcel. Attached is a very rough estimate for improving the parcel. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Plan and Estimate SCITY Public Works Department poKane Capital Improvement Program Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: November 16, 2010 To: Steve Worley From: Matt Iris `k Re: Gateway Project at Appleway and Thierman (4 pages attached) I have discussed the possibility of a project to develop a 'Gateway' into the City of Spokane Valley with several local Landscape Architects. The small, vacant triangular parcel located near the corner of Thierman and Appleway appears to offer a highly traveled and very visible site for motorists entering the City from the west via both Sprague Avenue and 1-90 at the Sprague Exit. Unfortunately without further information or clarification on the project intent an accurate budget estimate is not feasible. I am encountering a vast range of pricing due to uncertainty in regards to major budget items. In an attempt to establish a starting point for discussion and before proceeding too far with this idea I focused on either a simple landscape improvement or possibly a more complex or themed approach for the site improvement. if the intention of the project is to simply improve the aesthetics of the location with landscaping a rough budget would appear to be in the realm of a $50,000. This amount would cover preparation of the site, installation of several low maintenance trees, a variety of ground cover plants to dress up the location and the associated irrigation elements required. A more complex conceptual idea discussed would involve an orchard-type grove of trees in the location to draw upon the Valley's fruit tree orchard heritage. This could include the installation of a greater number of trees, a more intricate irrigation system and potentially an entrance sign for the passing traffic. This option definitely offers a more elaborate finished product but the budget could easily exceed $120,000. The costs associated with the sign alone could range from $10,000-$30,000 depending on the particular elements, lighting, materials and size. I have attached the vicinity map of this parcel, the rough proposal cost estimates and preliminary plans for these two possibilities. Please let me know if any feedback or additional information may be available in regards to continuing to refine the preliminary design of this project. Thank You. Rough Proposal Cost Estimate Project Name: Gateway at Thierman and Appleway �` Basic Concept Sponn or kane Prepared By: MEI Valley Preparation Date: 11/01110 WSDOT UNIT OF PLANNED ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM f! STD.SPEC. WSDOT STD.U ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASURE QUANTITY PRICE ITEM PRICE 1 IRRIGATION LINE FROM WATER PURVEYOR(Approx) L.S. 1 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500 2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM L.S. 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 3 LANDSCAPING L.S. 1 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $ 28,500 Contingency(25%) $ 7,125 Inflation Adjustment Factor(4%/yr) 2 years $ 2,280 Construction Sub-Total $ 37,905 PE(15%) $ 5,686 CE(15%) $ 5,686 Right Of Way $ - TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 49,277 Orchard Concept Prepared By: MEI Preparation Date: 11/01/10 WSDOT UNIT OF PLANNED ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEMC STD.SPEC. WSDOTSTD.0 ITEM DESCRIPTION MEASURE QUANTITY PRICE ITEM PRICE 1 IRRIGATION LINE FROM WATER PURVEYOR L.S. 1 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500 2 PROJECT SIGN (Range$7,500-$25,000) EACH 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 3 EARTHWORK L.S. 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500 4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM L.S. 1 $ 16,500.00 $ 16,500 5 LANDSCAPING L.S. 1 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000 6 SITE FURNISHINGS L.F. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $ 70,000 Contingency(25%) $ 17,500 Inflation Adjustment Factor(4%/yr) 2 years $ 5,600 Construction Sub-Total $ 93,100 PE(15%) $ 13,965 CE(15%) $ 13,965 Right Of Way $ - TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 121,030 Print Map Page 1 of 2 f — t °� Y i (*Alit, uos .., s .0 _ is ` a ;x, 1 � .I'- 0 444 0,- i . ,Ls ` . ' ' 1.14-It--- --- •• i , •--;- 1 • - p ,r' _ G;I, c�te _ I r4 3 G?19 rf T 1 I .J. j r 111 r; kt; iii r - -.r. lia ji e•... 9!E - - Information shown in the PRISM application is compiled from various sources,subject to ongoing changes and is not warranted for accuracy.PRISM should serve as a starting point for your investigation or inquiry.Legal documents should be obtained from the appropriate agency before taking any action.Please contact the appropriate county division or department for additional information. 02-Nov-10 11:59 AM Parcel Information Parcel ID 35242.0103 Owner SPOKANE COUNTY DEPT OF PUB WORKS Owner 1026 W BROADWAY AVE,SPOKANE,WA,99260- Address Site Address 0 UNKNOWN ADDRESS,SPOKANE Legal Description MILLER'S PARK ADD LOTS 6 THRU 9 BLK 5 LYG S OF APPLEWAY BLVD http://sirius/mox521actionslprism Print Map.cfm?idlyr=650&inst=PRISM&x=2507013.1... 11/2/2010 1 . 110011? 11 i 1 % 8. ----. I a' I 111111 --2-- , . .0 ..., 1111111:ti 0 0-GL or &ilk si i I i 1 i i & 6 •g, I 'i@CINP '‘4 1; /AIfrO - 0-9NT-----dit--- .,0,.-# .40 .0. 0 ..,„0 F, • teuaorpro- -uen.1.11 1 3 3 CD if ii" , 5 a g f " ' ° 4' I3 ,-) ‘A. '. .... s \\ ti 1. % --6- 71 '14 ,,I.P. ff Y Di • ,...9. (.., 0.% a 1 .1; 111P\ 0,t i ..-- ,-_- ...__ ..-7._....__ ....., _1 " on R■ \ i < ii 1 11 rNA 0 'i lir 7 —IJ • • X ni rri III z I R —I Z ini I I - 0 (SI —I 14 # 2 CA r 4 J 31 1102 (i r)AVID (GRAVEL. ROAP) IF I op >»I, CITY' OF 5POKANE VALLEY . - Z-0,51E4 >>4 THEIRMAN,ST t .A.0PLENAY _,L.I.L-1WLandscape effoKANE VALLEY,IHA 44/i2 1 I■A. a NIII Services 6 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN 7018 Nook Arrow Rd.Spokape,Wa.9921/ MEISIM111.4.1 I 0.1•11111.1.I•■•■1■•■=ma ,evc 3.42.-c,.0.ea-,(c•-:0:-.•i,n•0,0,,040.0 III V'00,0,,,,00,I-.06-,, ,al.6,Fes L.re.6000 400 Isal..0 Ca-e-...,',as.-•,•-.o.-.4.,.-4,o••• •,_.[01--ect'0 0.00,-...CSSW.e:<,aosel."-tr 7.-•a•F ea-”Jr•,......1..ea,,a...-or,cnd-4,s-e•-e--a ,..:■":',::":'=:-.r...".:44'1.2.'!..7,..."':',:,..;1::4'...7,:::7,;:"-"'"',-,'-°'="-".^.4 '•""•",',+4.".,-,".7.--,-,.'•`••.•.-"t.',-,- -,.-..-,..--,---,-,-",-.".....r-.-.....r'.:."4''S-••,.."...",-..'.'N.^-F.=,,..v....A..", TQ ie.Z;\ Q g >�:`� �, ° > 11 111161"11111110 , 1 15 I mill air Ifni i ---,- 2 , . 0 ' 11 . Ilk . , i 11 +�: , (: i , . ., is a 1 1 - .} 71 r • ' t I f •, 1f } is r le I , _ , ; OficzriZINT- --~.7.12711v.7 :,. rTs.. . . F I , } NI s1 I _ - . , `/r I i s i t i _ 01 . .-„,. . i ,i4 4,45:,. ) te. . A cn 1 c k k 440; ist-4„.:, . N if , _• _ c Eit,,,, • 46.„.4, • is.--i :- 4 u 1,......, . . . c w _. . .,. • .... . , . - -• ' - :- . 4#% -T46-44.L, 7,,,, , ,..,••• - - _ ' . - '--. L, .'•= y.< . '; ,_, ti r' r N .40 4 . u p U y a m 3, a u A +F O C 1 - L V - ...lit, 11 d . i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: School Zone Flashing Beacons GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Currently there are 20 school zone flashing beacons installed at nine (9) elementary schools in the City. No flashing beacons have been installed for middle or high schools. The locations of existing flashers are shown in Table 1. Table 1: School Zone Flasher Locations School Number of flashers Street University Elem. 2 + speed boards University Broadway Elem. 2 Broadway Progress Elem. 2 + speed boards Broadway Summit School 2 McDonald South Pines Elem. 2 S. Pines Opportunity Elem. 2 Bowdish Ponderosa Elem. 2 Schafer Seth Woodard Elem. 2 Mission 2 Park Trentwood Elem. 2 Wellesley These flashers have been installed using grant funds from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) School Zone Flashing Beacon program. The grant only applies to school zones for elementary schools, and it provides funds up to $7,500 per school zone. A school zone contains two (2) flashers. The total project cost to install a pair of flashers, or one school zone, is approximately $18,405 (see Table 2). The cost to the City after the WTSC grant is $10,905. In addition to installation there are ongoing maintenance costs to deal with low battery issues, pager service disruptions, snow blocking the solar panels, damage from collisions, etc. In 2010 the City spent $6,000 on flashing beacon maintenance with Spokane County. The City also incurs costs in staff time to program the beacons twice a year, make adjustments for snow days, and coordinate the resolution of maintenance issues with the County. Table 2: Installation Cost per School Zone (Two Units) Item Description Cost Equipment (2 Units) $9,500 Extra Battery (2) —one per unit $330 3-year paging service for 2 units $175 Installation by Spokane County Signal Shop $3,400 Survey/ ROW Research/ staff time $5,000 Total Project Cost $18,405 WTSC Grant ($7,500) Total City Funds $10,905 There are 21 elementary school zones on City arterial roads that do not have flashing beacons. A list of these school zones are shown in Table 3. Those with the highest volumes, speeds, and uncontrolled crosswalks would be the next in line for installation. The City typically confers with the patrol officers and school districts to determine which locations have the greatest need. The next opportunity to receive WTSC funding is anticipated in spring 2011. The City will likely apply for funding to install flashers at two or more school zones. The City may also need to spend some funds upgrading the timeclocks in the existing flashers. Table 3: Elementary School Zones Without Flashing Beacons School Street Lanes School Street Lanes Adams 8th 2 Orchard Center Park 2 Adams 2 Progress Progress 2 Chester Pines 2 Skyview Wellesley-Flora 2 Green Acres 4th 2 S. Pines 24th 2 Long 2 Sunrise Adams 2 McDonald 16th 3 24th 2 McDonald 2 Trent SR 27 5 Ness Broadway 4 University 16th 3 If the City desired to expand the program to middle schools, the following arterial school zones should be considered. The City would have to fund 100% of the installation and maintenance costs. Table 4: Middle School Zones Without Flashing Beacons School Street Lanes Bowdish Jr High Bowdish 2 Centennial Middle Broadway 4 East Valley Jr High Progress 2 Evergreen Jr High 16th 3 Horizon Jr High Pines 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Currently no funds are budgeted for flashers. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of January 12, 2011; 2:30 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings January 25,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Jan 17] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Read Proposed Ord Amending Comp Plan Map(City Center)—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3. Second Read Proposed Ord Amending Comp Plan Zoning Map (City Center)—Karen Kendall (5 minutes) 4. First Reading Ordinance Regulating E-Cigarettes—Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 5. Admin report: Code Text Amendment,Adult Retail Uses—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Solid Waste—Neil Kersten, Deputy Mayor Schimmels (30 minutes) 7. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] February 1,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Jan 24] 1. Sidewalks - (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Feb 8,2010, Special Mtg: Retreat, 8:30 a.m.—3:30 p.m. CenterPlace,Rm 213 [due date Mon Jan 31] Tentative topics include: Economic Development Snow Removal Business Work Plans Law Enforcement Goals Budget Goals February 8,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Jan 31] Proclamations: Kiwanis Children's Cancer Cure Month; CVSD FBLA-PBL 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Regulating E-Cigarettes— Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter.(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] February 15,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. (possible no meeting) [due date Mon,Feb 7] February 16-17: City Legislative Action Conference(CLAC) Olympia, Washington February 22,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Feb 14] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter.(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow(10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Chickens in Residential Areas (CTA 01-11)— Christina Janssen (15 minutes) 4. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] February 25, 2011:Spokane Regional Council of Governments 9:30 a.m. —12:00 p.m. Spokane County Fair&Expo Center, Conference Facility in Expo Complex, 404 NHavana Draft Advance Agenda 1/14/2011 1:21:31 PM Page 1 of 3 March 1,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Feb 21] March 8,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Jan 28] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen (20 min) NLC Congressional Conf, Wash.,D.C. March 12-16 March 15, 2011,NO MEETING(Council attends NLC Conference) March 22,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 14] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen(15 min) 3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] March 28, 2011, 9 a.m. —noon;Special Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Exact meeting time TBD. Exact meeting place at City of Spokane TBD. March 29,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, March 21] April 5, 2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, March 28] April 12,2011,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) April 19,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 11] April 26,2011,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 1/14/2011 1:21:31 PM Page 2 of 3 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal Alternative Analysis (contracts) Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions) Budget 2012 (August/Sept 2011) Capital Projects Funding CDBG(Fall 2011) Centennial Trail Agreement Clean Air Agency Comp Plan Amendments 2011 — Subarea Plan, etc. (April/May) East Gateway Monument Structure # Governance Manual (resolution) Update Greenacres Park Bid Lodging Tax Funding for 2012 (Oct 2011) Milwaukee Right-of-way Outside Agencies 2012 (August 2011) Parking/Paving Options (for driveways, etc.) Permit Tracking System Railroad Quiet Zones Reimbursement Assessment Amendment Retreat, Summer 2011 Signage (I-90) Site Selector Update Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Sprague Avenue: One-way vs.two-way Street Maintenance Facility Transp Improvement Plan (6-yr,May/June 2011) WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,public education # =Awaiting action by others * =doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 1/14/2011 1:21:31 PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Response to John Tiersma public comment of 1/11/2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 19.20.060 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Mr. John Tiersma provided public comment that his residential property is within the City Center zone and he discovered that he could not get his house refinanced because it is a non-conforming use. On November 16, 2010, City Council approved Ordinance 10-023, which became effective November 24, 2010, which included the following change to the zoning code so that all residential uses are considered conforming: SVMC 19.20.060 Nonconforming uses and structures 5. Existing legally established single family residential uses located in any nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use. This is not a SARP issue. It was a regulation that was applied to any single family residential use in any commercial zone in the city. However, because of the change, this is no longer an issue in Spokane Valley. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required, Mr. Tiersma was provided written information he can provide to his bank. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The attached documents are to aid In preparation for continued discussion on the solid waste issue, in particular the solid waste summit scheduled for February 2 and 3, 2011, OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Draft Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Services 2. Utility Tax Fact Sheet (developed by the City of Spokane) 3. Briefing Book Table of Contents/Outline 4. City of Spokane Valley Specific Concerns regarding Interlocal 5. Notice of Solid Waste Summit Final Meeting February 2 and 3, 2011 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM JDRAFT OF NOVEMBER 1, 20101 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES BY THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE by and among City Airway Heights, City of Cheney, City of Deer Park, City of Fairfield, City of Latah, City of Liberty Lake, City of Medical Lake, City of Millwood, City of Rockford, City of Spangle, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, City of Waverly, and Spokane County , ,2010 Page 1 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS [To be inserted/revised later] Page 2 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES BY THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES BY THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE ("Agreement") is entered into by and among the City Airway Heights, Washington, a code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Airway Heights"), the City of Cheney, Washington, an optional municipal code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Cheney"), the City of Deer Park, Washington, a code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Deer Park"), the City of Fairfield, Washington, a town duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Fairfield"), the City of Latah, Washington, a town duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the. State of Washington ("Latah"), the City of Liberty Lake, Washington ("Liberty Lake"), the City of Medical Lake, Washington, a code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Medical Lake"), the City of Millwood, Washington, a code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Millwood"), the City of Rockford, Washington ("Rockford"), the City of Spangle, Washington, a town duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington("Spangle"), the City of Spokane, Washington, a first class charter city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Spokane"), the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ("Spokane Valley"), the City of Waverly, a town duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("Waverly") and Spokane County, Washington, a class A county duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington ("County") pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. The parties are individually referred to as "Member" and collectively as the "Members." The Members agree as follows: ARTICLE I RECITALS Section 1.1 Since 1989, Spokane and the County have operated under an Interlocal cooperation agreement for the operation of a regional Solid Waste management system, including the development and operation of the Waste to Energy Facility owned and operated by the City of Spokane. Section 1.2 The City of Liberty Lake incorporated in 2001, and the City of Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003. Section 1.3 The contracts for participation in the regional Solid Waste management system by both Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley will expire in 2011. Section 1.4 The bonds issued to finance the construction of the Waste to Energy Facility will soon be retired, and the initial 25-year term of the Interlocal agreement will expire in 2014. Page 3 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM Section 1.5 The City of Spokane and other incorporated cities in the County,together with the County, desire to enter into a successor interlocal cooperation agreement allowing for the formation of a new governance structure to manage Solid Waste throughout the County. Section 1.6 The Members have agreed that a new governance structure will enable the Members to engage in coordinated Solid Waste management, and other activities including the operation and maintenance of SWMA Facilities, in response to the current and future Spokane County SWM Plan. Section 1.7 The Members will exercise control of the new governance structure, called the "Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management Alliance" ("SWMA"), through appointment of board members by and from their Iegislative bodies, who will represent their respective local governments. Section 1.8 All prior existing interlocal agreements shall be superseded by this Agreement. Section 1.9 Spokane will continue to own the Spokane WTE Facility, the Valley Recycling Center /Transfer Station, and the North County Recycling Center / Transfer Station (as well as their associated recycling centers), and will continue to provide waste to energy disposal services to the SWMA Members. Each SWMA Member will continue to retain ownership of their Member Landfills along with any and all associated liability, responsibility, and operation. Section 1.10 Through this Agreement, the Members intend that the County shall remain responsible under RCW 70.95.080(2) for updating the Spokane County SWM Plan for the County, and that future revisions and updates of this Plan will be prepared, with the participation of the SWMA Members and an expanded Solid Waste Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of RCW 70.95.080. Section 1.11 The SWMA Members will exercise and enforce their respective County and municipal Flow Control Powers to effect the SWMA Solid Waste Services components of this Agreement and the Spokane County SWM Plan. ARTICLE II PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT Section 2.1 The Members agree that the purpose of this Agreement is to establish SWMA as the new inter-governmental structure pursuant to RCW Chapter 39.34 to engage in coordinated SWMA Solid Waste Services in response to the current and future Spokane County SWM Plans. SWMA's primary purposes in this collaborative endeavor shall be to equitably and fairly distribute power among all Members by: A) Providing freely available, timely access to information; B) Requiring and implementing transparent, forum-based decision-making; and C) Maintaining public accountability for actions and decision-making. Page 4 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 1I/1/2010 12:36 PM 2.1.2 SWMA's other primary purposes include and the Members have agreed that SWMA shall: A) Carry out the public purposes expressed in the Spokane County SWM Plan and this Agreement, as both may be amended or supplemented from time to time; B) Commit Members to support SWMA through their respective Flow Control Powers, that is, by directing all Solid Waste in their Local Collection Systems or otherwise under their regulatory control to SWMA Facilities; C) Function as a new governance structure that provides regional SWMA Solid Waste Services; D) Equitably distribute Spokane's Solid Waste disposal utility tax revenues back to the Members in the form of a revenue-sharing payment; E) Maintain an integrated, regional approach to providing SWMA Solid Waste Services; F) Upgrade the WTE Facility and other infrastructure and implement improved technologies for Recycling, environmental protection and sustainability as may become commercially and scientifically proven and economically feasible; and G) Maintain use of the WTE Facility, not only for SWMA Solid Waste Services, but as a Recycling hub and Energy Recovery source for economic development in Spokane County. Section 2.2 Each Member foregoes the opportunity to individually plan for, fund, construct, or otherwise engage in Solid Waste Handling except for their own Local Collection Systems. Section 2.3 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein: Exhibit A-- Interlocal agreements that will be superseded by this Agreement Section 2.4 DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set out below. 2.4.1 "Debt Service" means the principal of, interest on, sinking fund requirements, reserve account requirements and any coverage requirement required by a resolution authorizing the issuance of SWMA debt. Page 5 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM 2.4.2 "Disposal Site"means "Disposal Site" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(6) as "the location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposit of solid waste occurs," as the same may be amended or updated through time, 2.4.3 "Energy Recovery" means "Energy Recovery" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(7), as "a process operating under federal and state environmental laws and regulations for converting solid waste into usable energy and for reducing the volume of Solid Waste," as the same may be amended or updated through time." 2.4.4 "Flow Control Powers" means, in either the case of an incorporated City or in the case of Spokane County, those regulatory powers that enable a City or Spokane County to irrevocably covenant, obligate and bind itself to direct all Solid Waste collected in within, generated within, or otherwise within or subject to its regulatory jurisdiction or Local Collection System to SWMA Facilities for SWMA Solid Waste Services 2,4.5 "Incineration" means "Incineration" as defined by RCW 70.95,030(9) as "a process of reducing the volume of solid waste operating under federal and state environmental laws and regulations by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion," as the same may be amended or updated through time." 2.4,6 "Landfill"means "Landfill"as defined by RCW 70.95,030(12), as " a disposal facility or part of a facility at which Solid Waste is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility,"as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.7 "Local Collection System" means any municipal Solid Waste collection system(s) that is/are operated by or under contract pursuant to applicable state law with one of the SWMA Members or by a municipality that is not a SWMA Member. 2.4.8 "Member Landfills" means all Landfills within Spokane County that are not Spokane Landfills. 2.4.9 "Member Population" means that population of each Member that is determined from information maintained by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (or successor agency) as of December 31 of the calendar year before the year in which any particular vote of the Board of Directors is taken. 2.4.10 "North County Recycling Center/Transfer Station" means the recycling center and transfer station located at North 22123 Elk-Chattaroy Road, Intersection Elk-Chattaroy Road and Highway 2, Spokane County owned by the City of Spokane. 2.4.11 "Recyclable Materials"means "Recyclable materials" as defined by RCW 70.95.130(17) as "those solid wastes that are separated for recycling or reuse, such as papers, metals, and glass, that are identified as recyclable material pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan [ in this case, the Spokane County SWM Plan]", as the same may be amended or updated through time. Page 6 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM 2.4.12 "Recycling" means "Recycling" as defined by RCW 70.95.130(18) as "transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials or use other than landfill disposal or incineration," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.13 "Sewage Sludge" means "Sewage sludge" as defined by RCW 70.95.130(20) as "semisolid substance consisting of settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials, generated from a wastewater treatment system, that does not meet the requirements of chapter 70.95J RCW," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.14 "Solid Waste" means "Solid waste" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(22), as "all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof; and recyclable materials," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.15 "Solid Waste Handling" means "Solid waste handling" as defined by RCW 70.95.030 (23) as "the management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the recovery of energy resources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.16 "Source Separation" means "Source separation" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(24) as " the separation of different kinds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.17 "Spokane County SWM Plan" means the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, dated September 15, 2009, and as may be amended from time to time. 2.4.18 "Spokane Landfills" means the currently operating disposal cell at Spokane's Northside Landfill, the closed and remediated Northside Landfill subject to EPA closure, and the Southside Landfill. 2.4.19 "Spokane Series 1989 Bonds" means the two Spokane-issued, RCW 35.92 revenue bond series, Series 1989 A (in the principal amount of$74,730,000) and Series 1989 B (in the amount of$30, 520,000. 2.4.20 "SWMA" means the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Alliance and governance structure created by this Agreement. 2.4.21 "SWMA Board" or"Board of Directors" or "Board"means the board of directors created pursuant to this Agreement to manage and oversee SWMA. Page 7 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM 2.4.22 "SWMA Debt" means any notes, bonds or other obligation of the SWMA issued to finance or refinance improvements, betterments, or extensions to existing or future SWMA Facilities or any other costs related to the SWMA System. 2.4.23 "SWMA Facilities" means the North County Recycling Center/Transfer Station, the Valley Recycling Center /Transfer Station, the WTE Facility, the Spokane Landfills, and any other such future facilities as SWMA may construct or so designate. 2.4.24 "SWMA Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses" means all costs and expenses relating to and properly chargeable to the operation and maintenance of the SWMA Facilities, whether directly or by contract, including taxes chargeable to the operations of the SWMA Facilities plus administrative overhead expenses, and any other similar costs chargeable to the SWMA Facilities. 2.4.25 "SWMA Solid Waste Services" means all Solid Waste Handling services provided by SWMA, but specifically excludes Solid Waste collection services provided by Members through Local Collection Systems. 2.4.26 "SWMA System" means all SWMA Facilities that are owned, operated, or controlled by SWMA or that are used or useful in the performance of SWMA's functions excluding Local Collection Systems. 2.4.27 "SWAC" means the local solid waste advisory committee mandated under RCW 70.95.165(3), that will be involved in providing continuing advice to SWMA in addition to its advice on the development of the Spokane County SWM Plan, described in the mandating statute as follows: (1) assist in the development of programs and policies concerning Solid Waste Handling and disposal; (2) to review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption 2.4.28 "Tipping Fees" means the fees established by SWMA for use of SWMA Facilities or other solid waste transfer, disposal or recycling facilities under contract with the SWMA. 2.4.29 "Valley Recycling Center/Transfer Station" means the recycling center and transfer station owned by Spokane and located at 3941 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, Washington, 2.4.30 "Waste Reduction" means "Waste reduction" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(27) as " reducing the amount or toxicity of waste generated or reusing materials," as the same may be amended or updated through time. 2.4.31 "WTE Facility" means the Waste to Energy Facility, a Solid Waste Handling facility including, without limit, a Solid Waste disposal site, transfer station, and Recycling center, that is owned and operated by Spokane and is located at 2900 South Geiger Boulevard, Spokane, Washington, and any other facilities that may be constructed by SWMA in the future. 2.4.32 "Yard Debris" means "Yard debris" as defined by RCW 70.95.030(28) as "plant material Page 8 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM commonly created in the course of maintaining yards and gardens, and through horticulture, gardening, landscaping, or similar activities. Yard debris includes but is not limited to grass clippings, leaves, branches, brush, weeds, flowers, roots, windfall fruit, vegetable garden debris, holiday trees, and tree prunings four inches or less in diameter," as the same may be amended or updated through time. ARTICLE III SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE GOVERNANCE Section 3.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE The Members do hereby agree to create and regionally cooperate through the "Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management Alliance" ("SWMA"), which shall be operated, governed, and possessed of powers and authority as provided herein for the term of this Agreement and as authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act,RCW Chapter 39.34 et seq. Section 3.2 PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY 3.2.1 Open Deliberations and Actions. The Members intend for SWMA to conduct its deliberations and take action openly. Therefore, the SWMA Board shall operate and conduct its business subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (Ch. 42.30 RCW, as may be amended), the Public Records Act (Ch. 42.56 RCW, as may be amended), local government accountancy statutes (RCW 43.09.200 et seq., as may be amended), and other applicable laws, regulations, and self-imposed policies. 3.2.2 SWMA OMBUDSMAN A) SWMA Ombudsman. In furtherance of Section 3.2.1, the Members hereby agree to establish an ombudsman position, the "SWMA Ombudsman," to receive, review, investigate, mediate, internal and external complaints and questions regarding SWMA operational performance and/or all matters related to this Agreement. i) The SWMA Ombudsman shall be an independent, unrelated third party individual that shall be appointed as an independent contractor of the SWMA by the Board of Directors by Majority Vote. ii) The Ombudsman shall serve an initial contractual term of 5 years, renewable at the sole option of the SWMA Board of Directors to a maximum of 15 years. B) SWMA Ombudsman Duties and Responsibilities. i) The SWMA Ombudsman is charged with receiving and handling concerns and questions from the Members, SWMA staff and/or employees, SWMA Directors, the general public, and concerned citizens. ii) The SWMA Ombudsman shall oversee and actively monitor the Page 9 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM investigation of complaints of improper action or activity regarding SWMA and/or matters related to this Agreement. iii) The SWMA Ombudsman shall ensure that SWMA policies and procedures are uniformly applied within and outside of the SWMA organization. iv) The SWMA Ombudsman shall monitor Solid Waste Handling activities as they relate to this Agreement, SWMA, the Members, and the Spokane County SWM Plan. v) The SWMA Ombudsman shall review SWMA policies and procedures to coordinate and propose alignment to resolve legitimate complaints or issues, vi) The SWMA Ombudsman shall make recommendation for further action to the Board of Directors. Section 3.3 No EFFECT ON MEMBER POLICE POWERS Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit the exercise of a Member's police or regulatory powers as may be required or allowed by law. The Members confirm that the SWMA Board has no local Solid Waste collection authority within each Member's jurisdiction or within its Local Collection System. However, the SWMA Board will have a central role in developing and revising future Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and enforcing Member Flow Control Powers to effect the objectives of that Plan and the purpose of this Agreement. In addition, the SWMA Board may comment on proposed changes by Members to their Local Collection System plans where such changes could affect the amount,timing or characteristics of Solid Waste to be handled in the SWMA System. Section 3.4 No EFFECT ON LANDFILL LIABILITY Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to alter Members' ownership of operational responsibilities for, and/or liabilities associated with or related to the Member Landfills, whether now existing and identified or as of yet unknown, including, without limit, any liability for remedial action, clean-up, or closure pursuant to state, federal, or local law, including, without limit, the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D) or the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.). Section 3.5 SWMA BOARD 3.5.1 Composition. The Board of Directors for SWMA shall consist of one Director and one Alternate Director from each Member. One Director and one Alternate Director shall be appointed by and from the legislative bodies of each Member. Both the Director and the Alternate Director shall be elected officials of the Member. The Director and Alternate Director of each Member appointed to the SWMA Board shall serve at the will and discretion of the legislative body of that Member. Any Member may remove its Director or Alternate Director from the SWMA Board at any time. In the event that a Member's Director or Alternate Director Page 10 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY . 11/1/2010 12:36 PM is so removed, is no longer qualified to serve on, or otherwise departs from the SWMA Board, that Member's legislative body shall promptly appoint a new Director or Alternate Director to the SWMA Board. 3.5.2 Local government representation. It is the Members' intent that a representative on the SWMA Board will represent his or her Member local government in voting and acting as a member of the SWMA Board of Directors. The Members hereby agree that legislative oversight by their respective local governments shall not be required for any Board decisions in the management and operation of the SWMA System, except as expressly provided herein or except as required by applicable Federal, state, or local law. Board members shall represent the interests of their respective local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to act in the best interests of SWMA. Section 3.6 QUORUM AND VOTING 3.6.1 Quorum. For purposes of this Agreement, a "Quorum" shall be defined as a majority of the Board of Directors members. 3.6.2 Procedures and voting. A Member's Alternate Director shall vote in place of that Member's Director when the Director is absent or unavailable or when the Director position is vacant. The SWMA Board shall establish procedures for conducting its meetings consistent with Roberts Rules of Order or other rules deemed appropriate, which procedure shall at a minimum include, without limit, the following provisions: A) All decisions made, actions taken, and business conducted by the SWMA Board shall be pursuant to vote at a duly called meeting of the Board of Directors where a Quorum of the Board of Directors is present; and B) Each SWMA Board member shall be duly authorized, and hereby is duly authorized, to represent his/her particular Member and to act as its agent with respect to all business of, decisions by, and exercises of the powers and authority vested in the Board by this Agreement; and C) Each SWMA Board member shall also be responsible for seeing that its Member local government and community is fully informed of decisions made and actions taken by the SWMA Board. 3.6.3 Voting Categories. Each action of the SWMA Board shall be by Majority Vote or by Super Majority Vote,pursuant to this Section 3.6. 3.6.4 SWMA Decision-Making by Majority Vote. A) A "Majority Vote" shall consist of the votes of Directors (or Alternate Directors) representing greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total Member Populations. The SWMA Board shall hereby be empowered as follows by a Majority Vote: i) Establishing a Mission Statement; Page 11 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM ii) Electing a President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Board ("Executive Officers"); iii) Establishing and approving any policies, guidelines, or rules to carry out SWMA's powers and responsibilities as may be required to implement this Agreement; iv) Appointing the SWMA Ombudsman; v) Setting SWMA meeting dates and agenda topics; vi) Approving SWMA Meeting Minutes; and vii) Forming and convening committees and advisory bodies as the SWMA Board deems appropriate for Member review and comment, public input, efficient staff and SWMA Board work, and other purposes. 3.6.5 SWMA Decision-Making by Super Majority Vote. A) A "Super Majority Vote" shall consist of the votes of Directors (or Alternate Directors) representing at least sixty percent (60%) of the total Member Populations. B) The Board shall hereby be empowered as follows by a Super Majority Vote: i) Approving or amending the Spokane County SWM Plan, subject to RCW 70.95.080; ii) Setting rates for SWMA Solid Waste Services on an annual basis, including imposing, altering, regulating, and controlling Tipping Fees; iii) Reviewing and approving SWMA's Annual Budget; iv) Approving capital expenditures greater than $1,000,000.00; v) Approving any contracts for services exceeding$1,000,000.00 per year; vi) Payment of Member Cash Distribution(as per Section 4.5); vii) Establishing operating hours and levels of SWMA Solid Waste Services on an annual basis; viii) Approving any addition of new members to SWMA; ix) Accepting Solid Waste from other jurisdictions; x) Imposing any limits on Members' Solid Waste flows or deliveries to SWMA Facilities; xi) Amending this Agreement; Page 12 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM xii) PIanning, developing, replacing, operating and maintaining existing or future SWMA Facilities; xiii) Making SWMA employee hiring and firing recommendations to Spokane; xiv) Fixing salaries, wages and other compensation of SWMA Executive Officers and certain nonrepresented employees; xv) Employing or retaining engineering, legal, financial or other specialized personnel and consultants as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of SWMA; xvi) Indemnifying the Members and their officers and employees in accordance with law; xvii) Exercising all other powers within the authority of and that may be exercised individually by all of the Members with respect to SWMA Solid Waste Services or other SWMA purposes or functions as set forth herein; and xviii) Taking any other actions as the SWMA Board deems necessary to implement the Spokane County SWM Plan, to protect and advance the interests of the SWMA, the SWMA System, its Members, and its ratepayers that are consistent with this Agreement, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and other applicable law. Section 3.7 SAFE HARBOR PROTECTION. 3.7.1 Safe Harbor Protection. If any SWMA Super Majority Vote, in the City of Spokane's sole discretion, causes or threatens to cause an adverse material financial impact to the SWMA Facilities or to Spokane ("Adverse Vote"), Spokane may invalidate such Adverse Vote and elect to have SWMA pursue an alternative course of action with respect to the item subject to invalidation that it may deem reasonable and prudent ("Spokane Safe Harbor Election"). A) Spokane shall exercise its Spokane Safe Harbor Election not later than 5:00 p.m. ten (10) business days after the date the Board took the Adverse Vote. B) A Spokane Safe Harbor Election shall be deemed exercised hereunder if a Spokane Director(or Alternate Director, as the case may be)files with the President of the Board Spokane's written invocation of this Section 3.7 Safe Harbor Protection, stating (a) specific date and nature of the Adverse Vote; and (b) the grounds and basis upon which the Spokane Safe Harbor Election is exercised and (c) the intended alternative course of SWMA action ("Safe Harbor Notice"). C) Upon Spokane's filing of the Safe Harbor Notice, the Adverse Vote shall be suspended, and Spokane Safe Harbor Election shall be deemed to be the action of the SWMA Board, 3.7.2 Safe Harbor Election - Remedy. No later than 5:00 p.m. fifteen (15) business days from the date the Safe Harbor Notice is filed with the President of the Board pursuant to Section 3,7.1 Page 13 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM B) herein, any Member who voted in opposition to Spokane's position on the item subject to invalidation may elect to withdraw from SWMA by filing with the President such Member's Notice of Withdrawal, stating (a) the specific Safe Harbor Notice at issue and the date it was filed with the President; (b)the grounds and basis upon which such Member elects to withdrawal ("Notice of Withdrawal"). Each Member shall file its own separate Notice of Withdrawal. 3.7.3 Withdrawing Member. Effective on the date of delivery of the Notice of Withdrawal to the President, all voting rights of the withdrawing Member shall terminate; and the Member shall become a Withdrawing Member subject to the provisions of Section 3,8 herein, 3.7.4 The terms of Section 3.7 herein notwithstanding, SWMA shall remain in operation and the remaining Members shall continue to perform their respective obligations pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Section 3.8 WITHDRAWING MEMBER-RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 3.8,1 Accounting. SWMA shall provide to the Withdrawing Member a full accounting of SWMA Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses, SWMA Debt, Debt Service, and any and all other debts, obligations, claims, and/or liabilities of any kind attributable to SWMA (collectively referred to as the "SWMA Liabilities") as of the date of Spokane's Safe Harbor Election upon which the Member's withdrawal is based. A) The Board of Directors and the Withdrawing Member shall enter into an Agreement for Withdrawal which shall identify the following: i) the Withdrawing Member's allocated share of SWMA Liabilities as of the date of Spokane's Safe Harbor Election upon which the Member's withdrawal is based; ii) the terms of Withdrawing Member's satisfaction and discharge of its share of SWMA Liabilities; and iii) a Withdrawing Member Asset Distribution Plan, if, and only if, the Withdrawing Member contributed any assets to SWMA. B) Deadlock. i) Dispute Resolution. If the Board of Directors and Withdrawing Member reach a deadlock in negotiating terms for the Agreement for Withdrawal, the matter shall be submitted for dispute resolution under the provisions of Section 8.6 hereof. ii) Judicial Resolution. If the Board of Directors and Withdrawing Member reach a deadlock in negotiating terms for the Agreement for Withdrawal, and: either the Board of Directors or the Withdrawing Member alleges in good faith that (a) irreparable injury to SWMA is being suffered or is threatened by reason thereof; or (b) the acts of the Board of Directors or Withdrawing Member are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent; or (c) the SWMA assets are being misapplied or wasted; or (d) SWMA is unable to carry out its purposes, then either SWMA or the Withdrawing Member may file a legal action Page 14 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM in Spokane Superior Court for judicial resolution of the deadlock, 3.8.2 Withdrawing Member— SWMA Liability"Put or Pay" Off-Set Alternative. A) A Withdrawing Member may offset its allocated share of SWMA Liabilities by entering into one or more third party feedstock supply agreements in lieu of all or part of its own SWMA Solid Waste Flow Control obligations required by this Agreement. B) The Withdrawing Member may offset its allocated share of SWMA Liabilities by paying SWMA the difference in costs incurred in obtaining replacement Solid Waste feedstock from another source. Section 3.9 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW AND COMMENT The Board shall, in a timely manner, solicit the review and comment by its Member local governments and the S WAC of proposed changes in Spokane County Comprehensive SWM Plan, annual budgets and annual capital programs, The SWMA Board shall consult with a Member local government on any specific SWMA Facility capital project proposed within the Member jurisdiction prior to approving the final design for such project. Section 3.10 BOOKS AND RECORDS Any member of the SWMA Board of Directors may examine the books and records of any Member or of SWMA that relate to the SWMA Facilities,to the administration thereof, or to this Agreement, After provision of reasonable notice, such books and records may be examined at the Member's sole expense at any reasonable time during SWMA business hours or of that of the Member subject to examination, as the case may be. ARTICLE IV SWMA FINANCE AND FLOW CONTROL POWERS Section 4.1 SWMA RATES & CHARGES SWMA shall establish rates and collect Tipping Fees for SWMA Solid Waste Services that will be at least sufficient to pay the expenses of maintenance and operation of the SWMA, including, without limit, SWMA Debt, Debt Service, and SWMA Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses. Section 4.2 MEMBER COVENANTS TO EXERCISE FLOW CONTROL POWERS AND MAKE PAYMENTS 4.2.1 Covenants to Exercise Flow Control Powers. In consideration for SWMA owning and operating the SWMA Facilities and as a condition for use thereof and service there from, each Member irrevocably covenants, obligates and binds itself to direct all Solid Waste collected in within, generated within, or otherwise within or subject to its regulatory jurisdiction or Local Collection System to SWMA Facilities for SWMA Solid Waste Services pursuant to this Agreement and the Spokane County SWM Plan. Page 15 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM 4.2.2 Confirmation. Because this Agreement and the Spokane County SWM Plan contemplate that all Members will be using SWMA Facilities for all SWMA Solid Waste Services, and because most, if not all, Members will be collecting, transporting, or otherwise regulating Solid Waste subject to their Local Collection Systems or within their regulatory control through the political jurisdictions of one or more other Members, the Members declare and confirm as follows: A) that this Agreement is not intended as an instrument to permit one Member to control the Solid Waste Collection services or the Local Collection System of another Member; and, B) that each Member will cooperate to provide the other Members with access for Solid Waste transport or transfer to SWMA Facilities. Section 4.3 MEMBER COVENANTS TO MAINTAIN CHARGES Each Member irrevocably covenants and agrees to establish rates and collect fees for Solid Waste collection services in the case of a Member's operation of or contract for its Local Collection System/collection system within its jurisdiction, or otherwise collect fees and taxes that will be at least sufficient to pay any Tipping Fees (Section 4.1) and to pay the other maintenance and operation expenses of their respective Local Collection Systems. Section 4.4 SPOKANE BONDS 4.4.1 Future SWMA Bonds. On and after the effective date of this Agreement, the City of Spokane shall be the sole Member entitled to issue any debt secured by existing or future Tipping Fees, SWMA Facilities, or any other SWMA revenues or assets. 4.4.2 Outstanding Spokane Bonds. It is recognized that the City of Spokane has outstanding revenue bonds payable in whole or in part from the net revenue of the SWMA Facilities. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to violate any covenant of these outstanding bonds, and such covenants, to the extent there is a conflict between them and this Agreement, shall control with respect to such outstanding bonds. Section 4.5 TAXATION 4.5.1 Utility Tax, In recognition of the SWMA as an interlocal governance structure, the Members hereby agree that Spokane shall be the sole Member entitled to impose a municipal utility tax on the gross revenues receipts generated by and through SWMA. All other Members agree that they shall not impose any tax on the gross revenues receipts of the SWMA, Each Member, however, may levy a gross receipts tax on its own Local Collection System and other non-SWMA Solid Waste collection operations in its jurisdiction. 4.5.2 Member Cash Distribution. In further recognition of SWMA as a public entity, in consideration for the Members entering in to SWMA with the other Members, and in consideration of the Members' Flow Control Powers and Flow Control commitments set forth Page 16 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM herein, in the event that Spokane imposes a municipal utility tax on the disposal gross revenue receipts generated by and through SWMA, Spokane agrees to pay each Member a cash distribution in an amount and frequency to be determined by the SWMA Board of Directors ("Member Cash Distribution") through a duly authorized and executed Super Majority Vote. Section 4.6 SWMA BUDGETING 4.6.1 Separate Funds. The SWMA Board shall control and direct the disposition of all SWMA funds and monies. The City of Spokane shall establish a separate Fund to hold SWMA funds (the "SWMA Fund"), establish special accounts within the SWMA Fund, and keep separate and adequate books and records of the same, all as required by law and regulations of the State Auditor and as the SWMA Board may direct. The City of Spokane shall also be responsible for investment of SWMA funds consistent with the investment policy adopted by the SWMA Board. 4.6.2 Annual SWMA Budget. A) By each June 1, the SWMA Board shall notify each Member of its proposed budget and capital improvement program for the SWMA Facilities showing its estimate of the debt service and reserve requirements for debt obligations incurred to finance the SWMA System. Each Member shall furnish SWMA with its recommendations and comments by July 31. Thereafter SWMA shall adopt its final annual budget and capital improvement program for the forthcoming calendar year on or before August 31. B) By March 1 of each year, SWMA shall determine and notify the Members of the actual debt service and reserve requirements of the SWMA Debt, the actual SWMA Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses, the actual requirements for SWMA contract obligations and any other payment requirements for the immediately preceding calendar year, or part thereof, covered by this Agreement. C) The annual schedule of budget events is summarized as follows: March 1st Notice of previous year's reconciliation March 151h Preliminary Solid Waste generation estimate for next calendar year provided by SWMA April 15t11 Members respond to preliminary Solid Waste generation for next calendar year May 1st SWMA provides final Solid Waste generation estimate for next calendar year June 1st SWMA provides proposed budget, Tipping Fee levels and capital improvement program for next calendar year July 311t Members and public comment on proposed SWMA budget, Tipping Fee levels, and capital improvement program for next calendar year August 3 1St SWMA adopts budget and capital improvement program for next calendar and advises Members of Tipping Fees to take effect January 15t Page 17 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM D) To respond to special circumstances, the SWMA Board shall have the authority to amend the annual budget schedule in a given year. 4.6.3 SWMA Facilities Budget Adjustments. The SWMA shall operate within its annual budget. Should debt service and reserve requirements for the SWMA Debt, or SWMA Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses, or contract requirements increase above budget estimates, or should the money in the operations account or capital account of the SWMA be insufficient to meet and pay those requirements and expenses in that calendar year, the SWMA may amend its budget and increase the Tipping Fees to the Members after first submitting the proposed budget amendment to the Members for comment and subsequent vote. ARTICLE V SWMA SOLID WASTE SERVICES Section 5.1 SWMA SERVICE OBLIGATION IN SERVICE AREA SWMA shall accept all Member Solid Waste that is approved for delivery to the SWMA Facilities within the SWMA System, subject to the conditions and limitations established by the SWMA. The SWMA is established to provide SWMA Solid Waste Services for Solid Waste generated throughout Spokane County, but it may also accept Solid Waste from other jurisdictions, provided such acceptance is in accord with the Spokane County SWM Plan and duly authorized by Board Super Majority Vote. Section 5.2 MEMBER OBLIGATION TO DELIVER FLOWS Each Member shall enact and enforce such ordinances and any other regulatory requirements as necessary to assure and enforce its respective Solid Waste Flow Control Powers and for delivery of all Solid Waste collected by its Local Collection System, or within its jurisdiction, to the SWMA System. Each Member shall direct Solid Waste to the SWMA Facilities and pursuant to procedures and other terms and conditions as may be established by the SWMA Board and in accordance with the Spokane County SWM Plan. Except as otherwise provided by law, a Member shall not direct Solid Waste to an agency or location other than SWMA or SWMA Facilities, respectively. Section 5.3 SWMA SYSTEM CAPACITY 5.3.1 Acceptance of Member Waste Flows. The SWMA System shall be available to receive Solid Waste delivered to SWMA Facilities by the Members for SWMA Solid Waste Services. SWMA shall use its best efforts to provide for increased capacity pursuant to the Spokane County SWM Plan, in a manner designed to allow the SWMA System to accept, treat, and manage all Solid Waste proposed to be delivered to the SWMA Facilities by the Members. Solid Waste from the Members' Local Collection Systems or certificated collectors shall be accepted on a "first-come, first-served" basis. The SWMA Board shall have the authority to limit flows from the Members only to ensure preservation of public health and compliance with applicable Page 18 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM laws, regulations, permits and provisions of the Spokane County SWM Plan and pursuant to a duly authorized Board Super Majority Vote. 5.3.2 Annual Solid Waste Predictions, The SWMA Board shall annually provide to the Members by March 15th a preliminary estimate of Solid Waste that is expected to be generated within each Member local government based on data relating to Member Population and employment, and economic development. Each Member, within thirty(30) days of receipt of the estimate, shall a) estimate and provide to SWMA the expected building activity within its jurisdiction for the following calendar year based on plats and/or building permits approved or pending immediate approval and b) provide to S WMA any other information that it would like SWMA to consider in establishing a final estimate of the SWMA Solid Waste Services capacity available during the following calendar year, After receiving such comments and information from the Members, the SWMA Board shall publish a final estimate no later than each May 1st identifying the total estimated capacity available for the following year in the SWMA System and the percentage of such capacity expected to be utilized during such year. Section 5.4 COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT WASTE REDUCTION As early as practical, but in no event later than within one (1) year of its existence, the SWMA Board shall endeavor to develop economic and other incentives that assist individual Members to implement rates and other incentives to accomplish Waste Reduction in their respective jurisdictions and throughout the County in accordance with the Spokane County SWM Plan. Section 5.5 INTEGRAL INVOLVEMENT OF SWAC 5.5.1 The SWAC will be integrally involved in developing plans for SWMA Facilities, amendments to the Spokane County SWM Plan, and economic and other incentives for Waste Reduction throughout the County as provided by and in accordance with RCW 70.95.165. 5.5.2 In order to encourage the broadest participation by the SWAC, the SWMA shall work with the Spokane County Board of Commissioners to take steps to expand the membership beyond the minimal number and representative membership prescribed under RCW 70.95.165 in accordance with policy duly voted by the Board of Directors by suggesting a broad membership for appointment by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. 5.5.3 RCW 70.95.165 states that the primary responsibilities of the SWAC are to provide both technical and policy advice to the SWMA in the development of the Spokane County SWM Plan, development of facilities for Solid Waste services, and economic and other incentives for Waste Reduction throughout Spokane County. Page 19 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM ARTICLE VI SWMA COOPERATION IN MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE SWMA SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Section 6.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR SWMA FACILITIES AND LOCAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS 6.1.1 SWMA Facilities. The SWMA shall in its sole discretion determine the name, location, and time of construction of any new SWMA Facilities developed in the future. The SWMA shall maintain through responsible insurers, including insurance pools, public liability insurance for SWMA Facilities operations and responsibilities in accordance with industry standards. 612 Local Collection Systems. The Members shall maintain and operate their respective Local Collection Systems in accordance with high engineering standards and in conformity with the standards established by the state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over them. The Members shall secure and maintain with responsible insurers including insurance pools all such insurance as is customarily maintained with respect to Solid Waste systems and facilities of like character against loss of or damage and other liability to the extent that such insurance can be secured and maintained at reasonable cost. Section 6.2 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANNING 62.1 Land use. The development of SWMA Facilities shall be consistent with the Spokane County SWM Plan, with applicable laws, regulations and permits, and with the Members' zoning and land use requirements. Members shall recognize SWMA Facilities as essential public facilities subject to the requirements for facilitating essential public facilities, Member zoning and land use requirements for the development of new SWMA Facilities or modification of existing SWMA Facilities shall be followed. 6.2.2 Member Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and the Spokane County SWM Plan. The Spokane County SWM Plan shall be consistent with and responsive to Solid Waste management plans adopted both individually and collectively by the Members at the time this Agreement is adopted and in the future whenever the Spokane County SWM Plan is amended. Future Solid Waste management plans proposed individually or collectively by the Members that affect or relate to SWMA Solid Waste Services shall be offered to the SWMA Board for review and comment regarding their relationship to current SWMA plans prior to their adoption. Before adopting any new or modified solid waste management plan to be integrated with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the County, each Member shall forward any such plan proposal to the SWMA Board and to the SWAC with sufficient time to allow SWMA and the SWAC meaningful review and comment prior to the any such plan's submission for state review required by Chapter 70,95 RCW, Section 6.3 MEMBER COMMITMENTS TO ASSIST SWMA To the extent legally feasible, each Member agrees to give good faith consideration to SWMA requests for necessary zoning, land use, eminent domain proceedings and other permits and approvals to implement the Spokane County SWM Plan. In the event that a Member Page 20 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM completes an eminent domain proceeding for the benefit of the SWMA to secure property or property rights for SWMA Facilities, SWMA shall compensate the Member for its expenses and for just compensation paid for such property and property rights in accordance with applicable law. ARTICLE VII STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT Section 7.1 COORDINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW&SEPA REQUIREMENTS The Members and the SWMA are obligated to identify and consider environmental impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures in the development of plans, programs and facilities relating to Solid Waste management. The State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the regulations and ordinances promulgated under it ("SEPA"), establish procedures for preparing environmental documents and obtaining input from citizens and agencies, and requires identification of a lead agency to prepare the environmental documents and administer the environmental review process. SEPA also requires agencies to integrate environmental review at the earliest time in the decision making process to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values. The Members agree that it is generally in the public interest for SWMA to directly manage environmental review of SWMA proposals and actions to assure the early consideration of environmental factors. For purposes of this Article VI, "action" has the meaning given it in WAC 197-11-704, and"proposal"has the meaning provided in WAC 197-11-784. Section 7.2 SEPA COMPLIANCE 7.2.1 SWMA as an Agency under SEPA. SWMA shall fulfill the responsibilities of an agency pursuant to SEPA in connection with all proposals and actions which it undertakes. By carrying out the responsibilities of an agency under SEPA, SWMA shall satisfy any SEPA obligations that apply directly to SWMA as well as any that may apply to indirectly due to SWMA acting on a Members' behalf. 7.2.2 Procedural Responsibilities as Lead Agency. With respect to SWMA proposals and actions, the SWMA shall carry out the Members' lead agency procedural responsibilities under SEPA, including the procedural functions of a "lead agency" under SEPA, WAC 197-11-758, This includes, without limitation, authority to adopt agency SEPA rules, to establish an administrative appeals process, to enter into lead agency agreements pursuant to WAC 197-11- 944, and to appoint a "responsible official." However, the Members retain their legal authority to assert lead agency status for projects located within their respective jurisdictions as permitted under SEPA, including, for example, by WAC 197-11-340(2)(e) and 197-11-948. Section 7.3 RETENTION OF SUBSTANTIVE AUTHORITY The SWMA's authority under this Article VII is to implement the procedural requirements of SEPA for SWMA proposals and actions. The Members retain their respective Page 21 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM substantive authorities to condition or deny such proposals and actions in their respective jurisdictions as part of their zoning, land use, SEPA, or other permitting processes. In addition, pursuant to its responsibility under Chapter 70.95 RCW, the County will retain its lead responsibility for the Spokane County SWM Plan. ARTICLE VIII LEGAL RELATIONS Section 8.1 EFFECTIVE DATE&TERM OF AGREEMENT 8.1.1 Effective date. This Agreement shall become effective on the first date when all of the following events have occurred: i) the Agreement has been duly executed by all of the Members; and ii) the Agreement has been filed with the Spokane County Auditor pursuant to RCW 39.34.040. 8.1.2 Duration. Commencing on the effective date specified above, this Agreement shall be for a term of thirty-five (35) years or such longer period as any SWMA Debt is outstanding or the payment thereof is not fully provided for, secured and funded. Section 8.2 WITHDRAWAL BY A MEMBER Subject to the provisions of Section 3.7 and 3.8 hereof, any Member, upon at least two year's written notice to the Board, may individually withdraw from the obligations of this Agreement with the consent of all of the other Members, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, after all of that Member's proportionate share of SWMA Debt is retired or payment thereof is fully provided for, secured and funded, and the remaining Members shall continue to be bound by this Agreement as it may be amended. Section 8.3 ADDITION OF NEW MEMBERS 8.3.1 Upon the incorporation of any new city within the County, that city, upon at least one hundred eighty (180) day's written request to the Board, shall be added as a Member to this Agreement and as a member of the Board of the SWMA upon a duly authorized Board Super Majority Vote. 8.3.2 Any Member city or the County that has previously withdrawn from the SWMA pursuant to this Section 8.3shall only be added as a new Member with the unanimous consenting vote of all of the other Members. Page 22 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM Section 8.4 AMENDMENT This Agreement may be amended only with the approval of the legislative bodies of the Members. Section 83 NOTICE Subject to the provisions of Section 3 herein, notices required to be given to Members shall be deemed given when served on their respective City Clerks and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. When members of the SWMA Board must be notified, notice to one Director thereof from each Member shall be sufficient compliance, but reasonable efforts shall be made to give notice to every alternate Director as well. Section 8.6 RESOLUTION OF LEGAL DISPUTES 8.6.1 To affect a quick and efficient resolution of legal disputes that may arise under this Agreement, the Members establish the following procedure. All claims or disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement or breach thereof("Dispute") shall be decided exclusively by the following dispute resolution procedure unless all Members agree in writing otherwise. This dispute resolution procedure applies only to disputes of a legal nature that arise under this Agreement, and shall not be construed to apply to legislative or policy matters that are within the discretion or authority of the SWMA Board or individual Members. 8.6.2 Each Member shall use its best efforts to resolve issues prior to giving Notice of Dispute and invoking the procedures set forth in this Section. In the event that any Member is not satisfied with the results of the resolution, that Member, acting through its representative on the SWMA Board, shall give prompt written notice of any Dispute to the other Members' representatives on the SWMA Board, with a copy to the SWMA administrator or executive director. This notice, herein referred to as a "Notice of Dispute," shall clearly state the subject matter of the unresolved issues and the relief requested. 8.6.3 Level I. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of a Notice of Dispute, each Member's representative on the SWMA Board shall designate a representative and the designated representatives shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the Dispute for a period not to exceed five (5) working days. If the Dispute is not resolved at the close of the Level I meeting, the designated representatives shall prepare before adjournment of the meeting a written memorandum summarizing the matters that remain at issue. 8.6.4 Level II. If the Dispute is not resolved within 48 hours of the close of the Level I meeting, each designated representative shall meet with that Member's representative on the SWMA Board to discuss the Dispute and the memorandum. Within ten (10) working days of the close of the Level I meeting, the designated representatives of the Members shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the Dispute for an additional period not to exceed five (5) working days. Attendance by SWMA Board members at the Level II meeting is optional. If the Members are not able to resolve the Dispute in the Level II meeting, the designated Page 23 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM representatives shall discuss the use of mediation, arbitration, or other alternative dispute resolution process before concluding the Level II meeting. 8.6.5 The terms of the resolution of all Disputes concluded in Level I or II meetings shall be memorialized in writing and signed by each Member's representative on the SWMA Board. 8.6.6 If the Dispute is not resolved within 48 hours of the close of the Level II meeting, then a) the Members may mediate the issue; b) the Members may submit the dispute to the Superior Court of Spokane County for arbitration proceedings provided by Chapter 7.04 RCW; or c) any Member may commence a civil action to resolve the Dispute, unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. Mediation and arbitration shall require the prior written consent of SWMA and Member(s) involved with the Dispute. 8.6.7 Any Dispute shall be limited to the interpretation and application of this Agreement and may not impair the contract and debt obligations of SWMA or the powers of SWMA to fix the budget for and determine the methods used in the management of the SWMA Facilities. Section 8.7 MEMBER OBLIGATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES The initiation or existence of a dispute between the Members or between one or more Members and the SWMA arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall not relieve or authorize the deferral of the Members' duty to exercise flow control of solid waste or make payments to the SWMA as provided herein. Section 8.8 SURVIVAL OF OBLIGATIONS The Members' obligations under Section 8.2 of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. Section 8.9 INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT 8.9.1 Governing law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any lawsuit between the Members arising out of this Agreement shall be in Spokane County Superior Court. 8.9.2 Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding on each Member and the successors to them and may not be assigned in any respect without the consent of all Members. 8.9.3 Third party beneficiaries. The Members expressly do not intend to create any right, obligation or liability, or promise any performance, to any third party. The Members have not created any right for any third party to enforce this Agreement. 8.9.4 Severability. It is the belief of the Members that all provisions of this Agreement are lawful. If any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such adjudication shall not affect the validity, obligation or performance of any other covenant or provision, or part thereof, which in itself is valid if such remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable law and the Page 24 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM intent of this Agreement. In such event, the Members shall enter into immediate negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a mutually satisfactory replacement of such covenant or provision. 8.9.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the Members' entire agreement on the issues covered by it, except as supplemented by subsequent written agreements that the Parties make. All prior negotiations and draft written agreements are superseded by this Agreement including,without limitation, the following: A) The Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between the City of Spokane and Spokane County, Washington, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated April 10, 1989; B) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Airway Heights, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated October 4, 1989; C) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Cheney, Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, dated September 1, 1989; D) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Deer Park, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated April 16, 1991; E) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Fairfield, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated September 25, 1990; F) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Latah, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated June 4, 1991; G) Interlocal Agreement (CH, 39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Liberty Lake RE: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated September 24, 2003; H) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Medical Lake, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated September 1, 1989; I) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Millwood, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated April 24, 1991; J) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the Town of Rockford; Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System; K) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Spangle, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, dated October 9, 1990; L) Interlocal Agreement (CH, 39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane Page 25 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM County and the City of Spokane Valley, dated June 19, 2003; M) An Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Waverly, Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, dated November 30, 1990. 8.9.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered for all purposes as an original. Section 8.10 WAIVER No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a waiver of any breach be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Section 8.11 REMEDIES In addition to the remedies provided by law, this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable by any party. ARTICLE IX COOPERATION THROUGH CONSOLIDATION PERIOD Section 9.1 COORDINATION: SWMA BOARD&THE COUNTY AND CITY OF SPOKANE The Members recognize that, during at least the initial twelve months after the effective date of this Agreement, extraordinary cooperative efforts will be required to coordinate the legal and service obligations of the SWMA System and to complete all of the legal and administrative steps necessary. The Members shall use their best efforts and work together in good faith. 9.1.1 Flow control and Tipping Fees. The Members shall have approved and imposed flow control requirements and Tipping Fees, and the proceeds are under the control of and available for use by the SWMA. ARTICLE X APPROVAL AND EFFECTIVE DATE Section 10.1 EXECUTION AND APPROVAL 10.1.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be signed by its duly authorized officer or representative as of the date set forth below its signature. 10.1.2 Each Member warrants that it is authorized to and has executed this Agreement for and on behalf of the Member. Page 26 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM Section 10.2 IMPLEMENTATION This Agreement shall take effect and be in force consistent with Agreement Section 8.1,1, but shall otherwise be binding on all Members executing the Agreement on the last of the dates the Agreement has been signed by County, Spokane and Spokane Valley. CITY OF SPOKANE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By By Its: Its: Date: Date: Attest; By Attest: By CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS (ETC.) SPOKANE COUNTY By By Its: Its: Date:_ Date: Attest: Attest: Page 27 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM Exhibit A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT WILL BE SUPERSEDED BY THIS AGREEMENT Page 28 of 29 DRAFT 1.0 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/1/2010 12:36 PM Exhibit B SWMA FACILITIES Page 29 of 29 West Plains Annexation Utility Tax Issue City of Spokane Fact Sheet Background: The City of Airway Heights, the City of Spokane, and Spokane County have been cooperatively working on a proposal to annex portions of the West Plains into Spokane and Airway Heights since late 2008/early 2009. Considerable financial analysis of the annexation proposal has been ongoing and has continued to inform consideration of the proposal throughout this time, In an effort to consider all possible financial impacts, the City of Spokane's Finance Division recently began to look at whether the City of Spokane could impose a utility tax on the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System operations if the Waste to Energy facility were located within the Spokane City limits. The Finance Division spent a month researching the issue from a financial and legal perspective, and the City has concluded that, so long as ownership of the utility is maintained by the City, a utility tax could be implemented, and that all partners in the Regional Solid Waste System could share in the revenue. The basic factual information is included here. At this point, the City of Spokane is not advocating a position for or against such a tax, but merely providing information so everyone is working from the same information. What is the possible utility tax on the Regional Solid Waste System? Cities are allowed by state law to charge taxes on the gross receipts of private and public utilities doing business in the City. In this case, the City could tax the gross receipts of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System once the Waste to Energy facility were located within the City limits after annexation is complete. The Regional Solid Waste System operates the Waste to Energy facility and North Side and Valley garbage transfer stations. How would such a tax impact citizens? Citizens may not see any impact on their utility bills. Such a tax could be implemented after the System's bonds are paid off in 2011 or earlier. Once payments on these bonds cease, the tipping fees still could be reduced even with the addition of this tax. What would the tax rate be? The Regional Solid Waste System could be taxed similarly to the City's water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities. Those utilities are taxed at a rate of 20 percent of gross revenues, as established by City ordinance. By comparison, telephone,cable, and power utility tax rates are capped by state law at 6 percent. How much money could be generated? At the 20 percent tax rate, the amount that would be generated totals $6.7 million. The City of Spokane already captures $2.2 million from City Solid Waste customers for disposal costs, and this wouldn't be double counted. The net increase to all the communities served by the Regional Solid Waste System would be about$4.42 million. How would the money be allocated among jurisdictions? The allocations would be based on the existing interlocal agreement that created the Regional Solid Waste System and the agreements with each of the regional cities. Here is an estimated breakdown of where the net amount of money would go based on 2008 revenues: • City of Spokane $1.1 million* • Spokane County $1.7 million • Airway Heights $69,000 • Cheney $134,000 • Deer Park $44,000 • Fairfield $8,000 • Latah $3,000 • Liberty take $92,000 • Medical Lake $63,000 • Millwood $22,000 • Rockford $7,000 • Spangle $4,000 • Spokane Valley $1.17 million • Waverly $2,000 • TOTAL $4.42 million This is a net amounl. The City already collects$2.2 million on the amount of money its Solid Waste utility customers inside the City already pay toward disposal as part of their monthly bills. How could the money be spent? The tax collected would be a General Fund resource for each jurisdiction. Elected leadership within each jurisdiction would decide how to spend the money through their normal budgeting processes based on their own priorities. The Mayor of Spokane proposes using the City of Spokane's share to mitigate the costs of annexation and potentially to reduce the City's utility tax rate. Can you tax the revenues generated outside of the City limits? Our legal analysis concludes that because the main operations of the Solid Waste System would be within the City limits after annexation, the revenues of the entire system could be taxed. Are there any other applications of a utility tax? The City of Spokane also could implement a utility tax on the power sales from the Waste to Energy facility. That rate is capped at 6 percent by state law. Such a tax would generate $700,000 for the City of Spokane. What would be required for implementation? The Spokane City Council can implement the tax by ordinance with a majority vote. SPOKANE 4 June 2009 ;i,�,'r i i i DRAFT: Briefing Book Table of Contents/Outline January 1Z,2011 Introduction and purpose of this briefing book History of the formation of the System Expiration of contracts and interlocal agreements Key provisions of the 1989 City of Spokane/Spokane County Interlocal Agreement Creating the System Ownership Financing Pre-Existing Landfill Closure and Cleanup funding Landfill Closure Component Tipping Fees Flow Control Revenues and Budgets Utility Tax Tipping Fees Management Major Decisions • Role of Liaison Board Term and Termination Key provisions of the/Regional Cities Interlocal Agreements Solid Waste Directed to System Representation on Liaison Board Tipping Fees Landfill Closure Component Utility Tax Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning Terms and Termination Facilities of the System Waste to Energy Facility Transfer Stations Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Northside Landfill Contract Ash and Bypass Disposal Contract Flow of Waste Other Services provided by the System Education Coordination of Recycling Programs Recycling Containers Business Waste Audits Countywide Litter Control and Enforcement Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning Funding of the System—Bonds and Debt Service Upcoming Investments and Funding Flow Control Tipping Fees and Reserves City of Spokane's Fiduciary Responsibility Environmental Compliance Solid Waste Management Planning Waste to Energy vs. Long Haul Governance Discussions Options for each Jurisdiction City of Spokane Valley and City of Liberty Lake, City of Spokane Spokane County Other Regional Cities City of Spokane Valley January 12,2011 Page 1 SPECIFIC CONCERN'S WITH SPOKANE'S PROPOSED INTERLOCAL Section 1.9 This section confirms Spokane's ownership of the WTE Facility. Obviously, if a regional or metro entity was set up this may not work. If Spokane wishes to impose a utility tax on the solid waste brought to the WTE Facility, they will likely have to maintain, at the very least, control and ownership. We also need to ensure that by entering into an interlocal agreement we do not assume any ownership or liability for the landfills located in other jurisdictions. Section 1.11 and Section 2,4.4 We should pass an ordinance implementing any flow control measures agreed to by contract. Section 2.1.2(D) The utility tax may or may not be upheld. Distribution of the tax will be left to the SWMA Board. We need to calculate the numbers to determine if two of the larger members could vote against Spokane Valley's interest. Section 2.1.2(F) Wheelabrator has certain responsibilities to maintain and upgrade the facility pursuant to the existing contract. In any future contract these obligations may or may not continue. The question that needs to be answered is who is responsible for the maintenance and upgrades for the WTE Facility and/or other facilities. SWMA? Spokane? What funds will be used for that upgrade? Who decides when something is commercially and scientifically proven and/or economically feasible? Section 2.4.28 Definition of tipping fees "Fees established by SWMA ...." Other than giving the SWMA this authority, there is little or no guidance as to how these fees should be set or what criteria should be used. Section 3.2.2 SWMA Ombudsman This position has no authority over the WTE Facility or any of the member municipal organizations. I'm not sure what his/her role would be. Section 3.5 SWMA Board, 3.6 Quorums and Voting This board vote is weighted by population. Spokane and Spokane County may be able to trump Spokane Valley and depending on the numbers, Spokane may be able to trump Spokane Valley and the County combined. Section 3.6.5 Decision-Making by Super Majority Vote There doesn't appear to be a place for the approval of contracts and capital expenditures of less than $1,000,000; possibly they are intended to be included within 3.6.4 A(iii). Section 3.7 Safe Harbor Protection This section is written so broadly that it would allow Spokane to veto any decision of the board. It should be written very narrowly. Section 4.2.1 Covenants to Exercise Flow Control Powers This section should include language that would prevent Spokane or any other party from taking an action that might interfere with the exercise of flow control regulations. The public purpose component of the flow control analysis is important. Section 4.4 Spokane bonds It is unclear if all debt would have to be approved by the SWMA Board. City of Spokane Valley January 12,2011 Page 2 Section 4.5.1 Utility Tax There is no language controlling what percentage Spokane could charge and it is unclear if this is a decision of the SWMA Board. Section 4.6.1 Separate Funds. It is unclear if control of"all SWMA funds and monies"includes the utility tax proceeds. Section 4.6.2 Annual SWMA Budget This section envisions significant responsibility on the part of the SWMA. It is unclear how it would be staffed, what its responsibilities will be as compared to Spokane as owner of the WTE Facility, or the private party who contracts to operate the WTE Facility. What is Spokane in charge of? What would the SWMA be in charge of? What responsibilities or obligations do the member Cities and the County have? Section 5.1 SWMA Service Obligation in Service Area It is unclear what"approved for delivery"means. Can the SWMA say no? Section 5.2 Member Obligation to Deliver Flows Should include language that the SWMA and Spokane will take no action that impairs the ability of member cities or the County to enforce flow control provisions and a consequence if they should do so. Section 5.3.1 Acceptance of Member Waste Flows. The words"only to ensure preservation of public health and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permits and provisions of the Spokane County SWM Plan and pursuant to a duly authorized"Board Super Majority Vote," is broad and does not spell out a remedy if the board should so vote. Section 6.1.1 SWMA Facilities The SWMA is responsible for liability insurance for all facilities including the WTE Facility, even though Spokane continues to own it? Section 6.1.2 Local Collection Systems. The word"high"has no legal meaning. Section 6.3 Member Commitments to Assist SWMA This section should require a jurisdiction to enter into a specific interlocal agreement when eminent domain proceeding are instituted. Section 7.1 Coordination of Environmental Review and SEPA Requirements It is not clear what responsibility the members have for compliance with all environmental laws or when SWMA will be the responsible party. The last sentence of this section has no legal significance. Section 7.2 SEPA Compliance I wouldn't use the words,"for example." Section 8.1.2 Duration 35 years? What debt? Section 8.2 Withdrawal by member It is unclear how a member is suddenly responsible for system debt, or whether it is s for the WTE facility owned by Spokane, or the system,or what say the member has in establishing the debt. (See 4.6). SPOKANE 11°"qg SPOKE Coui'riY January 12, 2011 Dear Honorable Elected Officials, You are cordially invited to participate in a Regional Solid Waste Governance Summit. Wednesday, February 2,2011 & Thursday,February 3,2011 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CenterPlace 2426 N. Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Please join us and your fellow policy makers that serve within Spokane County for the purpose of strengthening relationships and: • Providing a clear picture of the future regarding Solid Waste issues • Developing regional priorities regarding Solid Waste • Assembling a long-term agreement to replace our current Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement The first day will be structured for presentations, information sharing, and responses to questions, Briefing materials with background information will be sent to each jurisdiction The second day will be a facilitated discussion intended to help us reach agreement on future governance of the regional system. Please come prepared with decision-making authority from your jurisdiction. We ask each jurisdiction to submit your "must haves" regarding Regional Solid Waste governance by Friday, January 21, 2011 to Gerry Gemmill, Public Works & Utilities, City of Spokane at ggemill a,spokanecity,org. To RSVP with names of your attendees and authorized decision-makers,please contact Karen Corkins at(509) 477-2741 or kcorkins spokanecounty.org. Thank you for your time and we look forward to seeing you there! 414, Al French, Chairman Mayor Mary Verner Spokane County Commissioners Office City of Spokane