Loading...
2012, 02-07 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,February 7, 2012 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 ITEM: 1.Neil Kersten/Steve Worley Evergreen Road Preservation Project Motion Consideration 16th to 32nd [public comment] NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Eric Sawyer, Spokane Sports Marketing and Its Impact in the Discussion/Information Sports Commission Valley 3. Cary Driskell Fire Department Draft Interlocal Agreement Discussion/Information 4.Karen Kendall Landscaping Code Amendments Discussion/Information 5. Scott Kuhta Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office Discussion/Information 6. Greg Bingaman Computer Laptop Agenda Training Discussion/Information 7.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 8. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): Community Development Monthly Report 9.Mayor Towey Council Check-in Discussion/Information 10.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: [Pending/Potential Litigation(RCW 42.30.110(1)(i))] 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,February 7,2012 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Evergreen Rd Preservation Project— 16th to 32nd GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Admin. Report to Council on January 31, 2012. BACKGROUND: During the January 31 Admin. Report on this project several questions were brought up by council members regarding the proposed improvements to Evergreen Road from 16th Ave to 32nd Ave in conjunction with VERA's waterline project. 1) What is the cost of the bike lane striping? Bike Lane Striping - Plastic $20,000 Bike Lane Striping - Paint $ 2,600 In non-curbed areas a narrow white fog line stripe will be required if the wide bike lane striping is not installed. Therefore, the costs indicated above are the difference between providing the fog line striping where required and upgrading to bike lane striping. 2) What is the cost for the widening portions of Evergreen Rd for the bike lanes? The estimated cost to increase the width of the existing road to accommodate bike lanes is $53,000. This includes removing existing material, installing base rock, paving up to existing road surface elevation and then overlaying an additional 2 inches of asphalt. 3) How does the pavement condition of this portion of Evergreen Road compare to other streets within the city that need preservation work? Public Works staff has reviewed the recommendations of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and completed site evaluations of the condition of the city's streets. Based on this and evidence that Evergreen Road between 24th Ave and 32nd Ave does not have adequate base rock underneath the existing pavement, staff recommends reconstructing this road as part of VERA's water line project. OPTIONS: 1) Move ahead with the proposed project as presented, or 2) provide additional direction to staff, or 3) not proceed with the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that staff proceed with the Evergreen Rd Preservation Project— 16th to 32nd as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total cost of the proposed work on Evergreen Rd and 32nd Ave is estimated to be $959,000. This includes $78,000 in contingency and an estimated $275,000 for VERA's portion over the waterline (VERA's estimated costs were not included in the previous RCA). VERA's portion represents approximately 30% of the total roadway costs. An additional $54,000 is estimated to complete the sidewalks on the east side from 24th to 32nd Since the PMP recommends nearly $500,000 in preservation funding for this portion of Evergreen Rd and 32nd Ave over the next three years, staff proposes to use the $500,000 designated for Street Preservation in the Street Fund (#101) to pay for a majority of the proposed improvements. The city may also have enough remaining EECBG grant funds to pay for the road widening and striping to provide bike lanes on this road. There are nine projects listed for using the EECBG funds available. As of the end of 2011 only 64% of the EECBG funds have been spent. All EECBG funds must be spent by September 2012. The EECBG grant funds require no local match. It is suggested that the remaining $111,000 needed to complete these improvements come from the Street Capital Improvements 2011+ Fund (#311). See Table 3 below. Approximate Source of Funds Amount VERA Water & Power $275,000 #101 Street Fund $500,000 #311 Street Capital Improvements $111,000 EECBG Grant Funds $ 73,000* Total $959,000 Table 3— Proposed Funding *includes$53,000 for road widening and$20,000 for striping of bike lanes. If additional EECBG funds become available for this project, they could potentially be used to pay for the proposed sidewalk improvements as well. This estimate does not include staff design or construction inspection costs. These staff costs are proposed to be charged to the Public Works General Fund. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, AIA— Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Exhibit 1: Map of Project Area; 2) Exhibit 2: Proposed Road Cross Sections N a•% v .J � 17 • -1ri=g :g • • ..- y 1 1 1 -r � �; ` (' w , . • • # / d 16th Avenue , hi E _II A i. f i t• .. ' + h Ave y 'me w r II . ,; n ' . Overlay • T. I. • , ►,, ,. ,r .� . iii7 --tir.e,• - 1 .•um% i .0 9 4 1144 p . .,,, 4. . .-qp ..,.1 Ito . it ,i. : ~ . - ii. 41 1 00,00 7 r. ... t,- . - E 20.ttiAve • .4' Elf.SU'iirfrpik.' ' • r[6.. .. i'--.) . gl AN!l a • * R ,� �t++�o :'� •�; ' k { VIEW * I. 4 si. \ E 23rdli 4 i If 0 . I I. "4`' • • a 24th Avenue 0 ' ... • - : : 3r, . co .a • 0 ve .i. t IA. tr . 'd + ;' . rt -1.-.. New sidewalks t�e .m� ,41• ' : Full rebuild r ,.r4-, ' ;:s '' . ,.._, -. • iti. i w w •• J r {�'4 4 ,E. •.} alt' �j i '� ° � '� _ ' • • - If 4 Atoll, Illy I. . . p' L-Jr,. i ri.'J I `: FLit f' .. rl'. 1 * ' J Overlay ,.,=riga '4' 32nd Avenue ►ilk -i • Exhibit 1 - EVERGREEN ROAD PROJECT— 16TH TO 32ND ROW 30'± q 30'± ROW q 7.5'± PARKING LANE 5'BIKE LANE 10.5'LANE 10.5'LANE 5'BIKE LANE 7.5' PARKING LANE B'± BETWEEN 23RD AND 24TH 2"HMA OVERLAY EXTEND TO EXISTING AND VW:WM MU EXISTING EAST SIDE CURB AND SIDEWALK OVERLAY WIDTH CURB SIDEWALK —6"CSTC PATCH WHERE NEEDED FOR BIKE LANE TO 24TH SECTION e16TH NTS ci a RtW 30 ± 30' ± ROW z o O � 16'± 6' BIKE LANE 12' LANE 4 y 12' LANE 6'BIKE LANE 8' ± GRAVEL 4"HMA' SHOULDER I g .S a EDGE OF EXISTING 6"CSTC. EXISTING EAST SIDE PAVEMENT . PRELIMINARY CURB, GUTTER AND d SIDEWALK 24TH TO 32ND SECTION TWO LOTS)SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER FOR a° NTS ® P. E b 4 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 S.-) ,: F. City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works 11707 East Sprague Avenue,Suite 106 Spokane SPOKANE VALLEY,WA.99206 j a' (509 )921-1000 ��� PROJECT NAME' EVERGREEN 16TH TO 32ND TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT. STREET SHEET 1 OF 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sports Marketing and Its Impact in the Valley GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: none BACKGROUND: Eric Sawyer, President and CEO of Spokane Regional Sports Commission, will discuss "Sports Marketing and its Impact in the Valley." OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: List of Board of Directors Upcoming Events Project Sports 2012 Vision Team PowerPoint GOOD FOR SPORTS. GOOD FOR SPOKANE. City of Spokane Valley Presentation i P4 KANE REG1011AL sports commission Mission "Provide leadership in economic and community development through sports" • 501 (c)(3) nonprofit economic development agency • 15 member Board of Directors • $1 .2 Million Budget Private Sources 11% Public Facilities District \_7% Tourism Promotion Area 46% SPOKANE REGIOAL .,....11 • sports comm ission Active in securing over $ 200 million economic impact tor the region. Recent Valley Events NCAA Cross Country Championships American Legion Baseball World Series National Cross Country Championships US Club Cross Country Championships US National Junior Olympic Cross Country Championships NAIA Collegiate Volleyball Championships WIAA State High School Golf Championships SPOKANE REGIONAL . sports commission 2011 PROGRAM YEAR Est. r/n NEW EVENTS 2013 NCAA DII Cross Country Championships 750 2013 NCAA DII XC Preview Meet 260 2013 NCAA DII XC Regional Championships 720 2013 GNAC Cross Country Championships 450 2013 ASA Gold Territorial Softball Championships 890 2013 ASA Girl' s Regional Softball Championships 890 2013 ASA Women' s Slow Pitch Nationals 1,100 2012 WIAA State 4A Softball Tournament 1,000 2012 WIAA State 3A/4A/1A/2A Golf Tournaments 1,800 2012 Fitz Memorial Basketball Tournament 150 2012 World Champ of Scottish Heavy Athletics 250 2012 USA Boxing Women's Olympic Trials 750 2014 NJCAA National Wrestling Championships 1,450 2013 Fly Fishing Federation Conclave 2,100 2012 NCAA Women's Basketball 1St/2nd Rounds 1,300 2012 Jason Crawford Wrestling Tournament 350 ANNUAL EVENTS WIAA State 1 B/2B Basketball Tournament 4,379 USA Volleyball Pac NW Qualifier 9,101 WIAA State Track & Field Championships 4,850 Ironman Triathlon 8,500 Valley Girl Triathlon 600 NWAACC Track & Field Championships 720 EWU Hockey Showcase 140 Lilac Badminton Invitational 100 NW Classic Wrestling Invitational 175 4th July Wood Bat Classic 1,800 Cross Over Classic HS Volleyball Invitational 360 Dirty Dash 200 POKANE REONAL 114:1• S sports comGImission Totals for 2011 45,035 Upcoming Events 2012 USA Wrestling State Folkstyle Tournament HUB Sports Center 2012 WIAA State Golf Championships Meadowwood & Liberty Lake GC 2012 Pac NW Volleyball Qualifier (PNQ) HUB Sports Center 2014 NCAA DII Cross Country National Championships Plantes Ferry Sports Complex SPOKANE REGIONL . sports commissAion Sport Facility Challenges • Growth of "club" sports • Trend is to restrict access to school facilities • We're not keeping pace with population and demographic growth • Falling behind our competition SPOKANE REGIONAL '� . sports commission Facilities Study "Defining the potential for sports in our community — creating a vision for the future " Evaluate countywide sports facilities and create a roadmap for the future to: • Improve, renovate, and/or expand existing facilities. • Develop new facilities. WWW.SPOKANESPORTS.ORG PROJECT SPIRTS 2012 VISION TEAM • • COORDINATED BY SPORTS COMMISSION Facilities Study Phase I Inventory & Interviews (completed) Phase II Develop a list of proposed facility projects - in order of priority (completed by July 2012) WWW.SPOKANESPORTS.ORG PROJECT SPORTS 2012 VISION TEAM COORDINATED BY SPORTS COMMISSION li 1. 1 SPOKANE REGIONAL • sports commission ----77--- National Trail Running Champ Pac NW Volleyball State High School Golf Champ NJCAA Wrestling Championships Tandem Rally NCAA XCountry National Championships www.spokanesports.org S>•OKANE REGIONAL ' % sports commission g Board of Directors November 2011 Steven Jones Col,_Jeff Colliton Pamela Parks Chair Vice-Chair Treasurer Eymann, Allison, Fennessy, US Army (R) Eastern WA University Hunter,Jones, P.S. Judge Jim Murphy Bob Minnix Mark Casey Past-Chair Washington State University Mullin, Cronin, Casey, Judicial Mediation Group Blair, P.S. Jon Heimbigner David Pier Russ Wheat Inland NW Communications Brett Sports & Entertainment BHW! PR &Advertising Barbara Richie Bill Maxey Rita Santillanes Spokane Teachers Union Maxey Law Offices Best Western Peppertree Inns Lynnelle Caudill Doug Kelley Cajer Neely The Davenport Hotel & Avista Utilities Banner Bank Towers Staff Eric Sawyer Chris Frye, Ph.D Jodi Kayler Pres 1 CEO V.P.Sports Marketing/ Research V.P. Marketing/Communications Barbara Anzivino Brad Moeller lull Jones Office Manager Director of Event Services/ Event Services Manager Corporate Relations Ashley Barker Research 1 Event Services 714 N.Iron Bridge Way Spokane,WA 99202 (509)448-9152 www.spokanesports.org SPOKANE REGIONAL u pcomi NG EVENTS SPORTS COMMISSION 1R `) ...:--` fili / 2012 U.S. w OLYMPIC TEAM f .._, - , TRIALS FOR WOMEN'S , 400towste. ,.• .._ , . -ini le ript_ ,, I B BOX RUARY NG 13. 19, RTHERN QUEST ‘,..____.------*Alki\ . . - -,.0.:IT. r Twenty four of our notion's top Olympic ��C �T� OLYMPIC TRIALS hopefuls are coming to Spokane to * BOXING compete for their place on the 1st ever U.S. o �p SPOKANE WA Women's Boxing Olympic Team.Spokane ' t c is proud to host this historic event. FLIP GYMNASTICS FESTIVAL 2012 NWAACC TRACK& FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS 2012 SPOKANE r January 20-22, Hub Sports Center May 20.22, Spokane Falls Community College SPRING/SUMME' WASHINGTON STATE FOLKSTYLE WLAA BOYS & GIRLS GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT LINE-U ' WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIPS May 21-23, Select Golf Courses From Boxing to Track to January 27-29, Hub Sports Center WIAA BOYS & GIRLS 1A, 1B, 2B Judo, Spokane Regional •-• 2012 NW USSA XC SKIING QUALIFIER STATE TRACK & FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS Sports Commission February 19-20, Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboord May 24-26, Eastern Washington University • focuses on holding Park WIAA 4A STATE SOFTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS top-notch events that FOOL' S FEST RUGBY TOURNAMENT May 25-26, Dwight Merkel Sports Complex are memorable for th, March 31-April 1,Spokane Polo Fields IRONMAN COEUR D'ALENE competitor while bringing. , WIAA HARDWOOD CLASSIC STATE B June 24, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho measurable economic BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS 2012 U.S. NATIONAL FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS March 1-3,Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena impact to our region. AND WORLD ARCHERY FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS Check-out a few of our USA VOLLEYBALL PACIFIC May 10-13, Evergreen Archery Club Outdoor Range NORTHWEST QUALIFIER upcoming events. • March 23-25 &Mardi 30-April 1, 2011, Spokane SPOKANE-COEUR D'ALENE WOOD BAT CLASSIC July 4-7 Spokane&5 Spokane Valley Convention Center& Eastern Washington University srn4.wi .ir.rnw.i USJF/USJA JUNIOR NATIONAL JUDO spurts[omrnrssian JASON CRAWFORD MEMORIAL CHAMPIONSHIPS WRESTLING TOURNAMENT April 7,Spokane Convention Center July 6-8,Spokane Convention Center • INLAND EMPIRE JUDO CLASSIC 47TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL March 17,Spokane Convention Center FLY FISHING FAIR July 12--14,Spokane Convention Center LEARN MORE AT WWW.SPOKANESPORTS.ORG 2012 VISION TEAM SPOKANE REGIONAL SPORTS COMMISSION I 201 1 SPORT FACILITIES ASSESSMENT & PRIORITIES STUDY The Spokane Regional Sports Commission works diligently behind the scenes to attract, retain and facilitate sports events here in the Inland Northwest. These efforts are helping our region realize the economic, social and community-building benefits of sports.To continue to secure events in the future,we rely on maintaining efficient and effective facilities that support an inviting environment for sports programs and community activities. In a proactive approach,we are announcing the launch of a comprehensive Sports Facilities Assessment& Priorities Study, created to evaluate countywide sports facilities and develop a vision for the future.The intention is that this study will guide the production of strategies and future actions to protect. enhance and provide facilities in response to shortfalls or over provision. Spokane Regional Sports Commission 1 Eric Sawyer.President/CEO I 509.742.9371 [ erics @spokanesports.org 714 N.Iron Bridge Way.#202 I Spokane,WA 99202 [ www.spokanesports.org If you have questions or would like to find out how your organization can be involved, contact SRSC for more information: SPOKANE REGIONAL ''� 72 sports commission ------,---, OVERVIEW The Project Sports Vision team seeks to evaluate countywide sports facilities and develop a vision for the future.The goal is to identify potential facility projects that would broaden our region's ability to attract and develop additional sporting events while also expanding our community's capacity to service and grow local sports programs. This study would evaluate facilities under two primary categories to meet this goal: I . Improvement, renovation, and/or expansion of existing facilities. 2. Development of new facilities. SrO RAMC RCG tO HAS ''1 sports commission PROCESS This study has ensured that stakeholders have been fully engaged in the process and their expertise has been(Phase I) carefully measured.A qualified list of local sport organizations and facility operators in each category was be identified and interviewed through a comprehensive process.Each was asked to explore design concepts for improving and developing facilities to meet their program needs PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS WILL BE BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF F ACILITIES WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: I. The greatest return-on-investment(ROI)for the region—in economic development terms 2. Meets current growth(and growth trends)of regional sports programs 3. Supports the greatest diversity and number of users 4. Has a realistic and probable chance for being financed S. Can be an operational success and realistically support its ongoing operation and maintenance CRITERIA FOR STUDY: 1. Facility is`regional'in scope providing opportunities for user groups throughout the community 2. Has design elements that allow it to host competitions attracting visiting athletes and/or fans 3. Is a pubrcally accessible facility with few limits to outside user groups 4. An active,growing local sports program(s)exists to support and justify the facility DELIV_FABLES A report will be developed that lists proposed facility projects,in order of priority,to include estimated costs for each project,estimated ROI,and community development impacts.When possible,each facility will be quantified with user group numbers,change in capacity,and estimated economic impact. Once completed,this study will provide an opportunity to influence regional planning and validate the need for additional and improved sports facilities.It is not an in-depth analysis of each project.but rather an overview of the regional sports scene in order to bring clarity and priority for the future. As an outcome,this study will allow the SRSC,its partners,and stakeholders to effectively enroll elected officials, community leaders,and private investors into understanding the need for additional and improve sports facilities.This will be a strategic vision and a roadmap for future projects. Spokane Regional Sports Commission I Eric Sawyer,President/CEO 1 509.742.9371 I erics @spokanesports.org 714 N.Iron Bridge Way,-#202 I Spokane,WA 99202 I www.spokanespors.org CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Fire Department Interlocal Agreement Amendment - Fees GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of original interlocal agreement July 19, 2006; adoption of amended interlocal July 25, 2008. BACKGROUND: In the course of reviewing the Master Fee Schedule as part of the 2012 budget adoption, there was discussion regarding the Fire Department's permitting fees contained in our Master Fee Schedule. These fees relate to the review the Fire Department does in the City's construction permitting process, including fire safety review and inspections. The Department sets their own fees, and the City collects them and passes them through to the Department. In researching why this particular arrangement exists, it was found that the interlocal agreement includes several references to having these costs in the City's Master Fee Schedule as the means to collect them. It is unnecessary to require that such pass-through fees be in the City's fee schedule. The Department bases its fees on cost recovery for its services. By having the Department's fees in the City's fee schedule, the City could exercise control over cost recovery for the Department - a separate jurisdiction. At the very least, this could result in unnecessary friction between the two jurisdictions that can easily be avoided by changing the language in the interlocal to reflect that the Department will send the City the Department's fee schedule, which can be updated from time to time in writing. The City would continue to collect these fees and forward them to the Department. Staff recommends that the Council approve the updated version of the interlocal which corrects these issues. Staff also found various typographical errors that should be corrected, which are also reflected in this proposed agreement. OPTIONS: Proceed to place on future agenda for motion consideration, with or without further modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Place on future agenda for motion consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Mike Thompson, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: (1) Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services — proposed changes. DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane Valley Fire Department, a special purpose district organized and operating under the laws of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 10319 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as the "Department" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "City," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." The Department and the City agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS A. Cities and special purpose districts may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act). B. The City has been annexed into the special purpose district served by the Department and the Department provides most emergency fire protection services in the City. C. The City has adopted land use regulations, a series of safety codes for building construction, maintenance, and the use of structures and their occupancies, including the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Fire Code (IFC). D. The City has code enforcement authority pursuant to RCW 19.27.050 and fire investigation authority under RCW 43.44.050. E. The Department has a Fire Prevention Division, staffed by trained personnel that regularly conduct fire code safety inspections and conduct fire investigations to determine the origin and cause of fires within the City pursuant to RCW 52.12.031(7) and RCW 43.44.050. F. Both the City and the Department have a need for the Services of the other and the City and the Department have the ability to provide these Services. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 1 of 11 DRAFT G. The duty of the Department to provide emergency services within the special purpose district or under the provisions of this Agreement is a duty owed to the public generally and by entering into this Agreement, the Department does not incur a special duty to the City, the property owners, residents or occupants of the City. H. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. This Agreement is intended to modify and replace the prior Interlocal Agreement For Fire Services in the City of Spokane Valley entered into by the Parties on the 25th of July, 2008. SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS A. Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Department regarding fire code compliance-related services. B. City: "City" means the City of Spokane Valley. C. Compensation: "Compensation" means the amount of money which the City will collect and pay the Department for providing Services as identified in the Department's currently adopted fee schedule, which may be updated from time to time by the Department and provided to the City. D. Department: "Department" means Spokane Valley Fire Department. E. Services: "Services" means all of those responsibilities set forth in Section 5, Parties Responsibility. F. Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of such Services. SECTION NO. 3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which the City and the Department will provide Services to each other. It is the intent of the Parties that Services to be provided will be consistent with the City's Council/Manager form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCW. SECTION NO. 4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL This Agreement shall commence on the date the last signature is affixed hereto, and run through December 31 , 2012. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 2 of 11 DRAFT At the conclusion of the initial term (December 31, 2012), this Agreement shall automatically be renewed from year to year thereafter effective January 1st to December 31st All renewals shall be subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein or as amended pursuant to Section 13 below. Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon a minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 8 to the other Party. SECTION NO. 5: PARTIES RESPONSIBILITIES: The Department will administer the International Fire Code, as currently adopted or subsequently amended, for the City by maintaining a Fire Prevention Division, performing plan reviews, and by conducting inspections and investigations. A. The Department agrees to designate a fire code official to implement, administer, and to work with the City to enforce the provisions of this code as provided for in the International Fire Code Section 103. B. Inspections of existing occupancies shall be conducted as follows: 1 . Inspections shall be performed under Section 104 and Section 105 of the IFC. 2. Inspections in accordance with Section 104 and 105 shall be conducted on an annual basis except Group H occupancies, which may be inspected semi-annually. In all cases the inspections are to be conducted in a regularly scheduled manner. 3. The Department shall serve written notice of a violation of the IFC to the property and/or business as is appropriate. Re-inspection of failed inspections will be conducted not more than 30 calendar days after the initial inspection. The 30 day limit may be exceeded if so doing does not endanger persons occupying or accessing the occupancy and the fire inspector sets and comments in writing a date certain for re- inspection. 4. If compliance is not achieved after the first re-inspection, a second written notice shall be served unless there is an immediate hazard to public safety. 5. If after the second re-inspection non-compliance still exists, the Department shall confer with the Building Official and jointly prepare the enforcement action. The City shall be responsible for costs of code enforcement actions. The Building Official shall issue stop work orders as deemed appropriate. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 3 of 11 DRAFT 6. At the time of the first inspection, Fire Prevention Division Inspectors shall determine if a valid permit has been issued to occupancies requiring a permit, pursuant to IFC Section 105. If a valid permit has not been issued, the Department inspector will take appropriate action to inform the occupant of the local requirements. 7. Notwithstanding the foregoing, immediate enforcement and or other actions may be undertaken by the City in lieu of warnings or re-inspections if to do so is necessary to comply with applicable law or for other circumstances determined by the City. C. The Department shall conduct Fire Investigations in conformance with the IFC and other City, state and federal requirements. All investigations involving arson or mischievous burning shall be reported to the appropriate enforcement agency. D. A copy of plans submitted to the City for building construction and alteration shall be submitted by the City to the Department for review. The Department shall be responsible for determining: 1 . Fire hydrant locations. 2. Connections for locations of standpipes and sprinkler systems. 3. Key box locations and approvals. 4. Fire flow availability in all areas where the water provider does not have sufficient information. 5. Road access requirements to property and buildings for fire fighting purposes, including designated fire lanes. The City shall be responsible for implementing the Department's determinations through the CITY'S permitting process. E. The Department shall further assist the City in the review of plans for Automatic Fire Suppression Systems and Fire Alarm and Detection Systems. F. The City and the Department shall both conduct final inspections of new buildings other than single family dwellings or private garages. G. The Department shall review applications and perform field inspections of public fireworks displays to insure compliance with applicable State and City requirements. H. The City shall assist the Department as necessary in implementing and enforcing the Department's determinations under this Section No. 5. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 4 of 11 DRAFT I. The Department shall refrain from performing any of the services specified in this paragraph upon request by the City. SECTION NO 6: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS The City shall pay the Department the costs for Services provided by the Department under this Agreement as set forth in the Department's currently adopted fee schedule. The City shall collect and retain a $35 processing fee in addition to the fees listed in the currently adopted fee schedule. Fees collected on behalf of the Department shall be forwarded by the City on a quarterly basis to the Department. Either Party may dispute any claimed moneys owed. In the event the Parties cannot mutually resolve any dispute over moneys owed within 30 calendar days from the time a written claim is made, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 16. The selection of arbitrators as provided for in Section No.16 shall commence within 30 calendar days of the running of the 30 calendar day time frame. The Parties recognize that it is not always possible for either Party to discover errors in payment. The Parties further recognize that there must be some finality to addressing such errors. Accordingly, the Parties agree that both Parties are foreclosed from challenging any errors in payment unless the challenge is made in writing to the other party within 30 calendar days of the last invoice of the calendar year. Errors raised within this time frame that are not mutually resolved shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 16. SECTION NO. 7: RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVIDING SERVICES A Department representative shall make reasonable efforts to attend staff or Council meetings as requested by the City Manager. A Department representative shall make reasonable efforts to meet upon request by the City Manager or his/her designee to discuss any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 8: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the Department or the City at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as either Party shall from time to time designate by notice in writing to the other Party: Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 5 of 11 DRAFT DEPARTMENT: Spokane Valley Fire Department 10319 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION NO. 9: ASSIGNMENT No Party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other Party. SECTION NO. 10: DEPARTMENT/CITY EMPLOYEES The Department shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing Department Services under this Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws. The City shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing City Services under this Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws. SECTION NO. 11: LIABILITY A. The Department shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the Department, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City, the Department shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City and the Department and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the Department shall satisfy the same. B. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the Department, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the Department reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 6 of 11 DRAFT involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the Department, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the Department and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City shall satisfy the same. C. If the comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. D. Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's negligence. E. Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. F. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. G. The Department and the City agree to either self insure or purchase policies of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $3,000,000 per occurrence with $3,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto liability coverages. SECTION NO. 12: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The Department shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the City, that the City is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which the services are performed is solely within the discretion of the Department. Any and all employees who provide Services to the City under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the Department. The Department shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the City shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the Department for any purpose. It is understood that the Department shall from time to time upon identification of a life safety violation of code or a parking violation impairing access to fire hydrants or routes of ingress or egress to emergency scenes or restricted fire zones, need to immediately Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 7 of 11 DRAFT issue citations for these violations. It is further understood that the Fire Department, under the authority of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office may, if necessary, take such actions under the sole authority of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and/or the Department and pursuant to a separate agreement with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Any costs or liability that may result from these actions shall be the responsibility of either the Fire Department or Sheriff's Office respectively. SECTION NO. 13: MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the Parties. Proposals for modification shall be submitted to the other party at least 60 days before the end of the calendar year. SECTION NO. 14: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with providing the Services shall remain with the original owner, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed to by the Parties to this Agreement. For the purpose of this section, the terminology "owner" means that Party which paid the full purchase price for the property or equipment. SECTION NO. 15: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. The Parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the Parties unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the Parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors and assigns. SECTION NO. 16: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the Parties which cannot be resolved between the Parties shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the Department and the City Manager. If the Department and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. The Department and the City shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Parties and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 8 of 11 DRAFT The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the Parties. Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs in preparing and presenting its case. SECTION NO. 17: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 18: SEVERABILITY The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO. 19: RECORDS All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by the Department in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed City property and shall be made available to the City upon request by the City Manager subject to the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The Department will timely notify the City of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.56 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the Department's response thereto. SECTION NO. 20: HEADINGS The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 9 of 11 DRAFT SECTION NO. 21: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the Department which render legally impossible the performance by the Department of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO. 22: FILING This Agreement shall be filed by the Department with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 23: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL The Parties warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement. SECTION NO. 24: INITIATIVES The Parties recognize that revenue reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the City, Department or both Parties. The Parties agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue reducing initiative(s). If such an event occurs, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion. SECTION NO. 25: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 26: DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or power under law. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 10 of 11 DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ATTEST: Monte Nesbitt, Board Chair Mike Thompson Fire Chief/ District Secretary DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Mike Jackson, City Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 11 of 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7,2012 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report regarding proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)22.70(fencing, screening and landscaping). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council directed staff to proceed with amendments to SVMC 22.70 following a Council study session on July 5,2012. BACKGROUND: City Council directed staff to proceed with modifications to the fencing and landscaping standards(Chapter 22.70) in the SVMC. On August 25,2011 the Planning Commission was presented an overview of landscaping standards and outlined proposed changes. Planning Commission met on the following dates; 1. September 22,2011 —Study Session 2. November 10,2011 —Public Hearing(draft minutes attached) 3. December 8,2011 —Continued Public Hearing and deliberation(approved minutes attached) 4. January 12, 2012 — Continued deliberations and made recommendation (approved minutes attached) 5. January 26, 2012 —Approved findings and recommendations to City Council (draft minutes attached) Based upon staffs recommendation,the Planning Commission made a motion 7 to 0 to move the proposed amendments on to the City Council for review and decision. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to SVMC 22.70; 1. Section 22.70.020.B—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard(corner lot)outside of the front yard setback. 2. Section 22.70.020.0—Modify language to provide more clarity to the clear view triangle definition and update references to tables and figures to ensure this section is administered correctly. 3. Section 22.70.020.F—Define which zones allow barbed,concertina or razor wire. 4. Section 22.70.030.E.9 and Table 22.70-4—Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4 and moved Section 22.70.040.N beneath table. 5. Section 22.70.030.E.9—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. 6. Section 22.70.030.G.5.f—Modified language so tree staking is optional and specified a time limit for removal. 7. Section 22.70.030.G.6—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. 8. Section 22.70.030.G.9—Added flexibility to landscaping requirements relating to new parking stalls. 9. Section 22.70.030.J.4—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. 10. Section 22.70.0301.1.e—Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. 11. Section 22.70.030.M—Clarified the party certifying the landscaping at project completion. 12. Figure 22.70-14—Added an alternative to above ground tree staking for more options. OPTIONS: Proceed as proposed,or as modified;or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Consensus to bring this forward for an ordinance first reading at the February 28,2012 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall—Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Planning Commission's proposed draft Language (2) Planning Commissions Findings and Recommendations (3) Staff report w/out exhibits (4) Public/Agency comments (5) Approved and/or Draft Planning Commission minutes from all meetings related to landscaping. (6) Presentation Chapter 22.70 FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING Sections: 22.70.010 Purpose and intent. 22.70.020 General provisions — Fencing. 22.70.030 Screening and buffering. 22.70.010 Purpose and intent. The use of fencing and screening reduces visual, noise and lighting impacts on adjacent properties and provides visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. It also serves to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community by eliminating dangerous conditions and preserving property values. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.70.020 General provisions— Fencing. A. No sight-obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height, nor any non-sight-obstructing fence (cyclone) more than 48 inches in height may be erected and/or maintained within the required front yard of any lot used for residential purposes. B. Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard setback line on a flanking, side or rear yard may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in residential zoning districts. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of access (the apparent backyardrear yard). C. Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation, which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the "clearview triangle" as set forth below: 1. A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets.or the intersection of an alley, private road or commercial driveway and a street to ensure unobstructed vision of motorists and pedestrians. Within the clearview triangle, the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet above the sidewalk, must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 1 Figure 22.70-1 Clearview Requirements VlGITA'IION WITHIN CLIL ARV!W TR IANGLH 4• , / 1, 7' t _ 3, MINIMUM . - 3 iAXIMJM 35 r_,--- h+fAXINIIaI►4 IDIWAL1 i SMUT I Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards. a. Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs), - - . _ __••••- _ e .. -. - . (see Figure 22.70-2); or Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection . 'X1 FT. : ` M-7i ACC[ww STREET LK'y AOC CM •... . r .. • er •- lin'LINE -■49•4foror 14,40 14$rj 1440100 , , P 411 , . .0/44"/ 4 4 ! I. ""tr illej:/:jir'°111 NOTE F NO CU+IS PRESENT. _'i 5 TOWAR06 THE PROPERTY LIB EROA4 ME EDGE OF ROADWAY crrr wa it--w ci am NoHr#-wAY CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 2 Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection soft sots Local Access Street Local Access Street CURB PROPERTY LIN � z dif •ROPERTY LINE ~HT-OF-WAY err. a a NOTE:If no curb is present, 0 o measure in 5 feet towards a a the property line from the edge of the roadway. t—CURBi CITY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY b. Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16-foot side measured along the curb line of a local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs), alley or commercial driveway, and the distance shown on Table 22.70-1 based on posted speed along the side along the curb line of the intersecting street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) (see Figure 22.70-3); or F •ure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection •. TAM' 707011• 1FF • F 7(x1 F 001:km0 p001:h1 116I110E 117 whorcG PI O SINT'1.11P/71N1114 EGII CF 114 NOr DOW V 1 V V OIfI 1,21160.-vM1' CT?PEW M! CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 3 Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection See Table l Through Street I See Table Through Street CURB CITY lr\° RIGHT-OF -WAY IjROPERTY LINE o NOTE:If no curb is present, i measure in 5 feet towards the property line from the CITY At—CURB edge of the roadway. RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY Table 22.70-1 — Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 70 30 95 35 110 c. In cases including, but not limited to, arterials with posted speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour, one-way streets, steep grades and sharp curves, the City traffic engineer will determine the appropriate measurement; or d. Yield-Controlled Intersection. For intersections of local streets with 25 mile per hour speed limits, the right triangle having a 35-foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the yield-controlled street, and an 80-foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the intersecting street. Triangles for yield-controlled intersections on collectors or arterials, or streets with speeds higher than 25 miles per hour, will be determined by the City traffic engineer(see Figure 22.70-4); or CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 4 c. All-Way Stop Controllcd. The trianglc dctcrmincd by the City traffic cnginccr using 1 . •. - 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection i -- - . H - El FT. lllid{IG11 - T}•f40U011 STREET f-C6418 _.7_1.41: 4efar 40). ... ,/(5-77,'.:.. 74.7 '..,. .. _._.-----77_7F-„._ _, _aft FIGHT-CF-WAY delP PROPERTY LIE d -_--T 1 1 J/ -cue-J OTT FU;a4T- -MIAY an,} 4T-Cr-WAY Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection--f Through Street H B. Street 7 r_....,,4„,r 4 ,;-, 5, Or "or }-I PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY 4. `t LINE CITY CURB RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY e. All-Way Stop Controlled. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for all-way stop controlled intersections; or f. Signal-Controlled Intersection. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for signalized intersections; or g. Noncommercial Driveway Serving Three or More Residences. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 15 feet measured along the curb line of the street and the edge of the driveway (see Figure 22.70-5). CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 5 Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway ' -1 is FT - - . - VI TT - OWN - - -�'' --- - • ,�� i Orr Pall- -WAY r Y er •. Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway --1 r ir- 15ft -1 H 1t Street Street CURB PROPERTY LINE CITY T 3 w RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 EDGE OF��EDGE OF DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY D. Exemptions. Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to: 1. Public utility poles; 2. Trees, so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at least seven feet above the street surface; 3. Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle; and 4. Traffic control devices installed by the City. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 6 E. Fences in nonresidential, commercial, mixed use and industrial zoning districts shall not exceed eight feet in height. F. Barbed wire or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence industrial zoning districts. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district (except for confining animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H)or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way. An administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbed wire requirements. G. In any residential zoning district, barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals, if the parcel meets the requirements contained in Section 19.40.150. H. Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals; provided, however, that: 1. The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150 feet; and 2. The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line; and 3. Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure. I#. A combination of sight-obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030. Jt. Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.70.030 Screening and buffering. A. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply only to multifamily and nonresidential projects. B. Type I — Full Screening. 1. Where required for full screening, a sight-obscuring fence shall be installed consistent with the requirements for a clearview triangle. The fence shall be at least six feet high and 100 percent sight obscuring. Fences may be made of wood, ornamental iron or aluminum, brick, masonry, architectural panels, chain link with slats, or other permanent materials, berms, walls, vegetative plantings, or some combination of these. 2. The required fence shall be further screened by a mix of plantings located within a five-foot buffer strip that are layered and/or combined to obtain an immediate dense sight-obscuring barrier of two to three feet in height, selected to reach six feet in height at maturity as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 50 percent of the trees being deciduous; b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 75 percent of the plantings, planted at a distance of not less than six feet on center; c. A minimum of 24 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area; d. Plantings used for full screening adjacent to public or private rights-of-way shall be located outside the fence or security system. Figure 22.70-6 Example of Type I Landscaping with Sight-Obscuring Fence (Not to Scale) I Evergreen Tree I.1L r x _ 1 Sixae !o r,c,i -4- --,:i..,■:11:-41 '. - 4.9,,. --z-: .-,, -LI 0 ,;-.)-: ‘,1 - _,:-) .,-,-,---,f.--- —4..— 0 --2i tfo ° 4 ;.i.714f-c-....-31,1› _fir 35 Icxx Q C"'' e'l Yin , ((r44<-1-1't S.cj d k 8curirlU Wilco 3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of NurserymenStandard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. ff a 1 ANTNGMIXTURE' d•1•I i �.— . .� • 5I(}T•O5cING FEE Nr nsn JAN Rican-03-wn Figure 22.70-7 Type I Full Screening C. Type II —Visual Buffering. 1. Where required to minimize the incompatibility between adjacent land uses, a visual screen of not less than five feet in width which may consist of fencing, architectural panels, berms, walls, vegetative plantings, or some combination of these shall be installed as follows: a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 75 percent of the trees being deciduous; CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 I 8 b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 50 percent of the plantings; c. A minimum of 18 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area. 2. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen (a copy of which is on file in the planning d'°^ t)Standard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. Figure 22.70-8 Example of Type II Landscaping Evergreen Tree Deciduous Shrubs 0 ,0' - 4 04 4 o � 10 400Q *44 µ ilit 044 35 rife max„ Gratt Grass 3. The buffer shall run the entire length of the abutting lot line(s). A natural, undisturbed wooded area at least 20 feet in width may substitute for landscaping. D. Full screening and buffering are required for land use classification as shown on Table 22.70-2. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 9 Table 22.70-2 —Buffers Required by Type R-1, R-2, MF-1, NC, C, CMU, City Zoning Districts R-3, R-4 MF-2 0, GO RC MUC Center 1-1, 1-2 Planned Residential I I I I I I 1 Development Manufactured Home Parks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MF-1, MF-2 1 n/a 1 11 11 11 1 0, GO 1 1 n/a 11 n/a n/a n/a NC, C, RC 1 1 11 n/a n/a n/a n/a CMU, MUC 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a City Center 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1-1, 1-2 1 I I I I I n/a I —Type I Full Screening 11 —Type 11 Visual Buffering n/a— Not Applicable E. General Provisions— Landscaping. 1. Applicant may use any combination of planting materials to meet the requirements of this section. Points are assigned based on the following: Table 22.70-3 —Landscaping Point Values Minimum Size (at time of planting) Type of Plant Point Material Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Value (in caliper inches) (in feet of height) Large Tree 8-inch or greater 22 ft. and over 26 CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 10 Table 22.70-3 —Landscaping Point Values Minimum Size (at time of planting) Type of Plant Point Material Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Value (in caliper inches) (in feet of height) 7-inch 19—21 ft. 24 6-inch 16— 18 ft. 22 5-inch 13— 15 ft. 20 4-inch 11 — 12 ft. 18 3-inch 9— 10 ft. 15 Medium Tree 2-inch 7—8 ft. 12 Small Tree Single trunk: 1-inch 5—6 ft. 9 Ornamental Tree Multiple trunk (minimum 3 trunks): smallest 5—6 ft. 9 trunk 1-inch caliper Large Shrub 5-gallon and 24-inch height at planting 3 Medium Shrub 3-gallon and 12-inch height at planting 2 Small Shrub 2-gallon and 8-inch height at planting 1 Ornamental 1 gallon 1/2 Grasses Groundcover 1 gallon 1/2 4-inch pots 1/4 Existing Trees Greater than 6-inch caliper 22—50 Landscaped Berm 30-inch height; 10-foot length; 3:1 slope 1 per 5 linear ft. Turf Grass n/a 1/4 per sq. yd. 2. Landscaping must equal or exceed a minimum number of points based on the size of the lot, parcel or tract and the number of parking spaces. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 11 Table 22.70-4 -Landscaping Points Required for Development, Additions or Site Alterations Size of Developed Number of Points Required Area 0- 500 sq. ft. Site points - 10 500-2,500 sq. ft. Site points =25 2,5014-5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 More than 5,000 sq. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq. ft. of area over ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Parking lob Two points per required parking space and one point for each proposed additional parking space 3. Landscaping Plan Requirements. A landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 required landscape points. All landscape plans shall include the size and type of landscaping materials, the dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. 48. An additional 10 percent in the number of points shall be required adjacent to the following aesthetic corridors: a. State Route 27 from 16th Avenue South to 32nd Avenue and Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue; b. Appleway Boulevard (south side from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); c. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue; d. Dishman Mica Road from 8th Avenue, south to City limits; e. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; f. Appleway Avenue from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 54. Points for required full screening or visual buffers shall be in addition to the points required to meet landscaping requirements of this section. 68. A maximum of 25 percent of required landscape points may be claimed within the street right-of-way. CTA-o3-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 12 7S. A minimum of 60 percent of points shall be used for landscaping in the front and side yards. 8�. A minimum of 25 percent of required points shall be used for evergreen plantings. 94. A maximum of 25 percent of required points may be used for turf grass. (Turf located within the street right-of-way is excluded.) - - - -! - -- shall require: a. Onc point of landscaping for cvcry 200 squarc fcct of dm/doped area, with a minimum of 10 points; and b. Two points of landscaping for every parking space installed for the building addition. 10. The type and location of vegetation shall not interfere with utilities and the safe and efficient flow of street traffic. Approval by the appropriate City departments responsible for street and utilities shall be required. 11. Any turf grass planted in the street right-of-way shall be excluded from turf point credits. 12. Street trees are included for point calculation. 13. All plant material planted to meet the minimum requirements of these regulations shall be in a healthy condition at the time of planting and shall meet quality standards set forth by the American Standard for Nursery Stock. 14. Turf grass shall be planted, seeded or re-seeded as necessary, watered and maintained in such a manner as to completely cover all exposed areas of soil after one full growing season. 15. No disturbed ground shall be left exposed. Grass and other approved and appropriate ground covers or mulch shall cover all nonpaved and nonbuilt developed areas. 16. Landscaping may be included within stormwater facilities, providing it does not impede on functionality and is consistent with stormwater guidelines. F. Street Trees. 1. Street trees shall include deciduous trees planted in or within 10 feet of any public or private right-of-way, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center in sleeves designed to direct root development as shown in Figure 22.70-9 of this chapter. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 13 Figure 22.70-9 Root Barrier for Trees Planted Near Walkways f 1 _ 4 FI 1iDMED GRADE I S 4-- . ..-- 3-A"514 CRmrimrm GRAY EL i. P. r ' I F noweroWm�ca OOUwi ROOT DARRK14 •r r l ROOT BARRIER FOR.PLANTINGS TREES NEAR.WAU WAYS wt ry soma 2. If construction is adjacent to any local access, collector or arterial, at least one medium tree shall be planted for each 40 linear feet, or fraction thereof, for that portion of the development abutting the right-of-way. 3. Where overhead utility lines are present, use appropriate street tree species as specified in Appendix 22-A, Recommended Planting List, in subsection 0 of this section. G. Landscaping Requirements for Parking Areas. 1. Headlight Screening. Where parking lot design includes spaces which allow vehicles to park perpendicular to public rights-of-way or structures located on adjacent parcels, headlight screening shall be required. Headlight screening should not exceed 30 inches in height for the length of the parking area. a ._ , r ' '. r+ r� Rri Irr .wr Figure 22.70-10 Headlight Screening 2. When a parking area abuts residentially zoned property along any interior side or rear property line, Type I full screening is required. 3. A maximum of 10 percent of the number of required parking spaces may be replaced with landscaping. Ten points of landscaping shall be required for each substituted parking space. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 14 4. A minimum of 25 percent of required points for parking areas shall be evergreen plant materials. 5. Amount and Location. a. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall be a minimum of 130 square feet with a minimum average width of five feet; b. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall contain a minimum of one medium tree; c. The distance between any parking space and a landscaped area shall be no more than 75 feet; d. All parking lot planting areas shall be protected with concrete curbs, or equivalent barriers. Bumper blocks shall not be used for boundaries around the landscaped area; e. All landscaping must be located between parking stalls, at the end of parking columns, or between stalls and the property line. Landscaping which occurs between the parking lot and a building or recreation area shall not be considered as satisfaction of these requirements; f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall may be staked for a period of not less more than 12 months after planting; g. Ground cover or grasses shall be planted to cover each parking lot planting area within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All ground cover shall have a mature height of not more than 24 inches. Loose rock, gravel, decorative rock or stone, or mulch shall not exceed 20 percent of the planting area; h. Space devoted to required parking lot planting areas shall be in addition to any required front, side, and rear yard buffer requirements; i. Stand-alone parking lots shall require three points of landscaping for each parking space and shall be exempt from other landscaping requirements. 6. Any construction within or expansion or reconstruction of existing parking facilities in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to come into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. 6�. Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of street trees along public rights-of-way, planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center. 78-. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or facilities shall be allowed. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 15 84. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or parking decks, or display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals. 9. Proposals requiring ten (10) new parking stalls or less are exempt from landscaping points found in Table 22.70-4. H. Landscaping Required for Common Open Space. 1. Fifty percent of the required common open area shall contain irrigated plantings. I. Screening of Loading Docks. Off-street loading spaces and apron space should be screened from view of the abutting streets for a minimum of 35 feet: 1. By a combination of permanent architectural and landscape elements such as walls, berms, trees and shrubs with a mature height of at least to the height of the top of the dock door but no greater than 12 feet above the truck dock apron; and 2. Shall, when viewed at a perpendicular angle from the street, screen the loading spaces completely, except for driveway opening(s). J. Landscaping Requirements for Freestanding Signs. 1. New freestanding sign structures serving a new development shall provide a landscaping area as follows: a. Structures on Slab. A landscape border of 18 inches or more measured from the edge of slab for monument signs. b. Single Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 32 square feet in area located 18 inches or more measured from the edge of footing if flush with natural grade, or 18 inches from the pole, provided the footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil. c. Multiple Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 60 square feet in area located 18 inches or more measured from the edge of footings. The landscape border may be placed adjacent to the poles provided footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil. 2. New freestanding sign structures located within 208 swales areas require no additional landscaping. Footings shall be installed in such a way that the biofiltration function of the swale is not diminished. 3. New freestanding sign structures located within existing developments where landscaping meets the requirements of subsection C of this section require no additional landscaping. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 16 4. New sign structures on a fully developed site will require minimal xeriscaping pursuant to subsection K of this section.are exempt from landscaping. 5. Points for landscaping of sign structures may be used to meet the minimum requirements of this chapter. K. Xeriscaping. 1. The number of required points may be reduced by up to 20 percent for use of recommended xeriscape planting materials combined with decorative hardscape. Xeriscape planting materials need fewer waterings than typical lawn grasses and can tolerate, resist, or avoid drought after they are established. They have attractive ornamental features and are relatively easy to grow. Xeriscape planting materials have not been invasive in local growing conditions. 2. Use drip or trickle irrigation. 3. Mulch with three to four inches of shredded or ground bark, well-rotted compost, wood shavings or chips at the time of installation. L. Modification of Landscaping Requirement. 1. The director may approve alternative landscaping proposals where: a. Only a portion of the parcel is being developed; b. Landscaping would interfere with the adequate storage, conveyance, treatment or control of stormwater runoff or would interfere with the maintenance of stormwater facilities or natural drainage systems; c. Applicant proposes xeriscaping in conformance with subsection K of this section; d. Existing structures or improvements preclude installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems as prescribed herein. e. Additions or expansions on developed Industrial zoned properties may be exempt from landscaping requirements, where it is shown that the installation of landscaping is not feasible. 2. Where applicant proposes to preserve existing healthy trees, a credit may be applied to points for required landscaping; provided, however, that not more than 25 percent of the total points may be located within the public right-of-way. Credit may be approved as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 17 Table 22.70-5 —Credits for Tree Preservation Size of Preserved Deciduous Height of Existing Preserved Conifer Landscape Points Applied Tree* 6-inch caliper 16— 18 ft. 25 7-inch caliper 19—21 ft. 28 8-inch to 10-inch caliper 22—28 ft. 30 10.1-inch caliper to 15-inch DBH 29—32 ft. 35 15.1-inch to 20-inch caliper 33—36 ft. 40 20.1-inch to 25-inch caliper 37—40 ft. 46 Over 25-inch caliper > 41 ft. 58 3. The decision of the director regarding modification of landscape requirements shall be final unless an aggrieved person appeals that decision to the hearing examiner. M. Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement. 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, person(s)who prepared landscape plan a registered landscape architect will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. 2. The director may authorize a delay where planting season conflicts would produce high probability of plant loss. In the event the director authorizes a delay, a limited access agreement, not to exceed six months, may be issued to complete the installation of required landscaping. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner. All landscaping required by this chapter shall be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition. Trees that become diseased, severely damaged or die shall be removed by the owner. All trees removed under this section shall be replaced in accordance with the approved landscaping plan for the property. Lack of maintenance shall constitute a violation of this code. a. Tree guards are to be used around the base of each tree in lawn areas. b. Trees are to be planted a minimum of four feet from any curb stop whenever possible. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 18 c. Landscaping must be maintained to allow fire protection equipment to be seen from approach. d. All landscaping must provide for a three-foot clear area around all fire protection equipment. Figure 22.70-11 Example of Suggested Shrub Planting 0 4cr o� 0 0 FORM 5AUaR WTTT1 Oa 3'CONTINUOUS EN WWI c I.; SftCIFI ED PLANTING — MIY. WATER 1r T'14P II liF +`I'+ f—^ TO REMOVe AIR 1i_ -41 FOCFET5 •AITINI. I.= immi CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 19 Figure 22.70-12 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting FLAN SO TNAAT TOP OF RODr au L 15 nvm wr1i TNtE IAISHM GRACIE crrr I' TRg GrtM 0.S NEEDF❑HARDWOOD 5T+iF. 1.35TAf.F52'X2' DRJVrH(MIN 18')FIRMLY INTO 51!3 GRADE FRIOI[ 1O 5AG>C FIUIWG 5TAKE ABOVE FIRST DRANCHE5 OR AS NECESSARY FOR EIRAA f ? AR O' suPPORT i ri — SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX r'1� !�1- WATER*TAMP TO .=.11 RaeaVE AIR POCKETS =._ 011W 1 , 1 I xu[�A. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 20 Figure 22.70-13 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting J - r- N • P ' ' _ r wit, rider -OILMEN 140111511101.CH AN AT6hAi - cur Wei pi OM FLAG O I EACH TO=PEA= '+41ML1TY-Ar NDTI[tir1WI MIPE$ASTMEY mew wood.MAY TLAWM/DI0i01 uILVAAIesn cat wow o OMEJR d KIN OMEN to at AT Loa F OI YL GRADE F�//4� "Ali. MUM f�,�ff :. --- INa+LY IVMiD MIXER':WElyricIl \!\\/\\;. .:.. f miCLE Of YAW)NMI 5113 MAYS \ff\\f\\y ; 04 E,L6PE MD lOR TYPE 4.,f\z,/r.; \f�f�r-\i. .• *7717 eaia#SRi19ECVT FE�VVE \r,/tii� .:/\`/\�i\ .e?i f-IAA,, MP w Ce WRAP.MffS IOCEOINDRiIF W1ERIAL \\ \/tif\\'\t'\t-\\titi\f\1f1 \�'\/� Tiv../\\ pfiLLKT[TALLYPItIA tiL ///////f/////j//f:%/f4,,/fJ/////!r� ,/,%?..ev\\\!\\r--fevv,ice-'-"-"•'r\�,t " RED 9.R#7L70 Wm PEOWA.15Porno F=T TL NF CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 21 Figure 22.70-14 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting • • • • • rr .I r • Mulch to 1 m Low stake radius CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 22 Figure 22.70-154 Example of Suggested Conifer Tree Planting 1AULL1±PIJ 7 TO 3'RADIUS MOM 01 It PANS sI VI.IICW PAUL 4' WUM SI nn. Roof viif]'NH 2•-'A9DYr ruNki 4Gr 7DIL GRAM' -111 1 III FORS'W+LICER wirri 3"CCOITINUCu3 Mu N■o l'INI5t1 GRADE •100011. li=11,=11,i A�.a l _ TI Ili :AFT rxi5TNG NA GOIX FLAW]VG SUL i I x 8ALL CAA L landscape and include thc size and type of landscaping materials, thc dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. O. Recommended Planting Species. Refer to Appendix 22-A. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION January 26,2012 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. A. Background: 1. The proposal is a City initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.70, Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. . 2. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10,2011,with deliberations continuing on December 8,2011 and January 12,2012. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to SVMC 22.70; a. Section 22.70.020.B—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard (corner lot)outside of the front yard setback. b. Section 22.70.020.0—Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle definition and update references to tables and figures to ensure this section is administered correctly. c. Section 22.70.020.F—Define which zones allow barbed, concertina or razor wire. d. Section 22.70.030.E.9 and Table 22.70-4—Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4 and moved Section 22.70.040.N beneath table. e. Section 22.70.030.E.9—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. f. Section 22.70.030.G.5.f—Modified language so tree staking is optional and specified a time limit for removal. g. Section 22.70.030.G.6—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. h. Section 22.70.030.G.9—Added flexibility to landscaping requirements relating to new parking stalls. i. Section 22.70.030.J.4—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. j. Section 22.70.030.L.1.e—Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. k. Section 22.70.030.M—Clarified the party certifying the landscaping at project completion. 1. Figure 22.70-14—Added an alternative to above ground tree staking for more options. Section 22.70.030.N—Moved to Section 22.70.030.E.3 —Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion B. Findings: The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies and the City's Comprehensive Plan; 1. GMA Policies The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. 2. Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through a lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the CWPP to Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-03-11 Page 1 of 2 maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. 3. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. Policy LUP— 1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. b. Goal LUG—3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to inventors,consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. c. Policy LUP—4.5:Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulation height, scale, setbacks and buffers. d. Policy LUP—4.6: Develop community design guidelines to promote common open space, public art,and plazas in commercial and office developments. e. Policy LUP—8.2: Integrate sidewalks,bike lanes, landscaping, and area lighting in office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment. f. Policy LUP— 10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. g. Policy LUP— 11.3: Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. h. LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character, achieve a greater range of housing options, and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. i. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. Conclusions: The proposed City initiated, code text amendments to SVMC 22.70 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed City initiated, code text amendments to SVMC 22.70 (Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) as attached. Approved this 26th day Of January,2012 t ' , . Bill Bates, hairman ATTEST /` -. C Deanna Griffith, Secret," ,� C,J Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-03-11 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-03-11 STAFF REPORT DATE:November 2,2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: November 10, 2011, 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, code text amendment modifying Chapter 22.70 (Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) in the Spokane Valley's Municipal Code (SVMC). This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 19 (Zoning) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed code text amendment to the SVMC. STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner,Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Language of Chapter 22.70 Exhibit 2: Public Comments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION City Council has directed staff to proceed with modifications to the fencing and landscaping standards (Chapter 22.70) in the SVMC. On August 25, 2011 the Planning Commission was presented an overview of landscaping standards and outlined proposed changes. The following amendments were presented at the September 22, 2011 study session before the Planning Commission. • Section 22.70.020.B —Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard (corner lot)outside of the front yard setback. • Section 22.70.020.0 — Modify language to provide more clarity to the clear view triangle definition and update references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is administered correctly. • Section 22.70.020.F—Define which zones allow barbed,concertina or razor wire. • Section 22.70.040.E.9 and Table 22.70-4 — Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4. • Section 22.70.040.J.4—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. • Section 22.70.0401.1.e — Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11 • Section 22.70.040.N— Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion. The following table compares surrounding jurisdiction's requirements relating to the proposed code text amendment for fencing and landscaping. The City calculates required landscaping separate from the comparing jurisdictions. Some of the code changes cannot be compared. City of City of Spokane City of Spokane County Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Flanking Yards Propose fence Must meet Must meet Must meet flanking along property line flanking yard flanking yard yard setback. on flanking side setback. setback. yard. Barbed Wire Propose to be Not allowed Not allowed. Allowed in regional Fencing allowed in except in certain commercial and commercial, mixed commercial and industrial zones, use and industrial industrial zones only on top '/4 of zone on top 1/4 of with 3 strands on fence. May be used fence. Not top of 6 foot fence. for utility or adjacent to ROW Fence must be 12 institutional uses in in commercial and feet from curb other zones for mixed use zones. line. health/safety purposes. Landscaping Proposal to not Landscaping not Requires Requires and Signs require required. landscaping. landscaping. landscaping for new signs on a developed site. Landscaping Remove landscape Yes,but not Yes,but not Yes,but not directly Flexibility for requirement for directly related to directly related to industrial Industrial Lots new signs on a industrial related to properties. developed site. properties. industrial properties. Landscape Propose exemption Requires Architect Requires No Architect Architect to landscaping w/out exception. Architect required. requirements made w/out with Director's exception. approval. 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11 Application Initiated: September 1,2011 Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance September 30,2011 (DNS): Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: October 28,2011 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: October 26,2011 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the 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) on September 30, 2011 for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 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 DNS. No appeals were received. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. i. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and adopted County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP). The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The code text amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. • Policy LUP — 1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non- residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. • Goal LUG— 3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to inventors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. • Policy LUP — 4.5: Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulation height, scale, setbacks and buffers. • Policy LUP— 4.6: Develop community design guidelines to promote common open space,public art, and plazas in commercial and office developments. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11 • Policy LUP—8.2:Integrate sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, and area lighting in office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment. • Policy LUP — 10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. • Policy LUP — 11.3: Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. • LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character, achieve a greater range of housing options, and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. • Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The City initiated, code text amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide clarity on clear view triangle standards, allow protection of commercial and industrial zoned properties through fencing requirements and expand options for providing landscaping associated with new development in the City of Spokane Valley. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring the SVMC implements local and regional policy. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed city initiated code text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC Section 17.80.150(F). Page 4 of 4 Karen Kendall From: Steele Fitzloff[sfgavinassoc @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:24 PM To: Karen Kendall Cc: 'Timothy Gavin' Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of the SVMC One additional comment that should be considered for implement with#7 is "Contractor cannot design, install and approve their own work" This is really to protect the client from possible poor or incomplete work. From: Steele Fitzloff fmailto:sfgavinassoc @comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:16 PM To: 'kkendall @spokanevalley.org' Cc: 'Timothy Gavin' Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of the SVMC Karen, Below are our review comments on the proposed changes the landscaping section of Municipal Code. 1. No comment 2. No comment 3. Add "and not adjacent to a residential zone"after'in the absences of a residential component' 4. No comment 5. Did not see anything to comment on 6. A.)Add a total width for Type I— Full Screen B.)Adjust the linear feet for calculating points to be same linear feet between trees.. ex. 30' O.C.for Trees, 35 landscape points for every 30 linear feet 7. Licensed Landscape Architect required on sites"More than 5,000 sq.ft." We felt that for a Landscape Architect to work on anything smaller than this would be more costly to the clients than the total cost of the plantings. However a landscape designer or other qualified person with irrigation and landscape design and installation; and local plant material should be highly recommended or required for the 500-5,000 sq.ft.categories. Thanks, Steele Fitzloff Landscape Designer Gavin Associates Landscape Architecture LLC. (509) 869- 1283 From: Karen Kendall [mailto:kkendall @spokanevalley.orcil Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:31 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of the SVMC The Spokane Valley City Council has directed staff to review the City's landscaping section of the Municipal Code to ensure that the regulations are not overly burdensome on our business community. Your input and expertise is highly valued and we encourage your review and comment on the upcoming proposed code changes. 1 At this time, Staff is proposing the following changes to the landscaping section of Municipal Code (Title 22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) 1. Clarify height of fences on Flanking Yards; 2. Correction to Clear View Triangle tables and definition; 3. Clarifying zones allowing barbed wire; 4. Streamline landscape point calculations; 5. Remove landscaping requirement around signs in developed areas; 6. Providing more options to modify landscaping requirements; and 7. Changing threshold when a Landscape Architect is required. The Planning Commission will conduct a study session on September 22, 2011 followed by a public hearing on October 13, 2011. You are encouraged to participate and provide written feedback directly to me or at the public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the proposed changes. You may view the proposal on the Planning Commission's page at www.spokanevalley.org. Please forward information along to others you feel this would benefit. Thank you for your time and interest. KfFTZ�N K NPALL AssistaInt PLawwer, CoMMAR.wit PeVeLop ewt DePgrtmA.ewt CLt of spc4zciv\t vaLLT 11yoy East Sprague Avewue, suite 106 spo'2awe vaLLebi, wA992oe 509.y20.5020 direct 509921.1008 fax www.spol2a weva LLe�.oro. oowtewts of thts evxaiL awd awlj repL are subject to pubLLc disclosure. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392/Virus Database: 1520/3892 -Release Date: 09/12/11 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 /Virus Database: 1520/3894 -Release Date: 09/13/11 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1410 /Virus Database: 1520/3898 - Release Date: 09/15/11 2 Karen Kendall From: Steven Neill [scneill©msn.com] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:55 PM To: Karen Kendall; Scott Kuhta Cc: John Hohman Subject: Tree Planting Attachments: 22.70-10 rewording.doc; Ohio State University Fact Sheet.doc Hello All, I am so sorry it took this long to do this, I have no real excuse. I have been looking at various City ordinances and I could not find one that included the requirement to stake the trees nor did I find one that gave details on how to plant them. I did however get permission from the Arbor Day Society(I have been a member for a decade now)to use their guidelines:http://www.arborday.org/trees/tips/as a resource for builders. I looked up what the City's of Portland, Spokane, and Seattle do since they are our closest big neighbors and they give a set of requirements for the type of trees planted as well as the need for permits in certain areas but again, they do not require staking the trees, they only give suggestions which I pasted below. Seattle: http://www.Seattle.gov/transportation/treeplanting.htm the guide is below http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/newtreeplanting.htm Spokane: http://spokaneurbanforestry.org/index.php/Parks/page/70/ Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=39712 the guide is below http://wwvv.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=39712&a=164329 I really like the way the City of Seattle has there guideline laid out with good basic instructions on how to plant tree. However, we are not in the tree planting business so we may not want to go there. I am including the rewording of 22.70-10 to include the Arbor Site as an example. Should we want to incorporate the Seattle approach, rewording their instructions to make them our own would not be a problem. But I am not sure how big of a can of worms you want to open. I am also including a list of outstanding trees from Ohio State University that would be a great list for recommended and poor choice trees for our USDA Zone 5. Again, it is how much do we want to put into this that will determine what where we go from here. I did at least strikeout the unhealthy practice of staking all trees and give the property owner a good place to look for advice on planting their trees. Below is a guideline from the ISA on structuring tree ordinances but again,how much work do we want to do? International Society of Arboriculture Tree Ordinance Guidelines http://www.isa®arbor.com/education/onlineResources/treeOrdinanceGuidelines.aspx In closing, it is my recommendation that we give a basic instruction on tree planting, it takes little work and will benefit those who are not horticulturalists; I think we should have a list of recommended trees as well as on of 1 popular trees that are poor choices for our area because of the long term problems they will cause. I feel that with a minimum amount of invested we can help the long term health of our City's forests,but as a private property advocate, I think this should be a choice,not a mandate. Steven Neill 2 f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall be staked for a period of not less than 12 months aft r planting. Trees should be planted according to the Arbor Day Society 9 Tree Care Tips & Techniques Guide (http://www.arborday.org/trees/tips/). Ohio State University Fact Sheet Horticulture and Crop Science 2001 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210-1096 Deciduous Trees and Shrubs With All-Season Interest HYG-1143-96 Michael Loos Jack Kerrigan Randall Zondag Developing interest in the landscape throughout the year is an objective for most gardeners. Selecting plants that have attractive characteristics during all four seasons helps gardeners reach their goal of a well-planned landscape. Some plants have several attributes that exhibit ornamental qualities during each season of the year. While attractive flowers may be the showiest characteristic,persistent ornamental fruit may extend the display into winter, while a distinct growth habit or form will be attractive when the plant is not in bloom or bearing fruit. Plants that bloom when other plants are not in blossom deserve special consideration. Foliage can provide varying shades of green or distinct contrast with yellow, red, or purple leaves. A blaze of autumn foliage color is a grand finale before the plant's more subtle winter characteristics are revealed. Persistent fruit that is held into winter is attractive and may attract wildlife. Patterned or textured bark is more evident when leaves have fallen and contrast nicely to a snowy background. Bold or unusual plant structure and form also are more evident after leaves drop in autumn. Not all the plants listed have all these features, but each retains at least one outstanding ornamental characteristic all year. Planning will result in combinations of plants that complement each other throughout the year. An ever-changing, always interesting landscape is the result. All plants listed are hardy to Zone 5 (USDA); however, some may need protection if exposed to harsh winter conditions. For additional information on these plants, see Michael A. Dirr's Manual of Woody Landscape Plants. , a, :: h t ler'.Z 11,,,,,',:: i i...„ -1,--,....-. ..:,__,,,,,,,,,: k -9934 ,,,i-‹., 3',,,f9f.-1' Cdr Figure 1. The peeling bark of a paperbark maple, Acer griseum. Medium to Large Trees (30 feet or taller at maturity) Acer x campestre--hedge maple; 30 feet in height with an equal spread. Dense habit with medium texture. Dark green foliage turns yellow in autumn. Bark is lightly ridged and furrowed, somewhat corky. Grows in any soil, but does better in rich, well-drained soil. Tolerant of dry, compacted soil. Grows in sun or light shade. Acer x freemanii (Acer rubrum)--Freeman maple; 40 to 60 feet in height with a broad columnar habit. Cultivars: ' Autumn Blaze,' 'Autumn Fantasy,' ' Celebration,' ' Lee's Red,' 'Marmo,' ' Morgan,' and' Scarlet Sentinel' have good fall color. Acer rubrum--red maple; 40 to 60 feet in height with spread equal to or less than height. Bark is dark gray and rough, scaly, or ridged with age. Cultivars have an excellent red to orange autumn color; ' Autumn Flame,' ' Embers,' and 'Red Sunset.'Requires acidic soil and needs moisture. Betula nigra—river birch; 40 to 70 feet in height with spread a little less or equal to height. The cinnamon-colored, exfoliating bark of the River Birch is spectacular in the winter. Lustrous, medium-green leaves. Most borer resistant birch. Tolerant of both wet soils and dry summers. Avoid very alkaline soils. Cladrastis lutea--yellowwood; 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 55 feet. Low- branching and broad crown with bright green leaves that turn yellow to gold in autumn. White, wisteria-like flowers give an excellent display every 2 to 3 years. Seed pods are decorative after leaves fall. Grow in well-drained soil in full sun. Pruning usually required to improve the tree's structure. Fagus sylvatica--European beech; 50 to 60 feet in height with a spread of 35 to 45 feet. Many fine forms and cultivars. They include upright, weeping, and dwarf selections. All have smooth gray bark. There are many leaf colors and shape variations. ' Roseo-marginata' and 'Riversii' are particularly popular. Grow in moist, well-drained, acidic soil in full sun to light shade. Gymnocladus dioicus--Kentucky coffeetree, 60 to 75 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 50 feet. Bold, picturesque form is this tree's most imposing characteristic. Rough, scaly, gray to dark brown bark and attractive pods add to interest during winter. Unfolding leaves have a pinkish to purple tinge gradually turning a dark green in summer. Flowers are greenish-white and female flowers have the aroma of roses. Halesia caroling—Carolina silverbell, 30 to 40 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 35 feet, often smaller with a spreading habit. White flowers appear in April and May before the leaves. Dark green leaves turn yellow and fall very early in autumn. Dry, winged fruits are effective from September to late autumn. Multicolored, ridged and furrowed bark is interesting during winter. Requires acid soil. Liquidambar styracua--sweetgum, 60 to 75 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 50 feet. This tree is neatly pyramidal in form,broadening as it ages. Its bark becomes corky beginning with young branches. The leaves are star-shaped with excellent red and orange autumn color. ' Gold Dust'has leaves speckled with yellow. Metasequoia glyptostroboides; Dawn Redwood rapidly grows to 75-100' or taller and 15-25' wide, with a pyramidal shape. A truly beautiful deciduous conifer, this rapid grower that can make an excellent shade or street tree if the lot is large enough. The overall shape of the mature tree is conical. The bark is gray to slightly reddish in color, and the needles are a light green which turn a brilliant copper color in the fall before they drop. Nyssa sylvatica--black tupelo,black gum, or sour gum, 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 30 feet. Pyramidal when young, becoming more oval when mature. Bark is almost black and is thick with a very blocky appearance. Exhibits one of the best, bright red autumn colors. Plant in a well-drained, acidic soil. Oxydendrum arboreum--sourwood, 30 feet in height with a spread of 20 feet. Grows slowly with a pyramidal form with rounded top and drooping branches. Bark is dark brown and deeply furrowed, giving a checkered appearance.Leaves are deep green in summer becoming brilliant yellow, red, and purple in autumn. White, fragrant, drooping clusters of flowers bloom in early summer. Requires a well-drained, acidic soil with high organic content. Phellodendron amurense--amur corktree, 30 to 45 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 20 feet. Horizontally spreading branches create interesting shape. Bark is heavy and corky. Deep green leaves turn yellow to bronze in fall. Pyrus calleryana--callery pear, 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 35 feet. Showy white flowers cover tree in spring. Shiny, dark green leaves of summer turn yellowish orange to reddish purple in fall. ' Aristocrat'has a broad-pyramidal outline. ' Capital,' ' Chanticleer,' ' Cleveland Select,' and ' Stonehill'have a compact,upright-pyramidal habit. Quercus macrocarpa--burr oak, 70 to 80 feet in height with an equal spread. Heavy in texture, with coarse bark,this is one of many worthwhile oaks. Fringed nuts are ornamental. Other oaks to consider include Q. bicolor (swamp white oak), Q. coccinea(scarlet oak), Q. imbricaria (shingle or laurel oak), Q. robur (English oak), Q. rubra(Red oak) and Q. shumardii (Shumard oak). Stewartia pseudocamellia--Japanese stewartia, 20 to 40 feet in height with an equal or smaller spread. Attractive camellia-like flowers appear in late summer and continue until frost. Dark green leaves turn vibrant red and orange in autumn. The exfoliating bark creates a beautiful pattern of white, beige and dark brown. A truly spectacular tree for the protected site. Soil should be moist and acidic with a high organic content. il l' t 1/4' ° t Figure 2. The buds of a saucer magnolia,Magnolia x soulangiana, glistening in the winter sun. Small Trees and Large Shrubs (8 to 30 feet at maturity) Acer griseum--paperbark maple, 20 to 25 feet in height with a spread 10 to 20 feet. In addition to papery bark texture, the form of this tree makes it an outstanding addition to any landscape. The cinnamon brown bark exfoliates on young to intermediate aged trees, although this trait decreases as the tree matures. The autumn foliage is bronze to brilliant red. Acer japonicum--fullmoon maple, 20 to 25 feet in height with an equal to slightly larger spread. Very similar to Japanese maple,the fullmoon maple has a more rounded palmate leaf. ' Aconitifolium'has brilliant red fall foliage. Zone 5 to 7. Acer palmatum--Japanese maple, 8 to 25 feet in height with an equal to slightly larger spread. Mature height varies with cultivars. Hundreds of cultivars are available that vary in leaf form, texture, variegation, and seasonal color. 'Bloodgood'has deep purple-red foliage. 'Burgundy Lace' does not hold the red color as well. Of the forms with highly dissected leaves, ' Crimson Queen,' ' Ever Red,' ' Garnet,' ' Red Select,' ' Shidare,' and ' Tamukeyama' are recommended. Amelanchier arborea--downy serviceberry, Juneberry, or shadbush, 15 to 25 feet in height. This shrubby tree features white blossoms early in spring. The dark green leaves become orange to red in autumn. Smooth bark with narrow fissures becomes ridged and furrowed with age. The fine, elegant texture is attractive even in winter. Base selection of cultivar on height, growth habit, fruit size, and fall color. A. x grandiflora is also recommended. Chionanthus virginicus--fringe tree, 15 to 25 feet in height with an equal spread. The shape of this tree is variable, but generally spreading and open. Multiple stems are common. Flowers are very showy and similar to the Japanese tree lilac. Fruit forms only on female trees and looks like loose clusters of grapes. Autumn color is yellowish and variable. The bark becomes ridged and heavy as the tree matures. Cornus kousa--Kousa or Chinese dogwood, 20 to 25 feet in height with an equal spread. Mature specimens have horizontal branching. Textured, exfoliating bark is attractive in winter. The floral bracts appear later than those of the native dogwood and the fruit is larger and showier than in Cornus florida. This tree or multistemmed shrub is borer and disease resistant. Dark green leaves turn reddish-purple to scarlet in fall and are effective for several weeks. Zone 5 to 8. Cornus mas--cornelian cherry, 20 to 25 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 20 feet. Small yellow flowers open in very early spring before the leaves appear. This is a multistemmed shrub or small tree with a rounded form. The exfoliating bark varies from gray-brown to rich-brown and is attractive all year. Fall foliage color is minimal. Fruit is cherry-like and drops in late summer. Crataegus phaenopyrum--Washington hawthorn, 20 to 30 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 25 feet. This rounded tree is dense and thorny. The white flowers in spring and glossy red fruits in autumn, persisting into winter are very showy. Foliage is lustrous green in summer, turning orange to scarlet or purple in autumn. For excellent fruit, fewer thorns and a slightly larger tree, consider C. viridis ' Winter King.' Magnolia stellata--star magnolia, 15 to 20 feet in height with a spread of 10 to 15 feet. Attractive white to gray bark is best appreciated against a dark background. White, fragrant flowers open in early spring and are often damaged by late freezes and wind. 'Royal Star'blooms slightly later than the species and other cultivars. Dark green leaves turn yellow to bronze in autumn. Grows better in acidic soil. Malus hybrids--crabapples, 12 to 25 feet in height with an equal or lesser spread. Very showy spring flowers are followed by colorful fall fruit. Some cultivars have persistent fruit. There are many cultivars and selection should be based on flower, foliage, fruit,habit, and disease- resistance characteristics. Parrotia persica--Persian parrotia, 20 to 40 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 30 feet. This is a foliage tree, with leaves unfolding as a reddish-purple,turning to a lustrous green and then finishing in fall as brilliant yellow to orange to scarlet. With age,the bark becomes exfoliating, revealing an array of gray, green,white, and brown. The petalless flowers appear before the foliage and the crimson stamens are curiously attractive. Styrax japonica--Japanese styrax or snowbell, 20 to 30 feet in height and an equal or greater spread. The white, bell-shaped flowers are beautiful and showy May to June. The foliage turns yellow to reddish in fall and is held on the tree late in the season. This low-branched tree is finely textured and has a horizontal structure that is distinctive in winter. The bark is grayish brown and smooth with irregular, interlacing fissures of cinnamon brown. Hardy to Zone 5,this tree should be grown in a protected, east-facing exposure. Plant in a well-drained,moist, acidic soil. Viburnum plicatum var. tomentosum--doublefile viburnum, 8 to 10 feet in height with an equal or slightly greater spread. Horizontal branching structure produces a strong effect, especially in front of a brick wall. The leaves are nicely textured and turn reddish purple in fall. Very showy white flowers appear in May. The fruit,which is usually eaten by birds, is bright red changing to black. It is effective in July and August. Good cultivars include ' Shasta' and'Mariesii.' Zone 5 to 8. Spring planting recommended. Small Shrubs (under 8 feet at maturity) Berberis thunbergii--Japanese barberry, 3 to 6 feet in height with a spread of 4 to 7 feet. This densely branched, rounded shrub is one of the first to leaf out in the spring. Foliage is bright green turning orange, scarlet, and reddish purple in autumn. The foliage tends to hide the small yellow flowers,but the bright red berries are showy beginning in October and continuing into winter. Cultivars to consider are 'Aurea'and'Kobold.' Recommended purple foliage cultivars include atropurpurea' Crimson Pygmy' and 'Rose Glow.'Berberis koreana,Korean barberry is similar and also recommended. Cotoneaster apiculatus--cranberry cotoneaster, 3 feet in height by 3 to 6 feet spread. Stiff, herringbone pattern of branching is interesting all year. Glossy green leaves turn a bronzy-red to purple in fall. The small, pink flowers are attractive at a close range. The cranberry-red fruit provide an excellent showing in late fall through winter. Fothergilla gardenii--dwarf fothergilla, 2 to 5 feet in height with a similar spread. The white, fragrant, bottlebrush-like flowers appear in early spring before the foliage. Leaves are dark green to blue-green,turning yellow, orange to scarlet in autumn, holding color late into the season. The slender, zig-zagging stems forming a dense colony are interesting in winter. Plant in partial shade in a well-drained, acidic soil with high organic content. Hydrangea quercifolia--oakleaf hydrangea;4 to 6 feet in height with an equal spread. This rather coarse shrub provides an excellent contrast in the landscape. The foliage is a deep green in summer turning to red, orangish brown, and purple in autumn. The flowers open white in late June and age to purple-pink and finally brown. The bark of mature plants is cinnamon-brown and exfoliates. Ilex verticillata--winterberry or Michigan holly, 6 to 10 feet in height with an equal spread. Slender stems with dense branching make this a fine natural screen. Leaves are a deep green in summer but no significant fall color. The fruit is bright red and ripens in late August,persisting into January. ' Sparkleberry' is a choice hybrid cultivar due to excellent fruit color. As with other hollies, both sexes are needed to get berries on the female plants. Plant in moist, acidic soil with a high organic content. Rhus aromatica--fragrant sumac,2 to 6 feet in height with a spread of 6 to 10 feet. A low, irregular, spreading shrub with a medium texture. Ordinary green leaves turn orange, red to reddish-purple in autumn. The yellowish flowers yield fuzzy, red-orange fruit in autumn, persisting into winter. ' Gro-low' is a recommended low-growing cultivar. Adaptable regarding soil texture, it grows best in acidic soil. Grows in full sun to partial shade. Viburnum opulus 'compactum'--dwarf European cranberrybush viburnum; 2 to 4 feet in height with a slightly greater spread. This upright, spreading, multistemmed shrub forms a rounded mound. The glossy, dark green leaves turn yellow-red to reddish-purple in autumn. Showy white flowers appear in May followed by berry-like fruits in September. The dwarf cultivars do not fruit well. This plant is very adaptable to a variety of soils and grows in full sun to light shade. Trees not recommended for the Spokane Valley: Populus spp. (Poplars/Quaking Aspen) Tops are brittle and break up easily in storms and their roots seek out waterlines causing damaged pipes Salix spp, (willows, including weeping) Roots are particularly hard on sewers. Betula pendula — Extremely succeptable to the bronze birch borer which generally kills the tree while in its prime years. Karen Kendall From: Gloria Mantz Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:50 AM To: Karen Kendall Cc: Inga Note Subject: Title 22.70 Hi Karen, Can you add the following language after Figure 22.70-1 Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards. Thanks 9t arix Gloria Mantz, P.E. Development Engineer City of Spokane Valley 509-720-5321 1 Karen Kendall From: Deanna Griffith Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:17 PM To: Bekkedahl, Robin Cc: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: COSV Planning Commission agenda - 12-08-11 Robin, Thank you for your comments. We will submit these to the Planning Commission on Thursday evening during their continued public hearing, Den vuvo From: Bekkedahl, Robin [mailto:Robin.Bekkedahl @avistacorp.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:24 PM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: RE: COSV Planning Commission agenda - 12-08-11 Hi Deanna: Thank you for providing me the information on the CoSV PC agenda regarding text amendment changes on SVMC Title 22 Landscaping. Avista has concerns relating to the revised suggested language regarding our facilities. F. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence in industrial zoning districts. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district(except for confining animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H) or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way. Some of our facilities, such as electrical substations, must be fenced. The fence serves as both a public safety measure and as a security for the facility. For these reasons,we require 7 foot fabric with 3 strands of barbed wire on top. The proposed language indicates that this will not be allowed in residential zones or mixed use and commercial zones adjacent to any public right of way. Electric Substations are required to be located in all of these zones for the critical and essential service we provide. Streets, alleyways, and platted rights of way not improved are considered public right of way and substations are almost always adjacent to these rights of way. The 7'fence with barbed wire is critically important to public safety and substation security. With that, we recommend that electric substations be exempt from this proposed regulation. Avista would recommend that this section read: F. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence in industrial zoning districts. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district(except for confining animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H) or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way, with the exception that critical and essential utility facilities, such as substations are exempt from this. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Again thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robin L. Bekkedahl Sr. Environmental Scientist Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, Project Permitting Avista Utilities P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, WA 99220-3727 1 Telephone: 509-495-8657 Fax: 509-495-4852 Email: robin.bekkedahl(cavistacorp.com This message and any attached files or documents may contain information that is confidential and considered proprietary to Avista Corporation. Any unauthorized use,transfer,or disclosure of the information contained herein is strictly forbidden. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and delete the message. From: Deanna Griffith [mail to:dgriffith(aspokanevalley.orq] Sent:Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:00 PM To: Deanna Griffith Subject: COSV Planning Commission agenda - 12-08-11 Current Planning Commission Agenda On the agenda for 12-08-11 meeting is a continued public hearing on a proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22, amending sections of the Landscaping code and a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 20, regarding requirements for a record of survey. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deanna Griffith, CFM Admin Assist, Community Development City of Spokane Va0ey 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5301, direct 509-921-1008, fax dgrithcspokanevalley.org Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure. "Those who say it cannot be done should not stop those who are doing it." - The Roman Law Notice;Individuals planning to attend a 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. 2 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 12, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER Secretary of the Commission, Deanna Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall,Higgins,Neill, Sands, Stoy were present. . Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Lori Barlow, Senior Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Inga Note, Senior traffic Engineer Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Ben Wick, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Secretary of the Commission A. Election of Officers: Secretary Deanna Griffith explained nominations would be accepted for the position of Chair,votes would be taken by ballot. The same would happen for the position of Vice Chair. Nominations were opened for the office of Chair of the Commission and Commissioner Higgins nominated Commissioner Bill Bates. Commissioner Sands nominated Commissioner Hall. Commissioner Hall nominated Commissioner Sands. Nominations were closed. Commissioner Vote ' Commissioner Vote 1 Stoy Bates Hall Sands Sands Hall Carroll Hall Higgins Bates Bates Bates diali Neill Bates Votes were recorded as follows: Bates =four, Hall= 2, Sands = 1: Commissioner Bates was elected Chairman of the Commission. Nominations were then opened for the office of Vice-Chair. Commissioner Higgins nominated Commissioner Stoy. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Stoy was declared Vice-Chair by consensus. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion which was unanimously approved to accept the January 12, 2012 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bates noted that there was an error in the December 08, 2011 minutes noting the amendment was listed incorrectly. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the 01-12-2012 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 October 27, 2011 minutes as presented and the December 08, 2011 minutes as amended. The vote to approve this motion was unanimous. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners had nothing to report. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager welcomed Mr. Higgins and congratulated Commissioners Bates and Stoy on their new positions. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners about the possible joint meeting with City Council on Feb 21, 2012. Mr. Kuhta also had a brief discussion regarding the Commission's advanced agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Code Amendment CTA-03-11, Chapter 22.70 Landscaping Proposed amendments Asst. Planner Karen Kendall reviewed the questions that Commission had at the previous meeting. • Does the clearview triangle apply to residential drive ways. • An exception for fence heights for utility companies. • Landscaping points, intent for reducing point requirement • Tree staking requirements Ms. Kendall covered the proposed amendments, discussed changes that staff had already incorporated based on previous discussions with the Commissioners. • Clarify fence height on Flanking Yards; • Correction to Clear View Triangle tables and definition; • Clarify which zones allow barbed wire; • Streamline landscape point calculations; • Remove landscaping requirement around signs in developed areas; • Provide more options to modify landscape requirements; and • Establish threshold when a Landscape Architect is required Discussion with the Commissioners covered several items including: would it be appropriate to broaden the discretion for the barbed wire for more than utility companies, should an exception be allowed for concertina wire, would existing barbed wire fences be considered legal non-conforming (Mr Kuhta answered yes they would be). Questions that were also answered were regarding the reduction of landscaping points below 500 sf of developed area, what the definition of developed area was, tree staking would now be optional, but a new graphic would be inserted to show staking below the ground however it 01-12-2012 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 would be stated that the staking must be removed within 12 months. Discussion also covered reducing the requirement for when a landscape architect would be required. After a page by page review of the proposed text amendments Commissioner Sands made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments and recommend approval to the City Council of CTA-03-11. Vote on this motion was unanimous. Planning Manager Kuhta reminded the Commissioners that staff would be returning at the next meeting with the prepared findings for approval. B. New Business: Study Session CTA-06-11 proposed amendments to title 22.110, Sign Regulations Senior Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation regarding proposed amendments to Title 22.110 sign regulations. Ms. Barlow explained during a presentation to City Council regarding the sign regulations, the City Council had questions and requested that staff make some comparisons to surrounding jurisdictions and requested some changes be made to the current regulations. Ms. Barlow discussed the items in the current code that will be addressed in the proposed upcoming amendment. • allow A-frame signs • modify the requirements for temporary signs • increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials • Clarify that churches are allowed signage in any zone • allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and • require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability A-frame signs.: Currently the code prohibits A-frame signs. Businesses have expressed the desire to have them back. Ms Barlow stated that A-fame signs will be allowed with the amendment,max. size would be nine sf., no higher than three feet, cannot be located farther than 12 feet from the business entrance, can only be used during business hours, be well maintained, one sign per business and real estate signs would be limited to five sf. Ms. Barlow stated that these signs had been regulated previously to reduce the clutter along the roadways. She also mentioned the current proposal is for the business not to move the sign more than 12 feet from the business entrance, and that there could be some concern regarding this point. Free Standing signs: Currently each business is allowed one free standing sign per street frontage. Council would like to create standard based on frontage. The proposed amendment would change to allow one freestanding sign for each 500 feet of lineal frontage, all other requirements stay the same. Other jurisdictions have similar requirements - the City of Spokane; 300 feet, Spokane County; 500 feet. Ms Barlow stated that staff felt that Spokane Valley is suburban and more conservative, therefore felt the 500 foot decision. Commissioner Bates wanted to know if the size of the sign was regulated. Ms. Barlow responded yes, but the City was not aware of issues based on the size of the sign. Commissioner Carroll asked if there would be an inequity between shallow lots and deep lots and did any jurisdictions using total square footage of lot instead of frontage. Most jurisdictions have standards for spacing of the signs. Commissioner Stoy asked if signs had setbacks, the response is yes, but not the same as building setbacks. Commissioner Stoy stated he felt this could lead to clutter. 01-12-2012 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Wall signs on multi-family complexes: Currently the City did not have allowance for multi-family complexes to have a wall sign to state the name of complex on wall. This amendment would allow such a sign for them. Dimming requirements of electronic signs: Ms Barlow stated this was common concern for electronic signs to require dimming capability. The proposed language would require all new electronic signs to automatically adjust based on ambient light. Signs for churches in residential zones: Ms. Barlow informed the Commissioners that currently churches are only allowed an monument or pole sign if on an arterial. The proposed language would allow a monument sign in any zone. Ms Barlow said that changing this regulation would allow monument signs to be allowed in all zones, regardless of the business, not just churches.. Commissioner Stoy asked a question regarding probable reader boards, which Ms. Barlow stated are still prohibited. Temporary signs — Currently Ms. Barlow said, temporary signs are allowed with a permit only twice a year for 30 days. The proposed amendment would allow a single temp sign whenever a business would like. The sign could not be bigger than 20 sf, and must be well maintained. The amendment would also allow additional signage twice a year, for up to 30 days,for a fee. The questions Commissioners posed after Ms. Barlow's presentation why would it be a concern if A-frame signs were limited to 12-feet from business entrance. Mr. Kuhta gave an example of a business in strip mall that might need to have the sign farther from the door.. Commissioner Carroll wondered if the dimensions of signage material should be taken into account when basing the sign sizes. Commissioner Bates wondered if staff knew how many illegal temporary signs we in the City and confirmed that the City is complaint driven in regard to enforcement. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. SUBMITTED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary Date APPROVED: Bill Bates, Chairperson 01-12-2012 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 8, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Mann, Neill, Sands and Stoy were present. Commissioner Hall was absent. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician; Can Hinshaw, Office Assistant; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commissioners had nothing to report VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported the City Council had amended the Commission's Rules of Procedure. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Continued Public Hearing— CTA-03-11 Proposed amendments to Title 22,Landscaping and Fencing. Assistant Planner Karen Kendall gave a brief recap of the questions which the Commissioners had previously requested clarification on, which were maintenance of the street trees along the public right-of-way (ROW), they responsibility of the property except for a portion of Sprague and Appleway west of University and Appleway Blvd east of Tschirley. Tree staking was the other subject Commissioners had asked about and Ms. Kendall stated the best information she was able to find was supplied at the last meeting 05-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 from the University of Colorado which stated that staking is supported however only for a short period of time to stabilize the tree while it matures. Ms Kendall stated staff had received comments from Avista regarding fencing around utility facilities which have barbed wire. Avista is requested an exemption for critical and essential utility facilities. Chair Carroll asked for anyone who wished to testify. Clyde Haase, 12202 E Thorpe Rd.: Mr Haase spoke in favor of the amendments. Mr. Haase commented on tree staking and that it can be accomplished in many ways but it is more important to monitor it and remove it so the tree does not get damaged as it grows. Mr Haase agreed that smaller projects could probably be done without the help of a landscape architect. However, he stated he felt that guidelines should be set up for staff so that they would be able to understand better what they are reviewing. Commissioners did ask Mr. Haase some questions about the staking, cabling and maintenance of street trees. Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane: Mr Hume stated that he reviewed the landscaping chapter and felt that there were a few issues he thought should be addressed. Mr. Hume stated he was concerned about fences being on property lines if the property was a through lot, the fence would be blocking the front yard of the neighbor. Mr. Kuhta made a drawing on the white board to show an example to the Commissioners. Mr. Hume was concerned that a change to the clearview regulations might make issue with every residential driveway in the City. Mr. Hume felt that barbed wire should be allowed on top of the maximum height allowed for a fence to be. Why allow barbed wire in a residential zone? Mr Hume also asked about electric fences as opposed to electrified fences and invisible fences. Mr. Hume stated that landscaping a building in and existing parking lot in an industrial area was not necessary. Mr Hume felt that the landscaping point threshold should be higher than is currently being proposed. Mr. Hume stated that a sight obscuring fences were required between incompatible uses,but there is no definition for incompatible uses. Mr Kuhta explained to the Commissioners that some of the issues Mr. Hume had brought up were beyond the scope of the original public hearing notice and if the Commissioners wanted to look at them, those issues would have to be noticed, which they had not at this time. Seeing no one else that wished to testify on this issue, Chair Carroll closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Commissioners discussed the comments from Avista regarding the use of barbed wire around electrical substations, tree staking, clearview discussion on driveways, having answers from the traffic engineer, electric fences and several other issues and needing more information for some subjects. • Trees o Staking, required or not, maintenance, ., o tree maintenance, o staff to provide a recommendation on requirement, o why only in parking island 05-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 • Fences o Fence height, with wire on top o Exempt utility companies from wire requirements o Other cities doing, o Uniform height of fences o Electric, electrified, and invisible fences • Clearview Triangles o Better understanding of issues o Clearview triangles in residential zones o Stacked lots o Request traffic engineer attend to answer questions • Landscaping Points o Reduce required points for an architect(to how many points) o 500 sf to bring site into compliance, question if should be more, o When would an architect be required Commissioner Stoy made a motion, which passed 5 in favor with one abstention, to continue deliberations to January 12, 2012. B. New Business: Public Hearing for CTA-05-11, Proposed text amendment to Title 20, requirements for Boundary Line Adjustments Planning Tech Martin Palaniuk made a presentation to the Commissioners regarding the proposed language change to Title 20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.80.030 (F) regarding the requirements for a record of survey for all Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) . Mr Palaniuk explained that the proposed amendment would allow the Community Development Director discretion in requiring a record of survey for simple boundary line adjustments. The current code language requires a record of survey for all BLAs. Staff has determined that in less complicated situations a BLA can be accomplished without a record of survey. The Community Development Director would have the ability to wave the need for a record of survey when there would be two parcels or less, simple legal descriptions, no complicating easements or appurtenances,no owner disputes, or any setback issues. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Anthony Lazanas, 10606 E Empire: Mr. Lazanas thanked staff for the work on this amendment and spoke in favor of this amendment. Chuck Simpson, 909 N Argonne Rd: Mr Simpson stated he was a licensed surveyor in the State of Washington and was speaking in support of the proposed amendment. Mr. Simpson shared several examples where a record of survey would not have been necessary in order to complete the BLA. Seeing no one else who wished to testify the chairman closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. The Commissioners deliberated and asked Mr. Palaniuk to explain the basic process of the BLA. Discussion surrounded when drawings would not be required, how counter staff 05-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 would determine when a to defer the BLA to the director, how much time could be saved, and that our consultant reviews all legal descriptions and surveys turned into the City. Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-05-11 to the City Council. This motion was approved unanimously. After review Commissioner Bates made a motion to approve the findings as presented. This motion was approved unanimously. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioners and staff thanked Commissioner Joe Mann for his years of service to the City serving as a Planning Commissioner for the last three years. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson 05-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 26, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Hall (arrived at 6:02), Higgins, Neill, and Stoy were present. Commissioners Carroll and Sands was absent. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to excuse Commissioner Carroll, which was approved unanimously. Commissioner Stoy made a motion which was unanimously approved to excuse Commissioners Hall and Sands. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, community, Senior Planner, Lori Barlow: Assistant Planner, Karen Kendall: Assistant Deputy Attorney, Kelly Konkright: Office Assistant, Cari Hinshaw, Deanna Griffith, Secretary of the Commission IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the January 26, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the minutes for January 12, as were presented. This was unanimously approved. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commissioners had nothing to report VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Hohman expressed congratulations to Commissioners Bates and Stoy on their appointments. Mr. Hohman shared the dates of the City Council retreat,which is February 7, at CenterPlace. The Director stated that the topics the Department would be addressing would be economic development and the Department work plan for 2012. February 21 is the date scheduled for the joint meeting with the City Council. Subjects on the agenda so far for that meeting are the Shoreline Master Program schedule, and the Commissions roles and responsibilities 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Findings for CTA-03-11, proposed amendments to title 22.70 .Landscaping and Fencing requirements. Assistant Planner Karen Kendall presented to the Commissioners the findings staff had prepared in response to the Commissioners decision regarding the proposed amendments to Title 22.70 landscaping and fencing requirements. At the end of the presentation, Chairman Bates asked the Commissioners if there were any questions regarding the findings. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the Findings and Recommendations for CTA-03-11. The motion was passed unanimously. B. New Business: Public Hearing for CTA-06-11,Proposed amendments to Title 22.110 Sign Code Senior Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendments to the sign regulations in Title 22.110. • Allow A-frame signs - A-frame signs are not allowed in the current code since they are categorized as a portable sign. Jurisdictions typically regulate the size of the sign, and number of the signs allowed, location for display, display hours, and spacing. Size limits generally range from 6 — 9 sq. ft. per side, while location is typically linked to distance from business entrance combined with controls to maintain adequate pedestrian areas. Spacing requirements prevent closely situated signs from lining the public sidewalk. This can occur when each tenant within a strip mall displays a sign in front of their store front. The proposed language allows each business the opportunity to display an unlighted a-frame sign on-site, up to nine (9) sq. ft. on each side, within 12' of the business entrance, and during business hours only. As written, the regulation would keep the signs close to the business and prevent signage from being displayed off-site. Additionally, a-frame signs would be allowed to be used for open house/directional signage with a limit of five (5) square feet. • Change the requirement to allow more than one free standing sign per street frontage The review indicated that Spokane County and Spokane increase the signage allowance for large sites in commercial and/or industrial zones. Spokane Valley's only additional sign allowance is provided to lots with more than one frontage. For example, corner lots may have two free standing signs if both street frontages are arterials. The additional sign on the second street frontage (corner lot) grants appropriate sign visibility for its passing traffic on both streets. Allowing additional freestanding signs on large lots insure that large single development sites are generally afforded the same number of signs as multiple smaller sites. This provision maintains sign equity between the larger and smaller sites. The proposed language allows additional free standing signs at a ratio of 1 sign per 500 feet of lineal frontage. • Allow a wall sign for multi-family complexes. The current code does not allow multi-family buildings, or apartments, to display wall signage. Multi-family development is allowed monument or freestanding signs. The review indicated that 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 the other jurisdictions provide a small allowance for wall signs ranging from 10 — 20 sq. ft.. The proposed language would allow each multi-family building a wall sign up to 20 sq. ft. without modifying the other applicable signage requirements. • A requirement for electronic signs would require them to automatically dim based on the ambient light. Dimming requirements for electronic signs are accomplished by requiring the sign to have automatic dimming capability. This device adjusts the brightness of the sign to the ambient light. The brightness of the sign is a common concern and often a code requirement. Currently the City of Spokane requires verification that the dimming device is installed, while Spokane County allows staff to place additional conditions on the permit that protect adjacent property, that include lighting and location issues. Liberty Lake does not allow electronic message centers. • Church signs in residential zones. Churches are routinely classified as institutional uses, and therefore the current code would allow churches in residential zones to have wall signs, and 10' high pole signs and monument signs if the site was adjacent to an arterial. The issue is that churches and other institutional uses often locate in residential zones, as well as commercial sites not adjacent to arterials since they are not dependent on visibility to operate. Churches, schools, hospitals, and government offices are examples of typical institutional uses. Each of these uses may have a need for signage other than wall signage. Language is proposed that identifies what uses are considered institutional uses in order to clarify that churches are allowed signage consistent with the intent of the code. It is also proposed to allow monument signs in any location, not limited to sites adjacent to an arterial. While the issue was originally thought to be specific to churches, the change as proposed affects all businesses, subdivisions, institutional uses, etc., not just churches, and allows monument signs on any site with street frontage. Small scale monument signs are generally compatible with residential areas and well suited for use along streets with lower speed limits. The current height limits in the SVMC associated with monument signs typically result in monument signs being used as identification signs, rather than electronic message centers utilized for advertising. The signs are generally unobtrusive and compatible with residential and mixed use commercial settings. • Changing the requirements for Temporary signs. Generally all communities regulate signs for special events — whether these signs are related to commercial enterprises (grant opening, sales, etc.) or institutional (places of worship, schools, non-profits) festivals, etc. The regulations generally include: the number of days the signs can be displayed; the number and type of advertising devices (signs, banners, balloons, etc.) that can be displayed; and their location on the property. This was consistent with all jurisdictions reviewed except for Spokane Valley, which did not stipulate number or size of temporary signs allowed. Currently the city classifies temporary signs into the following three categories: banners; pennants, flags, and streamers; and special event signage. All three categories require a temporary sign permit with a fee, have varying display periods ranging from 7 to 60 days, but do not stipulate the number or area of temporary signs allowed to be displayed. The separate categories, with differing regulations, were 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 confusing to the business owners, and the fee associated with the temporary sign permit was determined by the Council to be "cost prohibitive" to small business owners. Discussions with the Council highlighted conflicting concerns regarding temporary signs. o The first being the cost associated with the temporary sign permit; o second, if the permit was eliminated how display times could be enforced. o Also, since temporary signage is not intended for long term display and is subject to fading, fraying, ripping, or otherwise showing significant wear and tear, a concern was noted that unmaintained signs would be indefinitely displayed. The regulations proposed allow a single temporary sign, up to 20 sq. ft. to be displayed, so long as it is in good condition. Additional signage could be displayed for a maximum of 30 days, twice per year, if a temporary sign permit is obtained. This allows flexibility for business to display a single temporary sign at their discretion indefinitely, while still providing additional allowance for special events. Confining unlimited temporary signage to a defined 30 day period balances the business owners need for occasional extra signage and keeps the visual clutter of signage in check to protect the area's aesthetics.+ Ms. Barlow stated that at the study session the Commissioners had questions regarding the amount of revenue that temporary signs generated. Ms Barlow stated that staff had responded in an email earlier that temporary signs could not be broken out however that in 2011 signs total generated less than $9,000. The other question the Commissioners had raised was standard sizes for signs. Ms Barlow stated she reviewed two kinds of signs. A- frame signs and banners. She said that generally A-frame signs are two feet (2) by three feet (3) plus the handle on top, which when opened would stand shorter than the three foot limitation. Banner fabric generally can be made in any size requested however the most requested size of a banner seemed to be three feet (3) by six feet(6) and four (4) feet by ten (10) feet. Chairman Bates asked if the Commissioners had any other questions for staff. There were none. Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Commissioner Stoy read the rules for a public hearing. Steve Wineinger, 10021 E Knox, ProSign: Mr. Wineinger stated he was in favor of the proposed amendments except he felt the he would like to propose some verbiage changes to the amendment for free standing signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like the Commissioner to propose replacing the word arterial with the word street, in relation to the allowance for freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he did not feel it was equable to have freestanding signs restricted to arterials. Mr. Wineinger also proposed to add a spacing requirement of 250 ft or more apart for more than one sign freestanding on large lots. Mr. Wineinger also stated he felt there should be an allowance for extra signage for more than one business on one lot. He stated that he felt they should be allowed so each sign can be same size and height, but they have to be 250 feet apart. Mr. Wineinger stated the other item he would like to address is any sign higher than six (6) feet in height must have engineered drawings. He stated that in the City of Spokane only 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 requires required engineering when the sign is over 30 ft in height or 100 square feet in size. Mr. Wineinger stated he feels the City of Spokane Valley should also adopt this requirement. Mr. Wineinger stated he felts the dimming requirement for electronic signs are very important. David Hazard, 13218 E 10th: Mr. Hazard stated he was the owner of Copy Cat Printers. Mr Hazard stated he felt the reason he sees empty buildings on Sprague, is due to restrictions placed on small businesses. Mr Hazard stated he felt that after incorporation the adopted new sign code caused lost customers because it did not allowed off premise signs. Mr Hazard stated he was not in favor of more restrictions. Mr. Hazard stated that signs allow businesses to communicate with the public. Mr. Hazard stated that the Commissioners need to realize small business is important to our small city. Shannon Wortman. 2304 N Dollar Rd: Ms. Wortman stated she worked for Ferguson: She shared she was attending the public hearing in order to get a directional signage to their business. Ms. Wortman stated it is difficult for people to find their business, which is off Trent and they need a sign to point people to their business. She stated that billboards are expensive. Ms Wortman stated she had had a sign on the corner of Dollar and Trent, however do to current regulations off premise signs are not allowed and they were required to take it down. She stated that after they were required to take it down, the traffic flow in their show room dropped of drastically. Commissioner Higgins made a statement regarding his concern about the fact that there is not enough people here to comment on this subject, and inquired of the public participants what they thought should be done to increase participation? Steve Wineinger — returned to the podium. He stated that he understood a mailing had gong e out to list of competitors. He stated that some people feel like people feel what they say will fall deaf ears. Mr Wineinger said he felt direct mail would be best. Commissioners had a conversation with Mr. Wineinger about sign companies. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Wineinger what his opinion was of current sign code. Mr. Wineinger stated that on a 10 scale, he felt it was about an 8.5. Ms Barlow respond to Commissioners Higgins comment about how the City distributed notices regarding the public hearing, City staff published a notice in newspaper, the department emailed to its contact list of approx. 800 contacts, did a direct mail letter to the sign companies who had obtained business licenses, and anyone who had done business, in the City. Ms. Barlow stated staff did the best effort to get information to out to people. Ms. Barlow said she would like to specifically address a couple of comments made which were made. Ms Barlow said it seemed there was a misunderstanding regarding the temporary signs. The time limit for displaying a temporary sign and the requirement that a sign could only be 12 feet from the business entrance is only based on A-fame signs. Ms. Barlow stated the City had many businesses which were not on an arterial. She stated the free standing signs regulations only apply to arterial frontage. Other signs are allowed on other streets when the business is not allowed a pole sign. Ms Barlow warned the Commissioners care should be given when allowing off premise signage. She stated she recognized the need for some businesses to need off premise signage, however when allowing off-premise signage the most popular corners can become congested, and then it 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 becomes an issue as to how to control the clutter in order to maintain an attractive community. Ms. Barlow explained each amendment proposed and how each amendment would affect the sign code. A-frame signs — Currently A-frame signs are not allowed. The proposed amendment would allow business one A-frame sign which could not be taller than three (3) feet, the copy area cannot be larger than nine (9) sf, Commissioner Higgins stated he was not trying to be critical of staff's efforts to try and contact people. Commissioner Neill asked why monument and wall signs were allowed on streets but pole signs were restricted to arterials. Sr. Planner Barlow related the scale of the sign relates to the zoning district, it is in order to keep it in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. Director Hohman stated the City Council had requested staff to some specific items to look some specific items in the code. Mr. Hohman stated off-premise signs could to be an issue for staff to review at a later time. He told the Commissioners about a program staff have been working on the regarding the `blue signs' on Appleway. He also shared that he thought a program of wayfaring signs would work as well for the off-premise signs, however it would take more work than the time for these amendments would allow and pertain to the whole City. Mr. Hohman said these sign code amendments will be part of fixing the vitality of the corridor. Mr. Hohman explained to the Commission the options which were available to them regarding these amendments and the process moving them forward. Commissioners took a break at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners reconvened at 7:33 p.m. Bates asking about allowances Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Wineinger for suggestions regarding couple issues, how to accommodate off premise signs and get the businesses what they need. Steve Wineinger: Mr. Wineinger stated he felt that directional signage could be a possible solution. He said allow a sign that is only six to eight sf, in copy area and not taller than six ft in height. He also stated that a business could also be allowed an off-premise sign, if they were allowed to put a sign on an existing pole sign, on another property, as long as did not exceed the square footage allowance of the sign at that location. He also restated that if the word arterial was replaced with street then she (Ms Wortman) would be allowed a pole sign at her location. David Hazard: Mr. Hazard returned to the podium and stated what an awful problem it would be if every building had a sign stating that they were open for business. There was discussion regarding directional signs between the Commissioners and staff regarding zoning, directional signs, options found in other jurisdictions as options for alternatives for the off premise signs. Mr Hohman asked the Commissioners what more information did they want staff to provide to them regarding the current amendments. It was requested to have more 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 information regarding off-premise signs and the wayfaring signs. Mr. Hohman stated the Commissioners it would require staff to do some research to provide that information. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission City Council had made the request for the specific six amendments and to do the extra research could possibly delay the current amendments. Mr. Hohman stated that staff could return later with the information regarding the off- premise signs and wayfaring signs for a more in-depth discussion. Commissioners asked if the amendments could be passed with the information before them currently, could the current amendments be modified slightly and then moved forward. Staff responded yes to both questions. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 9, 2012. This motion was passed unanimously. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Stoy thanked the citizens for attending the meeting. Commissioner Hall thanked staff for a thorough presentation and proper notifications. Never disappointed in presenting,notification, XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary Bill Bates, Chairperson 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. November 10, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Hall, Neill, and Stoy were present. Commissioners Bates, Mann and Sands were absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioners Bates, Mann and Sands from the November 10, 2011 meeting. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Dean Grafos, Councilmember, Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners Carroll and Stoy reported they attended the City's Developer's Forum on October 27. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported staff was working on an advanced agenda for the Commission. He also reported staff had received seven privately imitated Comprehensive Plan amendments,would be reviewing the Garden Office zone and land use along Trent Ave. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: 11-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 i. Public Hearing: CTA-03-11 Proposed amendment to Title 22.70, Landscaping and Fencing Standards: Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Commission regarding proposed text amendments to the landscaping and fencing portions of Title 22. • Section 22.70.020(B)—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard(corner lot) outside of the front yard setback. • Section 22.70.020(C) —Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle definition and update references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is administered correctly. • Section 22.70.020(F) —Define which zones allow barbed, concertina or razor wire. • Section 22.70.040(E)(9) and Table 22.70-4— Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4. • Section 22.70.040(J)(4)—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. • Section 22.70.040(L)(1)(e) —Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. • Section 22.70.040(N) — Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion. The Commissioners had some clarifying questions for Ms. Kendall regarding some of the clearview diagrams, clearview in residential areas, barbed wire and where it is currently allowed, fence height in relation to allowing the wire on top, amending the landscaping point table, and the exemption for existing sites in industrial areas. Ms. Kendall informed the Commissioners staff had received several written comments: • From Gavin and Associates stating they felt the barbed wire section should add language which stated "and not adjacent to a residential zone" after `in the absence of a residential zone", and that contractors cannot design, install and approve their own work. This would be to protect a client from poor workmanship. • From Commissioner Neill suggesting a change in language regarding the staking of trees and add recommended list of trees. • From staff member Gloria Mantz, to reference the City's Street Standards when calculating clearview triangles for new development. The Chair opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. then invited people to speak to the changes proposed in CTA-03-11. Tom Pratt, 20114 E Belmont Rd, Mica, WA: Mr Pratt stated he was a landscape architect who did work in the City. Mr. Pratt stated he had a question about the clearview triangle change and whether or not it was referring to curbed roads or non-curbed roads. Mr. Pratt suggested the amendment include non-curbed roads. Mr. Pratt stated he understood the City wanted to establish standards so that development was well thought out, done consistently and with well thought out design. Mr. Pratt stated he felt that the streamlining of the point system might be too much of a simplification, if the point system were over simplified the City might not get the development it wants. 11-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Pratt said that the City of Spokane does require staking. He felt it was more important how to handle the how the tree is installed, how the root ball is handled. Staking is not the only the issue in whether a tree survives or not, there could be other issues, install, nursery, maintenance, how staking is done, stapled, who maintains it. Mr. Pratt did say he did feel that staking was important. Commissioner Hall asked about stabilization being more important than just staking the tree for its own sake. Commissioner Neill asked how Mr. Pratt would recommend inserting this suggestion into the SVMC. Mr. Neill stated he liked the idea of stabilization more than staking. Mr. Pratt suggested a planting detail, making a below surface stabilization. Mr. Pratt stated also that it could be a risk that telling someone how to plant could be a small liability, some require an arborist on site while planting, but it could help keep a better hold on maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Pratt made a comment also on the requirement for a landscape architect and he feels that the City would be better served by having this requirement, with someone who can think beyond just the point system and to the reasons why things are required and necessary. He felt that the reason Sprague was looking so down trodden was the fact that there was less and less landscaping being required, should require more, should be required around signs. Architects make sure the whole picture is taken into account from the sign, to the rights-of-way to the parking lots and the rest of the site to keep the City looking better. Clyde Haase, 12202 E Thorpe Rd: Mr. Haase stated he was a landscape architect would did work in the City. Mr. Haase stated he was concerned about the eight foot high fence, and thought it should be allowed. Mr Haase stated he felt that the City should have a minimum standard of guidelines. Mr. Haase said that staking method vary however what is more important is the enforcement of making sure the trees are unstaked after 12 months. Mr. Haase stated that landscaping around signs should be common sense. If you cannot get water out to the site don't put plants in a place where they will die. He said the City should allow staff a little latitude in making some decisions when common sense should take over the decision. Mr. Haase did share that he had been involved in assisting the City create the point system which allows there to be variety of plantings on a site without having to tell the applicant what to put there. Commissioner Stoy had a question regarding the fencing and changing height requirements. Staff explained that this amendment was not changing the height requirements,just if they are allowed along a flanking street. Commissioner Hall stated he hoped for a better understanding of the right-of-way at the next meeting. Commissioner Neill made a motion to continue the public hearing for CTA-03-11 to December 8, 2011. This motion was passed unanimous. C. Study Session: CTA-05-11 Proposed amendments to Title 20 regarding records of survey requirements for boundary line amendments. Planning Technician Martin Palaniuk made a presentation to the Commission outlining the proposed amendments to Title 20 and the requirements for a record of survey for boundary line adjustment(BLA). 11-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 • The number of properties involved. The number of parcels will determine the number of legal descriptions and the number of lines being moved. This can make it more difficult to evaluate. It also increases the opportunity for an error to occur. • Legal descriptions. Any drawing or survey should accurately depict the written legal description. Legal descriptions are typically taken from the land-holders deed. Any time a boundary line adjustment is undertaken a new legal description is created for all the affected properties. In most cases in Spokane Valley the legal description is written using the lot and block number of a land subdivision or aliquot parts of a land subdivision. In some cases the property is described using a metes and bounds description which describes the property through a series of heading and distance calculations. While both types of description can be used to describe a property the aliquot parts description is much easier to read,understand and amend. • Appurtenances attached to the property. If the property is subject to an easement or multiple easements then issues may arise as to the proper placement and size of the easement. Easements are typically recorded with the county in a written form and added to the title as an appurtenance. Ensuring appurtenances are depicted during a boundary line adjustment is important to inform and protect property owners. • Boundary disputes between property owners. Boundary line disputes sometimes occur within the City's jurisdiction. In some cases, lots were created through a segregation process prior to formal subdivision regulations. When this occurs, setbacks, legal descriptions, and the actual versus perceived boundary lines may add to the misunderstanding and dispute. On other occasions a long standing fence that was originally misplaced may be mistaken for an actual property line. • Existing buildings. The proposed boundary lines are examined to determine if all the required setbacks are being maintained as part of any boundary adjustment review. It is difficult or impossible to determine whether the setbacks are maintained if the buildings are not accurately depicted in the site plan. It is not as critical in cases where the proposed boundary line will clearly maintain a setback. A reviewer can gain reasonable assurance the setback is being maintained if the nearest building is depicted as 10 feet from the boundary and the required setback is five (5) feet. It becomes more difficult if the building is depicted as six (6) feet from the proposed boundary and the setback is five (5)feet. Commissioners asked for the reason for this amendment and if this had been a problem for customers. Staff discussed situations when a record of survey might not be necessary and when it would and how giving the Director some parameters to be able assist the when it would be a simple process to take care of the BLA without the requirement. There were no other questions from the commissioners. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. 11-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson 11-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Department of Community Development Planning Division i City Council .Administrative Report February 7, 2012 Code Text Amendment of Chapter 22 . 70 Fencing and Landscaping (CTA-03 -1 1) �"��� Department of Community Development Planning Division Background • City Council directed staff to modif specific areas within the fencing and landscaping standards in Chapter 22.70 on July, 5, 2011 Trqp os e 4me ncfme n ts arc Clarify fence height on Flanking Yards; 420. Correction to Clear View Triangle tables and definition; Clarify which zones allow barbed wire; AIL Streamline landscape point calculations; Remove landscaping requirement around signs in developed areas; as. Provide more options to modify landscape requirements; and arc Establish threshold when a Landscape Architect is required. oo .,;■∎ Department of Community Development 1Vall et Planning Division jertL e ) Section 22.70.020 Department of Community Development Planning Division fences Section 22.7U.UZU Flanking Yard Definition: Where two streets intersect (corner lot), side yard of a lot adjacent to street and perpendicular to the front yard. ntitlht Flanking Yard Department of Community Development Planning Division ,fences Section 22.70.020 Planning Division Proposed Amendments AIL Fences Section 22.70.020 C. Neither residential. commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation. which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the "clearview triangle.'as set forth below- 1 , A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets_ or the intersection of an alley.private road or commercial driveway and a street to ensure unobstructed vision of motorists and pedestrians Within the clearview triangle.the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street. or three feet above the sidewalk. must be unobstructed and calculated as follows- Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards, a. Uncontrolled Intersection The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) - - -: •••• - - - - (see Figure 22.70-2): or Spokane Department of Community Development Nall Planning Division Proposed Amendments 111111, Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection son loos access street sre 1.,cols arrr ROPERIY RIGHT-OF-WAY OTY R IGFIT-01-WAr NOTE:If no curb is present, measure in 5 feet towards the property line from the edge of the roadway. Planning Division Proposed Amendments AIL Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection i See Table 22.701 Through Street See Toeee 22.701 Thrown Street r CURB Table 22.70-1 — Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 70 30 95 35 110 m„ J t RIGHT-OFWAY CUR• PROPERT/ UPE NOTE:If no curb is present, measure in 5 feet towards the property line from the edge of the roadway. Planning Division Proposed Amendments lag, Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection ave limp Sheet rn o1__ -.• 4 4 Cr---Y PROPERTY RIGHTS-WAY m„ J ` RIGIMOKUlt cry R -O -.SAY ISM Department of Community Development �Ualle 1�. Planning Division Proposed Amendments Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-5 Not-Komme!cial Dr ivey:ay see Street -I I- :Lit EDGE OF DR IYEWAY —CURs arr 16147.01F-WAY Planning Division Proposed Amendments 411.1. ,fences Section 22.70.020 F Barbed wire ar razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use. commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence- Barbed wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district (except for confining animals_ see Section 22 70.020.G and H) or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way. An administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbed'wire requirements. G. In any residential zoning district. barbed wire fences maybe used to confine animals. if the parcel meets the requirements contained in Section 19.40.150. Department of Community Development Planning Division Overview of Landscape Points Table 22.70-3 (not comprehensive list) Size of P la n ti n g' Large Tree (range) 1 Medium Tree Small Tree Ornamental Tree Large Shrub Medium Shrub Small Shrub Ornamental Grasses Groundcover 1 gallon or '/a" pots 1 /4 — 1 /2 Department of Community Development Planning Division • CaCcuCating Points. . . I medium Tree (1 x 12) = 12 pts '4 4 Large Shrubs (4x3) = 12 pts 9 Medium Shrubs (9x2) = 18 pts 4 Ornamental Grasses (4x1/2) = 2 pts Total = 44 points Department of Community Development Planning Division Proyosed Amendments Lan taying Section 2 2.70.030 Table 22.70-4 - Landscaping Points Required for Development, Additions or Site Alterations Size of Developed Area Number of Points Required 0-400--sq-ft- Sitei)Giots-=-10 500 - 2,500 sq_ ft. Site points = 25 2,5010 - 5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 More than 5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq ft. of area over 5.000 sq. ft Parking Wits Two points per required parking space and one point for each proposed additional parking space Planning Division Proposed Amendments AL Lanctscaying Section 22.70.030 of 10 pointy• and 67. Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of street trees along public rights-of-way. planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, 7N. Modifications to protect drainage features. easements. or facilities shall be allowed, 8,9. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or parking decks, or display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals. 9. Proposals requiring ten (101 new parking stalls or less are exempt from landscaping points found in Table 22 70-4 Planning Division Proposed Amendments 41‘.. Lan staying Section 22.70.030 3 Landscaping Plan Requirements &landscaping plan shall beprepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 landscape points All landscape plans shall include the size and type of landscaping materia the dimensions of the tract_ a p4igl calculation showing compliance with this provision. M. Installation. Maintenance. and Enforcement. required 1 . Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. person(s) who prepared landscape plan a registered landscape architect will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments ?kal„, Lanctscaying Section 22.70.030 f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall may be staked for a period of not_ess more than 12 months after planting; Figure 22.70-14 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting Low stake Mulch to 1m radius �"��� Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments Lanctscaying Section 22.70.030 4 New sign structures on a fully developed site Yvill require minimal xeriscaping pursuant to subsection K of this section.are exempt from landscaping. 41 Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments AIL Lanctscaying Section 22.70.030 e. Additions or expansions on developed Industrial zoned properties may be exempt from landscaping requirements. where it is shown that the installation of landscaping is not feasible. Industrial zoned site. 4,000 square foot new building Located in middle of lot without any vegetation and possible water. Barbed Wire Fencing Spokane Cou my Spokane Department of Community Development Nall Planning Division Cow, • arisons Flanking Yards Landscaping & Signs Spokane Valley Proposed Propose fence along property line on flanking side yard. Propose to be allowed in commercial, mixed use and industrial zone on top 1/4 of fence. Not adjacent to ROW in commercial and mixed use zones. Remove landscape requirement for new signs on a developed site. City of S p okane Must meet flanking yard setback. Not allowed except in certain commercial and industrial zones with 3 strands on top of 6 foot fence. Fence must be 12 feet from curb line. Landscaping not required. C i Li ty 0 f berty La k e Must meet flanking yard setback . Allowed in regional commercial and industrial zones, only on top 1/4 of fence. May be used for utility or institutional uses in other zones for health/safety purposes. Requires landscaping. Must meet flanking yard setback. Not allowed. Requires landscaping. Landscaping Flexibility for Industrial lots Planning Division Comparisons continued. . Tree Staking Landscape Architect Spokane Valley Proposed( City of S po ka n e s p okane Co unty Li City be rty of La ke Propose exemption to landscaping requirements made with Director's approval. Proposal to not require. Propose exception for smaller projects. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Not required. Requires Architect w/out exception. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Required. No Architect required. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Required Requires Architect w/out exception. /,^r-f MMILI Department of Community Development Planning Division QUESTIONS ? � It i Spokane Valle ["IT4 HA 11ii}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division City Council .Administrative Report February 7, 2012 Code Text Amendment of Chapter 22 . 70 rencing and Landscaping (CTA-03 - 11) � It i Spokane .000Val ["ITVHAI I r.}Sp^C4•JF; Department of Community Development Planning Division Backgr& i4..w City Council directed staff to modify specific areas within the fencing and landscaping standards in Chapter 22.70 on July, 5, 2011 Proposed Amendments AL Clarify fence height on Flanking Yards; Ac Correction to Clear View Triangle tables and definition; isc Clarify which zones allow barbed wire; AIL Streamline landscape point calculations; AL Remove landscaping requirement around signs in developed areas; ahL Provide more options to modify landscape requirements; and AL Establish threshold when a Landscape Architect is required. Spokane ["IT4HAII. spn HPI Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division ,fences Section 22.70.020 � It i Spokane .000Valle ["IT4 HA 11ii}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division ,fences Section 22.70.020 Flanking Yard Definition: Where two streets intersect (corner lot), side yard of a lot adjacent to street and perpendicular to the front yard. uiffhi Flanking Yard Spokane ["IT4HAII. spn HPI Department of Community Development alle Planning Division J"ences Section 22.70.020 11Pri 111 411016 SIM NUM NW°P- • pkanc t-'T�"'" }�r Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendments jaw Fences Section 22.70.020 C. Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation, which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on anycorner lot in anyzone within the area designated as the !'cl earview tri an g e''as set forth below: 1 . A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets or the intersection of an alley. private road or commercial driveway and a street to ensure unobstnacted vision of motorists and pedestrians Within the clearview triangle,the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet above the sidewalk, must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: 1Djr triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130 040 Street Standards. a Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement fora street with no curbs). alley or commercial driveway (see Figure 22/0-2): or ,Spiikar MT"AII.i}SPC%tiHP`I Department of Community Development 1,,e4.2 is r Planning Division Proposed Amendments Allim Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection 3cm L AEU=Stmet Kitt Lx a -..x street R M HT-0F-W V ATP RIiR wAT flrr R MKT-OF-W NOTE: If no curl] ispresent, measure in 5 feettcivards the p rope rty I ine from the edge&fthe roadway. ,Spiikar MT"AII.i}SPC%tiHP`I Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendments ,Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection see ialle 2Z741 itrough Street r Table 22.70-1 — Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPIi) Distance (in Feet) 25 70 30 95 35 110 c rr R FG HT-X-WAY See E. ble 274'1 Through tr+eet C1.113 13 CITY R MHT-Elf-WAY RIB TY UhE CITY RMHT- FWAY NOTE: If cu rh is present, measure in 5 feet towards the p rope rty I ine from the edge of the roadway. ,Sp kan� ["IT4HAII. SP C HP`I Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendments 4111111= Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection Erwin street m CURE :m ThiraUg h Str et oror,rf PE CFEE TV CrPr RR M HT- r .'A'i CUE B ,Spiikar MT"AII.}SPC%tiHP`I Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendments Allim Fences Section 22.70.020 Figure 22.70-5 Non corn r e rcial aj � It i Spokane .000Valle ["ITVHAI Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments Slihm. Fences Section 22.70.020 F_ Barbed wire or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence industrial zoning districts_ Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district (except for confining animals, see Section 22_71020.G and H) or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way_ Are administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbedlwire requirements_ G_ I n any residential zoning district, barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals, if the parcel meetsthe requirements contained in Section 19.40.150_ Large Tree (rangill 1 Ornamental Grasses Groundcover � It i Sphkanc .000Valle ["ITVHAI Department of Community Development Planning Division Overview of Landscape Points Table 22.70-3 (not comprehensive list) Medium Tree Small Tree Ornamental Tree Large Shrub Medium Shrub Small Shrub Size of Planting Point Value 1 gallon or V/4" pots 1 /4 — 1 /2 Medium Tree = 12 pts � It i Spokane .000Valle ["IT4 HA 11ii}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division Calculating Points . . . I medium Tree (1 x1 2) = 12 pts • 4 Large Shrubs (4)(3) = 12 pts M 9 Medium Shrubs (9x2) = 18 pts 4 Ornamental Grasses (4)(1/2) = 2 pts Total = 44 points � It i Spokane .000Valle ["IT4 HA 11.i}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments AIME L an Cay111g Section 22.70.030 Table 22.70-4 — Landscaping Points Required for Development, Additions or Site Alterations Size of Developed Area Number of Points Required 0 — 500 sq. ft. Site points = 10 500 — 2:500 sq. ft. Site points = 25 2:5013 — 5:000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 More than 5:000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq. ft. of area over 5; 000 sq. ft. Parking lots Two points per required planing space and one point for each proposed additional parking space ,Spkan� ["IT4Hnllii}SP:%C HP`I Department of Community Development 1,,e4miiiirr Planning Division Proposed Amendmenta,� L an Cay111g Section 22.70.030 9. Any addition to existing building(s) or alterations to an existing site exceeding 500 square feet a. One point of landscaping for every 200 square feet of developed area; with a minimum of 10 points; and b. Two points of landscaping for ever/ parking space installed for the building addition. 6. Any construction within or expansion or reconstruction of existing parking facilities in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to come into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. 6,1_ Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of street trees along public rights-of- way, planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center_ 78. Modifications to protect drainage features; easements, or facilities shall be allowed_ 82. The requirements of this section shall not apply' to parking garages or parking decks; or display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals. 9_ Proposals requiring ten (10) new parking stalls or less are exempt from landscaping points found in Table 22.704. ,Spiikar MT"AII.i}SP <^ F Department of Community Development .000Val Planning Division Proposed Amendments L an Cay111g Section 22.70.030 0 3_ Landscaping Plan Require.rnents. A landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 landscape points_ All landscape plans shall include the size and type of landscaping materials. the dimensions of the tract, and a R.9,0. calculation showing compliance with this provision. M_ Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement required) 1 . Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, person(s) who prepared Fandsc.ape plan reaist.red landscape architect will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been install ed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. � It i Spokane .000Valle ["IT4 HA 11.i}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments jam ian Cay111g Section 22.70.030 f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet a•...ay, from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall may be staked for a period of not I9s6 more than 12 months after planting: Figure 2210-14 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting Law stake hAukchto 1m radius pkanc, }�r . Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division L andsca i 5e��,o� zz.�o.o3a ro ose men menu an sCa In Section 22.70.030 1� n9 4. New sign structures on a fully developed site will require minimal xeriscaping pursuantto subsection K of this secti on.are exempt from landscaping. Fr • 1 td 1 ,Spiikar MT"AII.i}SPC%tiHP`I Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendments L an Cay111g Section 22.70.030 e. Additions or expansions o developed Ind,.s_ri al zoned properties may be exempt from landscaping requirements: 'h ere it is shown that the installation of landscaping is not feasible. > Industrial zoned site. 4,000 square foot new building Located in middle of lot with vegetati out any n and possible water. J Spokane .0000Mil ley CITYHALL @SPOKANE,` Department of Community Development Planning Division Comparisons Flanking Yards Barbed Wire Fencing Landscaping & Signs Spokane Valley Proposed City of Spokane Propose fence along property line on flanking side yard. Propose to be allowed in commercial, mixed use and industrial zone on top 1/4 of fence. Not adjacent to ROW in commercial and mixed use zones. Remove landscape requirement for new signs on a developed site. Must meet flanking yard setback. Not allowed except in certain commercial and industrial zones with 3 strands on top of 6 foot fence. Fence must be 12 feet from curb line. Landscaping not required. Spokane County City of Liberty Lake Must meet flanking yard setback . Allowed in regional commercial and industrial zones, only on top 1/4 of fence. May be used for utility or institutional uses in other zones for health/safety purposes. Requires landscaping. Must meet flanking yard setback. Not allowed. Requires landscaping. CITYHALL @SPOKANE,` Spokane Val ley . Department of Community Development Planning Division Comyarisons continued. .. Landscaping Flexibility for Industrial lots Tree Staking Landscape Architect Spokane Valley Proposed City of Spokane Spokane County City of Liberty Lake Propose exemption to landscaping requirements made with Director's approval. Proposal to not require. Propose exception for smaller projects. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Not required. Requires Architect w/out exception. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Required. No Architect required. Yes, but not directly related to industrial properties. Required Requires Architect w/out exception. � It i Spokane Valle ["IT4 HA 11ii}SP:;4.JF'.. Department of Community Development Planning Division QUESTIONS ? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Information ®Admin. Report❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office Zones Review GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report on December 13, 2011 BACKGROUND: City Council directed staff to prepare a comparison study of permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use zone to uses permitted in those areas prior to adoption of the City's zoning regulations in 2007. Council also requested information on uses permitted within the Office and Garden Office zones. OPTIONS: Staff seeks Council direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/Z STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, P.E., Community Development Director Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager Attachment: Staff Memorandum Spoka•R ., ne .0,00Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager; City Council From: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager CC: John Hohman, CD Director Date: February 7, 2012 Re: Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office Zones Review On December 13, 2011, City Council requested information on uses allowed within the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and Garden Office (GO) zones. The Corridor Mixed Use zone is located along the Trent and Sprague Corridors while the Garden Office zones are used as buffers between higher intensity zones, such as Office, and single-family zones. Attached to this memo are three maps depicting current and interim zoning for Trent Avenue, Sprague east of Pines and Sprague west of Pines. Following is a review of the CMU and GO zones. Corridor Mixed Use Upon incorporation in March 2003, Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's zoning regulations as "Interim"regulations until new zoning regulations could be drafted and adopted. The Trent and Sprague corridors were largely zoned B-3, or Regional Commercial, with some properties randomly zoned B-2 and B-1 (see attached zoning maps). In 2007, Spokane Valley adopted new land use regulations to implement its Comprehensive Plan. The Sprague and Trent Corridors were largely zoned Corridor Mixed Use. The intent of the CMU zone is to"enhance travel options, encourage development of locally serving commercial/retail uses,higher density residential, lodging and offices along major transportation corridors". Council asked staff to prepare a matrix comparing the CMU zone to the Interim Zoning inherited from Spokane County. The following information summarizes the differences between the interim and current zoning. General Observations The attached permitted use matrix shows that a large majority of retail and office uses allowed in the B-3 zone are also allowed in the CMU zone. Conversely, the CMU zone entitled many properties with uses not previously permitted in the "B" zones, including residential and light industrial uses. Since the B-3 zone was the predominate zone along the corridors, the following summary focuses only on B-3 compared to CMU permitted uses. Council may refer to the attached matrix to review uses permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zones. Uses Permitted in B-3 —Not Permitted in CMU • Boat Sales • RV Sales • Adult Entertainment • Building Supply/Home Improvement • Cemeteries • Taxidermy • RV Campgrounds • Public Park Uses Permitted in CMU—Not Permitted in B-3 • Light Assembly • Medical Laboratory • Small Machine Shop • Plastic Injection Molding, thermoplastic • Assisted Living • Adult Day Care • Congregate Dwelling • Single Family Residential • Multi-Family Residential Conclusion The Comprehensive Plan and implementing CMU zone encourages a diversity of retail, office,residential and light industrial uses along major transportation corridors, such as Sprague and Trent. The zoning code could be amended to allow prior"B-3"uses in the CMU zone, as long as the uses are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Garden Office Zone The Garden Office (GO) zone is used as a buffer between higher intensity zone, and single- family residential neighborhoods. Council directed staff to prepare a comparison of uses permitted in the Office zone to uses permitted in the GO zone. General Observations The Garden Office zone includes uses that are generally compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Garden Office zones are mainly located along Argonne, Evergreen, Pines and Sullivan between Sprague and I-90. The attached permitted use matrix shows that many uses allowed in the Office zone are also allowed in GO. Council should be aware that many uses shown as permitted in either Office or GO zones are allowed as an accessory to an office building and cannot be stand alone businesses. Please note that this review is not intended to compare the Office zones to the Interim"B" zones; the attached use matrix was combined with the Corridor Mixed Use review for efficiency. Uses Permitted in Office—Not Permitted in Garden Office • Automobile/taxi rental • Gas Stations • Ambulance Service • Bicycle Sales/service • Ceramics Shop • Communication Service/Sales • Hobby Shop • Medical, dental and hospital equipment supply/sales • Music Store • Office and computer supplies • Pet shop • Drive in, Drive up, Fast Food • Theater, indoor • Church • Community hall, club, lodge or recreation facility • Hospitals • Park and Ride • Public Pay Parking • Specialized Training/learning Schools or Studios (such as dance studio) • Transit Center • Electrical/electronic/computer component and system manufacturing/assembly • Laboratories,medical and diagnostic • Hotel/Motel Conclusion The intensity of uses allowed in the Garden Office zone is clearly intended to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods, providing a buffer from intense commercial and office uses. Some uses, such as a dance studio, may be compatible in the Garden Office zone. City Council may consider the information provided and direct staff to prepare a text amendment to the Municipal Code if there are apparent uses that should be permitted in the Garden Office zone. Attachments: Permitted Use Matrix Zoning Maps Corridor Mixed Use, Office and Garden Office Zone Comparison - Permitted Use Matrix E Current Zoning Interim Zoning CMU GO 0 B1 B2 B3 Automobile/light truck sales and service X X Automobile/taxi rental X X X X Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, X X repair, body and fender works Boat sales/services X Car wash X X X Gas Stations (Fueling Station) X X X X X RV sales and service X X Adult Retail Use Establishment X X Ambulance Service X X CU X X Animal clinic/Veterinary X X X X Antique Stores X X X Apparel/Tailor Shop X X X X X X Appliance Sales/service X X X Art gallery/studio X X X X X X Automotive parts, accessories and tires X X X Bicycle Sales/services X X X X X Book/stationary store X X X X X X Building supply/home improvement X X Candy and Confectionary X X X X Catalogue and mail order houses X X X Cemetery and Crematories X X Ceramics Shop X X X X Clothes, retail sales X X X X Communication service/sales X X X X Computer services X X X X X X Convenience Store X X X X X X Department/variety Store X X X Drug store X X X X X X Dry Cleaners X X X X X X Equipment Rental Shop(not including industrial X X oriented equipment) Film Developing X X X X X X Film Camera sales service X X X X X X Florist shop X X X X X X Food sales/specialty butcher shop/meat X X X X market/specialty foods Gas Stations (Fueling Station) X X X X X Gift Shop X X X X X X Greenhouse/nursery, garden center, retail X X X Grocery Store X X X X Hardware Store X X X X Corridor Mixed Use, Office and Garden Office Zone Comparison - Permitted Use Matrix E Current Zoning Interim Zoning CMU GO 0 B1 B2 B3 Hobby shop X X X X X Home furnishings X X X Landscape materials sales X Liquor Store X X X X X Locksmith X X X X X X Manufactured Home Sales X Outdoor Market T T T T Medical, dental, and hospital equipment X X X X supply/sales Music Store X X X X X Office and computer supplies X X X X Pawnshops X X X Pet Shop X X X X Print Shop X X X X X Second Hand Store X X X Sign Painting Shop X X X Storage, self-service facility X X X Storage, general-outdoor X Taxidermy X X Upholstery shop X X X Warehouse scale retail/buying club. X X X Eating and Drinking Establishments Bakery, retail X X X X X X Bars/Taverns X X X Drive in, Drive up, Fast Food X X X X Espresso stand X X X X X Micro-Brewery X X X X X Mobile Food Vendors X X X X X Restaurants, full service X X X X X X Entertainment and Recreation Uses Adult Entertainment X X Bowling alley X X X Carnival, circus T X X X Casino X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities indoor X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities, outdoor X X Golf Courses Racetrack CU RV Campground X X Theatre- indoor X X X X Financial Institutions Bank/savings loan, other financial institutions X X X X X X Civic, Quasi, Civic and Cultural Corridor Mixed Use, Office and Garden Office Zone Comparison - Permitted Use Matrix E Current Zoning Interim Zoning CMU GO 0 B1 B2 B3 Church, etc X X X X X Colleges/Universities X X X X X Community facilities X X X X X X Community hall, club, lodge or rec facility X X X X X Government Offices X X X X X X Hospitals X X X X X Museum X X X X X Park and ride facilities X X X X X Public Park X X X Post Office X X X X X X Public Pay Parking X X X X Public Utility Distribution facility X X X X Schools (K-12, public/private) X X X Specialized Training/learning Schools or Studios X X X X X Transit Center X X X X Light Indust Assembly— light X Carpenter shop X X Electrical/electronic/computer component and X X X X system manufacturing/assembly Jewelry, clock, musical instrument assembly, X X X X X sales/service Laboratories medical and diagnostic X X Machine Shop, small X Plastic Injection Molding, thermoplastic X Bed N Breakfast X X X Hotel/motel X X X Residenti. Assisted Living Facility X X X Community Residential Facility Convalescent home, nursing home Day care; adult X X Day care child X X X X X X Dwelling, congregate X Dwelling, Single Family attached X Dwelling, Single Family detached X * * X X X Dwelling, Multifamily X * * Family Home, adult X Family Home, child X Manufactured Home Park Corridor Mixed Use, Office and Garden Office Zone Comparison - Permitted Use Matrix E Current Zoning Interim Zoning CMU GO 0 B1 B2 B3 Barber/beauty shop X X X X X X Exercise facility/gym/athletic club X X X X X Funeral Home X X X Kennel, indoor kennel, doggie day care facility X X X Laundromat X X X X X X Massage Therapy X X X X X Photographic Studio X X X X X X Vet clinic X X X Medical/Dental clinics/office X X X X X X Office, business, professional X X X X X X B1= Neighbhorhood Business B2=Community Buisiness B3 = Regional Business CMU =Corridor Mixed Use GO=Garden Office *Dwelling units must be second floor and above IN DIANA AV FGA .fof¢1■n■xn IN:: :1,�■■'1U ! li 1■■■1..118 cliff=. •III.°1111 111.111 lI1.m1..1 1 11 111111.■IIIG.,II� ■� 1.1.1.1 i ::::.,....: WAYGli111�.3 1 �Yerstate 90 � •':1. ■■ . - I lug !L; --;;-1■ate Gl111.11111... CCF11G-■.1.111 '::111111' 111.1.xn BRO'oW AV..I IIInlllllllll�nxl!�Il:xu■■Il 'l ■11 1111.1... 1 M_iii 11� � ; � i. Nlr lElmo 1111■ u 11 1 INN �IBROADWAYAVI a MINI=ZIIIIIN1�11 .■�x1�11-•' '� 1 IFF .■..".1..n �■.IIIINIxI x111:■xu■. i■■Ix �! �iriir PNiE M I 11 i ., 11 x1.11111N111.1.■1. xn r _q „-■'o 1111.m y_ 8T AV a■x x:iII1 ':i 1.11o1.:G n¢erma 1.1.1. 1.n■ •1I.. nn. ■■1..n MUM .....■.. 1.1.1.1. .1■11.11..111 =1= 1¢111 1.e ea ll. 1.i .■ nnnnT 1 1.nlxfl��■■■■� ■1.11111111;111 fl MTTLE Interim Zoning % / RR-10 _: _: _ UR-7* B-1 ���� 1-2 ` SRR-5 ;' E;; ?:i UR-7 j/// B-2 1-3 L UR-1 UR-12 B-3 GA UR-3.5 UR-22 MM ...ate\x „q m- III°1:11 IIIIIII11i1 u.....•••1111 ■1...1....1...1....1.1 r 11:111111111111'''' ...................■ SiS :1°1111 MIIRABEAU;ARKWAY\ im1111 1■ ' dr- FANT5 ill W DIA A AV rd ®i111 'r� X19 1-��•MISSIONTAV 1111 _ 1111IInn"'iii'°°� 11111 '®1'I •i rlliiii IIIII■1 ��J'® Miming .1.x11■:-iiiiiiiiiii 11111.1 . s _I::i. 111 M1II1e'--xx.xx.x■.x 11II X111111111== ■IIIIIII■■ .. .�_ �m.n..1In..11 n■•1Bn n-V.■n-fi:'l�m.�..n1'I.n r.,1 n11.�n 1=.■::i.....x._.1�...n...1.�:—m■•��,..'�-.�..i.::nrT1■-■■'--'I..RL...:-1.1.11'1 1®I•I•I•I 1= �_�iJ 'l .n:m;2 1=I1■1I I_11 . :!1 I � I 1111.1111111® II8lllTisoP H lA_!9ip■=:.n.1.al..n.i - 7A 1111wIII_=lI■l9l.Ill I l wpm!! 1:ir1 I 1I1. - . m 1aP q ' dl .. ■1 :n.. ..r1101 11 i1 x9xix' ..■ rl '.l l 1 n.1zo 1 a.- 1n.■ �_I�.i■■...■.. ......x..hS NUMMI is°�rII1IfYi Fsc:I: en g :111,1:1 :i1 == EI4:IIIII �101IIINIIHIIIIII` ....■.■'__ „1111111111■`- =1110 '11110II! _1_- :1■::111: MEM: 11111 kiIEUR■: ':: ::: ■ a : x.■.■ r.n•-.x .n■1 a ■ •@x11 = SN 1r'�111 rm ■Jx-w ■1■"-�■MAW■��,�III;gNL ^-11x1 i IN:—r 11 •i Lx ■ m 1.00 i111I11 x11111111 a. INm:xl¢ gee lecxn°? ■ 111P''Y= 111 x ■ I \ Nx 11111111111: � mSII ee=SE scemmr I j xlx�: lamp'. � NI•N11xN1N1 S' L PE sly•�•lI mp'. Q x ll. nlN Em i�11 1 x 1m s IIS_ l 1� mix" nmm1 N No ��- 1■-xnm m®11111■�� � r eelaeelellee pimp 1®N EN 911�m --.� -h:e`eeeml��,m � tC.,"s� \+ s p.\Nom,\ \;�3�,ti�h\.fir s�� y" _ UR-1 UR-12 B-3 UR-3.5 t' UR-22 1-1 GA MZ SWAN emeer memo t i T II11 DIM_ Nib` I�S E111111;11.1 � Ilo 1111_- - -- 11111-EmoralEINN— 11111 11 x - =liiiii 1 N• S eras.r �1 er .r -p i 1 J �� II� 1117 _ --- ■ 1m NN111111IIN1N jIHuI N 1111 MI11NNII11 N■11■■1.11....: : 41/11. 1.1 frIallil \\\ x11111®11111 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Computer Laptop Agenda Training GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: none BACKGROUND: IT Specialist Greg `Bing' Bingaman will present Council with laptop training. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Table of Contents 1. HP PROBOOK 6550B LAPTOP 2 Light indicators 2 2. Connection to a Wireless Network 3 View available networks 3 Connect to Wireless Network 4 3. EMAIL 4 Using any computer that has Internet access 4 Using Microsoft Outlook on the City Laptop 5 4. USING THE WATCHGUARD ACCESS CLIENT SOFTWARE TO ESTABLISH A SECURE VPN CONNECTION 5 Making a secure connection 5 Closing your Secure Connection 6 5. HOW TO ACCESS THE CURRENT COUNCIL PACKET 7 Agenda 7 Agenda and Supporting Documents 7 6. TAKING NOTES AND ANNOTATING AGENDAS AND DOCUMENTS 8 Using Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 7. USING LASERFICHE DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 9 Using Laserfiche for Research 9 8. STREAMING AND VIDEO ON DEMAND OF COUNCIL MEETING 9 Viewing Council meetings live on the Internet 9 Using the Video on Demand (VOD) to view previous meetings 10 9. RESETTING YOUR PASSWORD 10 Using Outlook Web Access 10 11 Page 1. HP PROBOOK 6550B LAPTOP Light indicators e a! ;' �, c3 r} 0.7 rmiwim7 ■ 9 P ® 11 (c I)) ©®® Component Description (1) Wireless lights(2)' • Blue:An integrated wireless device(select models only),such as a wireless local area network(WLAN)device,the HP Mobile Broadband Module,andlora Bluetooth®device,is on. • Amber:All wireless devices are off. (2) Power lights(2)1 • On:The computer is on. • Blinking:The computer is in Standby_ • Off:The computer is off or in Hibernation. (3) Battery light • Amber:A battery is charging. • Turquoise:A battery is close to full charge capacity. • Blinking amber:A battery that is the only available power source has reached a low battery level.When the battery reaches a critical battery level,the battery light begins blinking rapidly. • Off:If the computer is plugged into an external power source, the light turns off when all batteries in the computer are fully charged.If the computer is not plugged into an external power source,the light stays off until the battery reaches a low battery level, 2IPage Component Description (4) Drive light • Blinking turquoise:The hard drive or optical drive(select models only)is being accessed. • Amber:HP 3D DriveGuard has temporarily parked the hard drive. (5) QuickLook light • On:The computer is on or HP QuickLook is in use. • Blinking:When the QuickLook button is pressed,the light blinks 5 times,and then HP QuickLook opens. NOTE: To use HP QuickLook when the computer is off,HP QuickLook must be enabled in Computer Setup. (6) QuickWeb light • On:The computer is on or the default Web browser is in use. • Blinking:When the QuickWeb button is pressed,the light blinks 5 times,and then the default Web browser opens. NOTE: To use HP QuickWeb when the computer is off,HP QuickWeb must be enabled in Computer Setup. (7) Caps lock light On:Caps lock is on. (8) Num lock light On: Num lock is on or the embedded numeric keypad is enabled. (9) Volume mute light • Turquoise:Speaker sound is on. • Amber: Speaker sound is off. (10) Volume down light Blinking:The volume down button is being used to decrease the speaker volume. (11) Volume up light Blinking:The volume up button is being used to increase the speaker volume. (12) Calculator light On:The Windows calculator function is on. *The 2 wireless lights display the same information.The light on the wireless button is visible only when the computer is open. The wireless light on the front of the computer is visible whether the computer is open or closed_ The 2 power lights display the same information.The light on the power button is visible only when the computer is open.The power light on the front of the computer is visible whether the computer is open or closed. 2. CONNECTING TO A WIRELESS NETWORK View available networks a. To view available wireless networks click the Network icon in the notification area of your desktop. The resulting pane will give you a list of detected wireless networks •' j i4 > 7:30 AM 3IPage Connect to Wireless Network a. From this pane, you can connect to a listed wireless network by clicking the network and then clicking connect. If you want to automatically re-connect to this network the next time you use your laptop, make sure the Connect automatically box is checked. Nn,/,c...ne,[M 'f .1111 ConrKaFU.n Are rvatable ,gi cc.-~tanaarrvocAly 1 Lomeli.i ,.ems e,1 r.ytelr.Cr. . hghnk Op41 t tt+M and Mutnnp([Me. IMAM 3. EMAIL Using any computer that has internet access a. Go to the city's home page and click on the Employee Access link on the bottom of the page ID 1010012. liu li rna,n cote lw lavonle mo.,t 120012011- 2AMles m mattes,Park Surrey j &2512011- NA 000 Winer Fun In 00o0ane Valley Videotaped City Counla meetings air at 6pn Mondays on Comas!channel 14 Disc won r Hdl 11202E Spraaoe Are,Sun.lee Spokane Vale,.WA 99206 Phone 50• Copyrghr 62612 Crry Spokane Valley.A6 Rgh.Rerenrea Us Docu Merit s Employee Access Norms ADA b. Then log on using your username and password using the Office Outlook web access. L�'•"ce i co 'Web Access Seu.rtYI e00 050 1 o Ilk..aw6lcu ardmiv+ua • n.«apinelrmp,b ■ u.n_,,,6keass10,, EME f0 0l029Mce.O Sr�vR 4IPage c. From here you will be able to read and send emails, use your calendar and view and create contacts. d. When done, Log off on the upper right-hand corner or close your browser. grcgb.-.- ate;11 l•ii - ® - L. a¢n • Page- SaFety- Tvols- - I" Ill== 01 OPtionz IF.''-I k]ff Using Microsoft Outlook on the City Laptop a. You can use MS Outlook to read and create emails, however if you are not connected to the city's exchange server via a Virtual Private Network connection (VPN)your email will not update or send until you do connect. b. The VPN software should already be installed on your laptop, if it's missing or you are not sure, bring your laptop by IT and we will be glad to help you. 4. USING THE WATCHGUARD ACCESS CLIENT SOFTWARE TO ESTABLISH A SECURE VPN CONNECTION Making a secure connection a. Your computer must already be connected to the Internet before you can create a secure connection. b. If the WatchGuard Client Access software is not already running and its Icon is not in your system tray use the following steps to start the software. (a) Click»Microsoft logo»All Programs» WatchGuard SSL»Access Client» WatchGuard Access Client. If prompted to allow the program to run, Click Yes, this will load the software into your system tray. 0t' 94. 0IN ® r I 0 ...,IV lul/zoM C. Click on the WatchGuard Access Client icon located in the system tray. (1) Scroll Up to the Favorites,then over and down to the Full Network Access 5IPage Preferences... Favorites r Manage... Status A.•• About Close Tunnels t Exit 2 '? J IF ® ISi QQ .,dl ,a) 1.44 PM 2/1/2012 d. You will then get a pop up notification that your connection has been established and you will be prompted for your User Name and Password, the Click OK 0 Connection Established x Connected to sslnew.spokanevalley.org:443 2:07 PM Z '' fi F I'x Q Ai 11) 2/1/2012 J Access Client Authentication koo The requested resource requires authentication to host sslnew.spoke n evalley.org. Method: CoSPV Network Login User name: bing Password: OK Cancel e. 1 e. You may also see a window showing that the network drives are being mapped, this may take from a few seconds to a minute depending on your Internet access speeds. f. You can now start using Outlook to send and receive emails. Closing your Secure Connection g. When done, close Outlook, the Click on the WatchGuard Client Access icon again, go to Close Tunnels>> Full Network Access, This will close the secure connection. h. Be sure to close your connection when no longer needed! Preferences... Favorites Status About Close Tunnels t Full Network Access End 217 PM Lil M r,] l p •J 14. deg r.J ..dl 14. 2/1/2012 6IPage 5. HOW TO ACCESS THE CURRENT COUNCIL PACKET Agenda a. To download just the Agenda navigate to the cites Home Page at www.spokanevalley.org b. Click on the Council Agenda Link on the left hand side Spok l � services Departments Valley r Ica 'SCity pc • • CenterPlace P. Council Agenda Economic Development c. Then Click on the Current Council Agenda—agenda only link. Council Meeting Agendas and Minutes (unless otherwise noted all meetings are held In Council C Suite 101 Handicapped access is located in the rear of the Curr rent Council Agenda-with supporting doc nts Prior Council Agenda l-acteets Council Minutes d. This should open the Agenda in your browser; a toolbar should appear at the bottom of the document, Click on the disk icon to save a copy to you laptop. e. Give the document a unique name and click save (1) We recommend creating a Folder on your Laptop's Desktop called Council Agenda and save it there. (2) A good naming convention so they stay in order would be year-month-day(2012-01-31) unwise noted above. there will be no public comment.. at Council Study Sessions. However, to req Q • d by the d, H #A "1 [ I 1 1 hslls pl ,i.•.fir. •. ni ..n- . .,. • .N. .. physical. e contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made Agenda and Supporting Documents a. To download the Agenda with the supporting documents, follow the same instructions for downloading the Agenda only but click on the Current Agenda—with supporting documents link. i. Be patient, this could take a while for the file to open depending on its size. b. Click on the Disk icon to save the PDF file. 7 IPage c. Follow the same instructions as the agenda for naming and saving it. d. From this same web page you can also view prior council meeting packets and council meeting minutes. Click on either of those links will take you to our Document Management System called Laserfiche. 6. TAKING NOTES AND ANNOTATING AGENDAS AND DOCUMENTS Using Adobe Acrobat Reader a) Adobe Acrobat Read should already be installed on your laptop, if it's not or you need help locating it please contact IT for help. b) Double click on the file that you want to open. c) Once open, Click on the Comment button on the upper right-hand corner. This will open the Annotations and Drawing Markup Toolbar. oil x Tools Comment Share d) Select the tool you would like to use; you might want to experiment with all the different options to see what works best for you. � r � Tools Comment Share Annotations T., T ■ Drawing Markups WI Q ❑ e) As you add an Annotation or Markup it automatically adds to your list of comments. This list will show you all the items marked in the document and are bookmarks to easy to back to an Annotation or note. B. When done Click on the Disk icon to save your notes with the document. C. You may now close the Document. 8IPage 7. USING LASERFICHE DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE Using Laserfiche for Research a) All of the city's public documents are kept in a document management system called Laserfiche; this system can be accessed via the City's web site. b) From the main page, scroll to the bottom and click on the Documents link. Click on any of the Document pages links will take you to a form where you can search the entire repository for any keywords. c) An example of some of the types of documents you can search are listed below: a. City Clerk Documents b. City Council Documents c. Community Development Documents d. Finance Documents e. Operations &Administrative Documents f. Parks & Recreation Documents g. Public Information Office Documents h. Public Works Documents i. Interlocal Agreements itoLaserfiche e Denary - farch WebLink Browse Search SookaneValleyr Finance Search Here Finance Name S Entry Properties et.Cornprehen me Annual Financial Reports ICAFRI Full Path to Grant Appl i cations Spo kaneVa11ey1Fi nance r Inventory of Fixed ASSe1e Creation bate 12,16n2000 1:17.15 PM lip Reports Last Move Mee ere Tar Relume 511Ci2011 1 09.21 PM B.Entries 2.Matatlala No Melatlata Assigned / 8. STREAMING AND VIDEO ON DEMAND OF COUNCIL MEETING Viewing Council meetings live on the Internet a) Council meetings are streamed live on the Internet and can be view by going to the city's home page and Clicking on the STVT Web Channel Button on the right-hand side of the page. SVTV Web Channel Public Notices 10 I ii" Bids/RFPs/RFts Hot Topics Community Penniis U Newsletter • Contact Us ii1 9IPage b) This will take you to the Streaming Media Archive. From here you can view meetings live and also view any previously recorded meeting, also known as Video on Demand (VOD). c) You also have the option of viewing previous agenda's, listen to previous meetings audio only and also download a copy of the video for local viewing if you cannot stream the video. B. You can also Search the Archives for any word that might have been spoken during a meeting, Search Archives: ' Search SuhecnDe via RSS feeds El °el AMNIA 1 Mfg S6S all= 1 Video Rodent Archived Videos Xs,. Dab Duration •COOngI Meeting-3Wdy Jan 31,2012 02h42m gg9993 Video MP3AUd0 MP4VMeh Session Coundl Meeting-StudySession Jan 17,2012 02h 20m soda Vtleo MP3 Audio MP4 Video Coundl Meeting-FOmlal Jan 10,2012 02h 03m g9BB93 11991 MP3AUda Council ldeeting-Formal Dec 27,2011 02h 26m Aoenda Video MP3 Audio MN Video Coundl ldeeting-Focnlal Dec 13,2011 02h 59m gdenga MP3 AUdo MP4YWah Council Lleeling-Study Session Dec6,2011 03h06m Merila Vi eo MP3 Aodlo MP4 Video Council Meeting-Study Session Nov 20,2011 03h 35m ggeB9a 11991 M.N19l9 lee Video_ Council Meeting-Special Nov 15,2011 03h 37m Mends Video MP3 Audio MP4 Video Regular Meeting Using the Video on Demand (VOD) to view previous meetings a. To use the VOD, click on the Video Link that corresponds to the meeting you want to watch, this will start the video player. b. You can then use the links under the video or click on the hyperlink on the Agenda to jump to the exact point in the meeting you wish to listen to; each Agenda item has an index link so you can go right to that spot in the meeting. 1N Val ley AGENDA SPOILYIVE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL "Or REGULARIIEETLMG ! *Y' • FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday,January 31,2012 COO p.m "aw ' Spokane Valley City Hall Council Clambers 11707E Sprague A}-eum Council Rrgsmr,Please Ultras Your Cell Phones During Council 31reting Senske Contract Receive/•Mike Stone Fput&comment' in II r 01:14:52102:42:03 4)? Santee duswneets Council Meeting-Study Session Teals and hop. ®cow-Avdr IDmat Spnkaoc Sins Foxvm index C3 lino Train da:bn g ' 1.Senske Contract Renewal-mire Stone 3. Amendments to 2012 Budget-Murk Calm. ,2.en,¢r 7raos and Unprp�aments-Andy Donau,Spokane River Fvnmr 2012 Budge Amendment documents 3.Mre�uVye t•mark Calhoun .. _ .-. . 9. RESETTING YOUR PASSWORD Using Outlook Web Access a. You can use the Outlook Web Access to change your password,you should be getting email notification that your password is about to expire at 14 days, 7 days and 3 days' notice. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL IT HAS EXPIRED, this will lock your account and you will not be able to login to change it. 101 Page b. Click on the Option Link on the upper right-hand corner ' r r Options I IBir ig••1 f.og Off W #Help r t to re-enable the blocked features,dick her c. Then Click on Change Password on the Left hand side E-Mail Security ✓ Display a notification w Ju ChangePass�nord * t E-mail Signature Genera ettings i Deleted Items Tahoma d. Type in your old password and then your new password, be sure to click SAVE at the top of the screen. CA sa;a I 9 Change Password Enter your existing password,type a ne'w password,and then type it again to confirm it. Aker saving,you may need to re-enter your credentials and log on again.You will be prom' Domainluser name: SPOKAI€VALLEYlbmg Old Password: New Password: Confirm New Password: e. Your password in now changed. 11IPage DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 2,2012; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings February 14, 2012,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 6] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amended 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Readings Proposed Ordinances Amending SVMC Housekeeping—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 5. Signage Related to Sale of Alcohol—Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) 6. Gateway Signs—Mike Stone (15 minutes) 7. Governance Manual Discussion—Chris Bainbridge (30 minutes) 8. Info Only: 2012 TIGER Discretionary Grant (Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement Project) [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] February 21,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [CONFIRMED joint mtg w/SVPlanning Commission] Agenda Topics Include: Shoreline Master Program Schedule, Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities February 28, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tues,Feb 21] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Readings Proposed Ordinances Amending SVMC Housekeeping—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.70,Landscaping—Karen Kendall (20 minutes) 5.First Reading Ordinance re Signage and Sale of Alcohol—Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Approval of Fire Department Interlocal Agreement(fees)—C. Driskell (10 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Lodging Tax—Round Two—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Memo of Agmnt—Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 9. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 125 minutes] March 6,2012,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 27] 1. Revisions to Title 24 Building Code —Doug Powell,John Hohman (20 minutes) 2. Ordinance Regarding Franchises—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Information Only: Draft Amended 2012 TIP [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] NLC Congressional City Conference:March 10-14, 2012, Washington,D.C. March 13, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.70,Landscaping—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance re Signage and Sale of Alcohol—Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] March 20, 2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 12] 1. Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 2/2/2012 1:53:06 PM Page 1 of 3 March 27,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 19] 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (— 10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll minutes) (5 minutes) 3.Motion: Lodging Tax Allocations—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 4.Motion: Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] April 3,2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 26] 1.Advance Agenda April 10, 2012,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) April 17,2012,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 9] 1.Advance Agenda April 24, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Reports May 1,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 23] 1. Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda May 8, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 30] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) May 15, 2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 7] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 22,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 14] 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (-15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 29, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 21] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) June 5,2012,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 28] 1.Advance Agenda June 12,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Adoption of Proposed 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 2/2/2012 1:53:06 PM Page 2 of 3 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Centennial Trail Agreement Community Dev.Block Grant(CDBG)Update Contracts,Annual Renewals,histories,etc. Ending Fund Balance Governor's Budget Reduction Alts,Review of Graffiti,Code Enforcement,etc. Great Northern Railroad Right-of-way Investment Accounts Law Enforcement Interlocal Amendment Manufactured Homes Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Prosecution Services Public Input Process for Capital Projects Retreat(June/July?) Revenue Policy,Cost Recovery Senior Housing Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Sidewalks Speed Limits,(overall system) Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Street Preservation *time for public or council comments not included Draft Advance Agenda 2/2/2012 1:53:06 PM Page 3 of 3 pokane Community Development .Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 PERMIT CENTER 2Levenue Permits Permit revenue for December 2011 was $35,008. The year finished behind 2010 by 19.84% Permit Revenue $300,000 — - $250,000 - $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 Erii $50,000 ai t Ll $0 Ja Feb Mar Apr May June July _2011 Revenue 2010 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for December 2011 was $11,457. Land Use revenues finished ahead of 2010 by 9%. Land Use Revenue $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 o _ _ $14,000 a, 1 Aar $12,000 $10,000 0� $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 ' $2,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec •2011 Revenue •2010 Revenue Page 1 of 8 Spvlcane Community Development iValley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 rah' izluatton The valuation' for December 2011 was $1,851,091. Permit valuations for 2011 were down from 2010. $35,000,000 Permit Valuation • $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 +i�+ � $0 - — Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2011 Valuation • 2010 Valuation Lf ftce of 7inanciaiNanagementPermtt_Information (l'ermitslssuedj December 2011 Dwelling Residential New Separate Demolition Units Structures Dwelling Units Permits Demolished Single Family Residence 8 3 2 Duplex Triplex 4-PI ex Apartments December 2011 New Tenant Commercial Buildings Improvements Additions 3 4 0 Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule,valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 8 Spokane Community Development ....*Val ley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 Separate Dwelling 2011 YTD Residential New Dwelling Demolition Units Structures Units Permits Demolished Single Family Residence 83 0 3 2 Duplex 13 0 0 0 Triplex 0 0 0 0 4-Plex 0 0 0 0 Apartments 0 0 0 0 2011 YTD Commercial New Tenant Buildings Improvements Additions 67 143 5 Permit Activity Certificate of Occupancy 22 Certificates of Occupancy were issued in December. Some of them include: Shelly Lake Apartments Spokane Water District Spokane Teachers Credit Union 12 String Brewery Panda Express Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 198 permits in December 2011. Construction Permits Issued 600 500 400 i ' 1 1 300 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F 200 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 o 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec ■2011 Permits 159 121 246 338 349 395 278 334 402 363 271 198 ■2010 Permits 158 200 259 256 241 284 263 328 508 366 246 231 Page 3 of 8 Spokane Community Development Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 Land Use Applications The Planning Division processed the following applications in December: - Four Boundary Line Adjustments - One Preliminary Short Plat - One Final Short Plat - One Accessory Dwelling Unit - One Temporary Use Business Licenses Staff approved 119 business licenses in December, and 1,717 for the year. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 25 home occupation permits in December, while reviewing 400 in 2011. Entertainers Licenses 16 Entertainment licenses were processed for December. Express Permits There was 2 Express permit processed in December. During 2011 the program processed CustomerSerYice The Permit Center staff assisted 270 customers at the counter and handled 156 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during December. In total the Permit Center serviced approx. 9,500 people. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 3 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un-platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. Inspections Right of Way Inspector: The Right-of-Way inspector performed 312 inspections in December. In 2011 the ROW inspector performed 7, 777 inspections. You will notice a slight adjustment in the numbers we have recalculated them to reflect an accurate count of total inspections. Right-of-Way Inspections 1200 1000 600 • O 400 0 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr_ May June jy Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 633 710 11ii1 - Page 4 of 8 Community Development pokane Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 Building Inspectors: The City's Building Inspectors performed 322 residential inspections and 248 commercial inspections in the month of December. For 2011 City inspectors performed 5701 residential and 2287 commercial inspections. ■2011 Residential 02010 Residential A 2011 Commercial X2010 Commercial 1000 •- Building • Inspections1°° Performed 10 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Residential 296 275 395 490 459 456 405 489 502 488 575 322 2010 Residential 393 387 397 557 498 522 531 403 581 525 437 379 2011 Commercial 115 109 150 153 160 176 220 222 226 218 451 248 2010 Commercial 229 187 274 180 163 185 201 312 196 170 137 120 Development Engineering Inspector During the month of December the Development Engineering Inspector performed 3 site inspections. Our Development Engineering inspector performed 2,287 inspections in the last year. } Development Engineering Inspections 50 40 30 20 10 0 _ _ 1 iIi r Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec _2011 •2010 Page 5 of 8 Spokane Community Development Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 UPDATES Planning Planning Commission On December 8, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to Title 20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), to allow some discretion with regard to requiring a record of survey for all boundary line adjustments. The Commission also continued a public hearing on amendments to Chapter 22.70 SVMC, Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. This was also the last meeting for Commissioner Joe Mann, who was recognized and thanked for his service to the community. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Updates The Comp Plan amendment team met in November to discuss roles and responsibilities for the annual update. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update includes changes to Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 - Transportation, Chapter 4 - Capital Facilities, and Chapter 7 - Economic Development. The proposed amendments also include seven citizen-initiated requests for site-specific map amendments. In addition, staff tentatively scheduled a review session and public hearing to be held in February with the Planning Commission. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) The Steering Committee did not meet in December. Shoreline Master Program Staff, including the City Manager, City Attorney, and Community Development Director, attended a Shoreline Master Program Law Seminar in Seattle, WA. Staff met with Centennial Properties to discuss the City's inventory of the Company's vacant lands, and the DOE Grant was signed by the City Manager. D partment-Vie Energy Grant Public Works continues to implement transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. Mary May presented changes to the City Council to grant as proposed by Avista. See the paragraph below for updates on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Washington State Energy Strategy Update Process The 2012 Energy Strategy was submitted to the Governor and Legislature in December and is posted on the Commerce website at http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/1327/default.aspx where the Cover Letter, Executive Summary, and Issues and Analysis as well as public comment on the Strategy can be reviewed. ADA Self-Survey The community meeting for presenting the draft report to the public was held December 14, 2011. Meeting minutes have been compiled and the draft report and transition plane will be presented to the Council as an administrative report at the Council work session on January 17, 2012. After incorporating any changes requested by Council, the draft will be finalized and posted to the web site sometime in January 2012. This project will then be concluded. Wellhead Protection Staff attended a wellhead protection meeting in December. Page 6 of 8 """F' Community Development t"--vin Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 Regional Partnering The Regional Partnering Group is still focused on the development and implementation of the SmartGov permit tracking and workflow system which is currently scheduled to "Go Live" In February 2012. Application forms for proposed use in Spokane, Spokane County and Spokane Valley are still being discussed. The three jurisdictions continue to discuss details for language related to application expiration. Application and permit expiration language is scheduled for a February Spokane Valley Council meeting. Spokane County is interested in what Spokane Valley will propose with regard to application expiration as they have not yet proposed their language for Commissioner consideration. Code Text Amendments Staff continued processing amendments to the Uniform Development Code with progress made on signage, landscaping and boundary line adjustments. Cote Compliance Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance Officers responded to 33 Citizen Action Requests (CAR). The City's Code Compliance Officers responded to 532 CARs. They are by type, listed below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. goo°io ----__ Fr � _$0% II 11111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 60% ■ ■ 111*1 ■ #■- 40% OM hava°11 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CI Clear View Triangle 0 2 1 0 0 0 14 8 3 4 2 2 II Complaint- No Violation 1 1 1 6 2 5 3 4 1 1 3 2 •Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 CI Junk Auto 6 3 6 8 7 11 8 14 5 9 2 5 •Property 4 4 8 11 10 22 20 37 14 17 11 10 CI Signs 0 1 0 5 47 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 ■Solid Waste 9 9 14 15 14 23 9 21 10 15 3 12 2011 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category Page 7 of 8 Community Development pokane Valley Monthly Report December and Year End 2011 UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST INTERES 01-12-12 Planning Commission Meeting: Sign CTA, Study Session and Election of officers 01-16-12 I Martin Luther King day- City Hall Closed 01-26-12 Planning Commission Meeting: Sign CTA-06-11 02-07-12 Council Retreat 02-09-12 Planning Commission Meeting: Study Session, R 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 02-14-12 Anticipated SmartGov Go-Live date 02-23-12 Planning Commission Meeting: Public Hearing, 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 7, 2012 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: