Loading...
Agenda 09/23/2010 �'�I C[TY���� i� Valle � � Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 23, 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING, CTA-Og-IO CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBAREA PLAN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER MICKI HA�vols X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Joxlv G.CA�oLL,CxaiR Ka�Y McCLU1vG,CD DIxECTOx CRAIG EGGLESTON GREG MCCORMICK,PLANNING MGR,AICP RUSTIN HALL SCOTT KUHTA, SENIOR PLANNER,AICP 70E MANN MIKE BASINGER, SENIOR PLANNER,AICP MARCIA SANDS,VICE CHAIR CARY DRISKELL,DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ART SHARPE DEANNA GRIFFITH,ADMIN ARNE WOODARD WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: September 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business � public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA 08-10 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing —Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability). Consider options to address the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. Chapter 2.1.3 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone). Amend Chapter 19.20.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use. Chapter 2.2.7 (Front Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. Section 2.2.8 (Side Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. Section 2.3.1.2 (Pre-located Streets) Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On July 27, 2010 Council passed a motion directing the Planning Commission to consider text amendments to Book II, Development Regulations of the Subarea Plan as a result of input from a community meeting on the Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone. On September 9, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a study session. BACKGROUND: The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16, 2009 and became effective on October 15, 2009. Earlier this year council requested that staff initiate a zone by zone review of the Subarea Plan to determine if changes are necessary to better serve the public interests. The review process for each zoning district included a study session with the council, a public meeting with the property owners and a follow-up meeting with council to determine which text amendment changes, if any, staff should proceed with. The second zoning district to be reviewed was the Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone. Council review was conducted on June 15, 2010, and a community meeting was conducted on June 24, 2010. The meeting was attended by approximately 38 people. As a result of the comments at the meeting, the changes outlined above were forwarded to the Council on July 13, 2010 where Council directed staff to proceed with the formal code text amendment process. A motion formalizing the direction was passed on July 27, 2010. OPTIONS: Recommend approval; recommend denial or direct staff further RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No recommendation is provided. The Planning Division recommended approval of the SARP and therefore is not providing a recommendation to approve or deny the city initiated proposed text amendments. Instead the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission consider the outcome of the each code text amendment to determine if the desired result will be achieved through code implementation. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Exhibit1: Proposed Amendments SARP Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability) SARP Chapter 2.1.3 Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone SARP Section 2.2.7 Standards (Front Street Setback) SARP Section 2.2.8 Standards (Side Street Setback) SARP Section 2.3.1.2 Standards (Pre-located Streets) Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination Exhibit 3: Comments received from the June 24, 2010 Community Meeting COD�ZUNITY DEVELOPD�NT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DI�'ISION ►��poka�le STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE �[]����� PLANNING COMMISSION �� CTA-08-10 STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 16,2010 HEAR�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: September 23, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL: Zoning code text amendments to the following sections of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) and Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC): 1) Chapter 2.01 (Applicability) Consider options to address the 50%threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of e�sting buildings to meet the SARP regulations; 2) Chapter 2.13 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone) Amend Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the SVMC to allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use; 3) Chapter 22.7 (Front Street Setback) and Chapter 22.8 (Side Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible and; 4) Chapter 23.12(Pre-located Streets) Consider options for street requirements,specifically the 5-acre requirement. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 4321C. PxoPOSAL LocAT�o1v: The proposal affects all properties located within the area regulated by the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. APP�.�cANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY oF RECOMMENDATION: No specific recommendation is provided. The Planning Division recommended approval of the SARP and therefore is not providing a recommendation to approve or deny the city initiated proposed text amendments. Instead the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission consider the outcome of each code text amendment to determine if the desired result will be achieved through code implementation. STAFF PLA1v1vEx: Micki Harnois, Associate Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination Exhibit 3: Comments received from the Community Meeting conducted on June 24, 2010 BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16"', 2009 and became effective on October 15"', 2009. Earlier this year council directed staff to conduct a aone by zone review of the Subarea Plan to determine if changes are necessary to better serve the public interests. The review process for each zoning district included a study session with the council, a public meeting with the property owners, and a follow-up meeting with council to determine which changes staff should proceed with. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 1 of 8 Commission as a code text amendment. If the proposed change conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the Plan during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The Plan may not be changed more than once a year pursuant to state law. The second zoning district reviewed was the Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone. Council review was conducted on June 15, 2010, and a public meeting was conducted on June 24, 2010. The meeting was attended by appro�mately 38 people. Comments received at the meeting were forwarded to the Council on July 13, 2010 where Council directed staff to proceed with the formal code text amendment process. A motion formalizing the direction was passed on July 27, 2010. The code text amendments under consideration are a result of this process. B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: September 3,2010 Issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): September 3,2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: September 17,2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable signi�cant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 4321C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on September 3, 2010 for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close September 17, 2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN(SARP) Book L Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book IL Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book IIL City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area that will implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague/Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. The SARP was developed with the intention to transform the corridor from the linear commercial strip that has fallen out of favor with market trends to a pattern of centers, boulevard and avenue segments consistent with contemporary consumer and investor preferences. The Centers and Segments have a Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 2 of 8 distinct market and focus. The City Center offers commercial goods and services that cater to the entire city in a pedestrian oriented city center. Neighborhood Centers cater to neighborhood retail and services servicing areas only within a short drive. Both centers are characterized by clusters of shops, activity, mix, and intensity. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types, frontage landscaping and dominant uses. The Gateway Commercial Segment is intended to continue to "enhance its position" as a regional Auto Row, and the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. The maj ority of the code amendments in this report are proposed for all zoning districts in the SARP. The intent of the Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone is to support new offices, lodging, medium box retail sales and services and medium density housing. Retail will be located on or oriented Sprague Avenue with multi-family housing transitioning behind it. On e�sting and new Other Streets small setbacks and higher frontage is promoted with medium density housing consisting of building types including stacked housing units and townhouses. The buildings are situated close to the sidewalks with a greater presence at the street due to a greater frontage coverage requirement and parking lots are located to the side or rear of buildings. The building form is established by the use of minimum and maximum values. Maximum front setbacks and minimum frontage coverage requirements ensure that buildings frame the Sprague street frontage. Chapter 2.01 (Applicability) discusses when the development regulations of the SARP apply. Currently for all District Zones (excluding City Center District Zone) the regulations apply to a) New construction and b) Exterior improvements (facelifts) costing more than twenty percent (20%) of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. New construction is defined as an entirely new structure or the reconstruction, remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed or appraised value of the existing structure and land. The proposed amendment would increase the fifty percent (50%) threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. There are e�sting detached single-family residences located throughout the SARP area in nonresidential zones. These are currently deemed a nonconforming use and/or structure. The Non-conforming uses section noted in the SARP refers to Chapter 1920.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The proposed amendment to this section would allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use. Front and side street setbacks are defined as the required distance from the back of sidewalk line along a front or side street to a primary building fa�ade. In some existing circumstances there is required border or utility easements located in the required setback. The proposed amendments will clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirements infeasible. The pre-located street map (Figure 23.12) shows possible alignments for future streets within the corridor. Some of the lines appear to be placed through existing buildings. Comments from the public meeting suggested that the future streets have already been pre-determined. Currently the maximum block size is five (5) acres. Block size is a measure of the total area, in acres, bounded by the property lines that define a parcel or assembled parcel. This regulates the total area of contiguous properties that form a city block. The proposed amendment will consider options for street requirements, specifically the five (5) acre requirement E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS�OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below followed by staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Book L Community Intent of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 3 of 8 Staff Res�onse: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and Book L Community Intent of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. However, the outcome of each code text amendment should be considered to ensure that the code text amendment is consistent with expectations. A brief discussion of the outcomes is provided below following the identi�cation of goals and policies. The applicable goals and policies are listed: SARP Goals and Policies 3) Reverse creeping disinvestment by identifying the long term "highest and best uses" for the Corridor as a whole. a) Widen the range of investment types To reposition properties, no longer advantageously positioned for retail development, implement policy changes and capital improvements to widen the range of potential investment types permitted, and to provide an environment more suitable for a mixture of uses,including housing. 7) Employ"form-based" development regulations. Establish development regulations that are composed to achieve the envisioned physical form— the pattern of Centers and Segments described in earlier sections — for the Corridors. Rather than using policy to separate land uses, focus development regulations on physical specifications that permit a more harmonious mixture of uses on neighboring properties and that foster the creation of a more attractive public realm and city identity. COSV Comprehensive Plan a. Goal LUG-1: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. i. Policv LUP-11: Maintain and protect the character of e�sting and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and j oint planning. b. Goal LUG-14: Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. ii. Policv LUP-141 Use performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character, achieve a greater range of housing options, and to create attractive and desirable commercial and of�ce developments. c. Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers fle�bility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. iii. Policv EDP-71 Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost effective and expeditious. The amendment to consider options to address the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations is consistent with policy LUG-141 which indicates that performance and community design standards should be used to maintain neighborhood character, achieve a greater range of housing options, and to create attractive and desirable commercial and of�ce developments. New construction is defined in SARP and may also include major remodel. This amendment is also consistent with SARP Policy 2 (c) in that it supports the value already in place. This supports the strong anchored neighborhood centers already located at crossroad locations. The amendment to Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow e�sting legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use is consistent with LUG-1.This discusses preserving and protecting the character of Spokane Valley's e�sting and future residential neighborhood through the development of land use regulations. With the deeming of these single-family dwellings as a permitted uses this is allowing the buildings to remain as part of the existing residential neighborhood. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 4 of 8 The amendments to clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible is consistent with EDG-7 which gives the Community Development Director the fle�bility to give clear direction and discretion to establish a reasonable setback from the outer edge of the easement. The amendment to consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement is consistent with SARP Policy 4 (a) which describes the planning for private property development and public right-of-way design. The intent is that capital improvement proj ects when combined with private development which lines a public thoroughfare will form one seamless and functional part of the City. SARP Policy 7 (b) advocates using street design to stimulate and support desired forms of investment. Design improvements to the particular needs of the specific Centers and Segments that they enfront should be targeted. The proposed changes do not completely remove the requirement for pre-located streets. Outcome Consideration: Consider options to address the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings: The definition of new construction possibly could include "maj or remodel". The permit valuation as shown in Exhibit A (attached) includes only additions, expansions and reconstruction on both the interior and exterior of e�sting buildings. It does not include such improvements as parking lot improvements, grading, landscaping or mechanical or plumbing permit costs. Where new construction exceeds the applicability threshold of 50% of the assessed values, it will make changes along the corridor occur. Allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use. With this amendment to Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) it allows the e�sting neighborhood housing to remain and any existing legally established dwelling can be expanded or altered under the development standards of the underlying nonresidential zoning district. Currently detached single-family housing is only allowed in the Community Boulevard zoning district and on all streets but Appleway Boulevard in SARP. This would apply to all zoning districts and per the definition of single-family(Glossary)in SARP. Front and Side Street Setbacks: Clarifying these setbacks where easements e�st will allow flexibility for development in SARP. The front and side street setbacks are currently measured from the back of sidewalk. In some instances drainage or border easements may exist that are larger than the maximum required setback. An example of this is a commercial structure currently being constructed that contains a drainage swale which is larger than the front street setback. With the Community Development Director having the ability to establish a reasonable setback from the outer edge of the easement it will make the front and side street setbacks more feasible. This requirement would apply to all zones. Options for Street Requirements: The proposed language adds flexibility and is consistent with the current City of Spokane Valley Street Standards. With the emphasis of"potential"in the text and also on the legend of the Pre-Located Streets map (Fig. 2.3.1) the placement of streets is not being suggested. Access points into new development are important and will be determined at the time of development.No streets will go through buildings. The maximum block length six hundred sixty (660) feet as mentioned in the Street Standards would create a maximum block size of ten (10 acres). 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment Staff Res�onse: The amendments bear substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments will encourage new construction, deem existing legally established single-family dwellings in a nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use, clarify front and side street setbacks with easements and suggest options for street requirements. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan are consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 5 of 8 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommended approval of the SARP and therefore is not providing a recommendation to approve or deny the city initiated proposed text amendments. Rather, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission consider the outcome of each code text amendment to determine if the desired result will be achieved through code implementation. G. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80140 & 17.80150)when recommending changes to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission,by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16`h, 2009 and became effective on October 15"', 2009. C. The City of Spokane Valley Street Standards were adopted December, 2009. D. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. E. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect,impractical, or omitted. F. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 23, 2010. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1. Chapter 2.01 (Applicability). Consider options to address the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. 2. Chapter 213 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone). Amend Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential aoning district as a permitted use. 3. Chapter 22.7 (Front Street Setback). Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. 4. Chapter 22.8 (Side Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. 5. Chapter 2.312 (Pre-located Streets) Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement.. Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event that the Commission recommends approval. The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Book L• Community Intent of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. SARP Goals and Policies Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 6 of 8 3) Reverse creeping disinvestment by identifying the long term "highest and best uses" for the Corridor as a whole. b) Widen the range of investment types To reposition properties, no longer advantageously positioned for retail development, implement policy changes and capital improvements to widen the range of potential investment types permitted, and to provide an environment more suitable for a mixture of uses, including housing. 7) Employ"form-based" development regulations. Establish development regulations that are composed to achieve the envisioned physical form — the pattern of Centers and Segments described in earlier sections — for the Corridors. Rather than using policy to separate land uses, focus development regulations on physical specifications that permit a more harmonious mixture of uses on neighboring properties and that foster the creation of a more attractive public realm and city identity. COSV Comprehensive Plan a. Goal LUG-1: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. i. Policy LUP-1.L Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and j oint planning. b. Goal LUG-14: Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. ii. Policy LUP-141 Use 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. c. Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers fle�bility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. iii. Policy EDP-7.1 Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that (B) The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendments benefits public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Su�ortin� Statements The amendments bear substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments will encourage new construction, deem e�sting legally established single-family dwellings in a nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use, clarify front and side street setbacks with easements and suggest options for street requirements. Proposed Motion: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval to City Council for the following code text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan: 1. Chapter 2.01 (Applicability). Consider options to address the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. 2. Chapter 2.13 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone). Amend Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any nonresidential zoning district as a permitted use. 3. Chapter 22.7 (Front Street Setback). Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 7 of 8 4. Chapter 22.8 (Side Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. 5. Chapter 2.312 (Pre-located Streets) Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement.. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA-08-10 Page 8 of 8 CTA-08-10 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted August 2009 Book II—22 Development Regulations Page 13 of 123 2.0.1. APPLICABILITY 1)City Center District Zone.These regulations shall apply to: a)New construction. b)Additions greater than 20%of the building floor area. c)Exterior Improvements("facelifts")costing mare than 20%of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior regulations shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 2)All Other District Zones.These regulations shall apply to: a)New construction. b)Exterior Improvements("facelifts")costing more than 20%of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exteriar improvements shall confarm to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 3)New Construction.New construction is defined as an entirely new structure ar the reconstruction,remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing mare than 50% of the assessed ar appraised value of the existing structure and land. NEW CONSTRUCTION BUSINE55 ZONING *PERMIT **CURRENT 50%OF 60%OF 70%OF 80%OF 90%OF VALUATION ASSESSED ASSESSED ASSESSED ASSESSED ASSESSED ASSESSED VALLUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE Winco/ MUA $6,200,000. $8,950,640. $4,475,320. $5,370,384. $6,265,448. $7,160,512. $8,055,576. Sprague&Farr West Valley CCT $793,330. $1,946,290. $973,145. $1,167,740. $1,362,403. $1,557,032. $1,751,661. Alternative High School/ 10722 E Sprague Monique's Hair MUA $300,000. $725,300. $362,650. $435,180. $507,710. $580,240. $652,770. Salon/Sprague &Evergreen *Does not include permits for plumbing,mechanical, grading,parking lots and landscaping **Includes assessed value of land and structures CTA-08-10 19.20.060 Nonconforming uses and structures. A. Applicability. Legal nonconforming uses and structures include: 1. Any use which does not conform with the present regulations of the zoning district in which it is located shall be deemed a nonconforming use if it was in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of these regulations; 2. Any permanent structure in existence and lawfully constructed at the time of any amendment to this code, which by such amendment is placed in a district wherein it is not otherwise permitted and has since been in regular and continuous use; 3. Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use; 4. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to structures or uses deemed nonconforming only pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 21.50 SVMC); 5. Exi�tinq leqallv ��j��li�h�d sinqle f�rr�ilv residenti�l u�e� l�c�ted in anv nonresidential zoninq district shall not be deemed nonconforminq and shall be permitted as a leqal use. CTA-08-10 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted August 2009 Book II—22 Site Development Regulations Page 40 of 123 2.2.7. FRONT STREET SETBACK Front Street Setback is defined as the required distance from the back of sidewalk line along a Front Street to a primary building faqade. This is illustrated in Figure 2.2.7. Front Street Setback. Section 3.3 of Book III: City Actions are adopted as part of these development regulations.Along streets with approved street reconfiguration plans,Front Street Setback distances shall be measured based on either 1)the back of sidewalk location following street reconfiguration,or 2) approved City plans for street reconfiguration that relocate the back of sidewalk If�n existin�easement is loeated in the required front street setbacl:,the Community Development Director has the diseretion to establish a reasonable setback from the oliter edae of the easement. Front Street Setback areas must be landscaped according to the principles set forth in Section 2.3 Street and Open Space Regulations except where exceptions are noted within the Private Frontage Standards for a particular Frontage Type or in Section 21. District Zone Regulations. Several Frontage Types'plan and section illustrations depict the front setback dimension with an"x".The minimum and maximum number for that setback dimension shall be as specified in Section 21. District Zones Regulations. At required setback areas, arcades, awnings, entrance porticos,porches, stoops, stairs,balconies,bay windows, eaves, and covered entrance overhangs are permitted to encroach within the required front street setback as shown in the frontage type illustrations. Enaroachments may extend up to a maximum of six(6)feet into the private frontage. At zero-setback areas,building overhangs such as trellises,canopies and awnings may extend horizontally into the public frontage up to a maximum of six(6)feet. These overhangs must provide a minimum of eight(8)feet clear height above sidewalk grade. 1. Active Open Spaces The minimum setback dimension along all Active Open Spaces shall be five(5)feet from the Active Open Space Edge(s Section 2.3.2. Open Space Regulations). 2.2.8 SIDE STREET SETBACK Side Str�eet Setback is defined as the required distance from the back of sidewalk line along a side street to a primary building fa�ade. This is illustrated in Figure 2.2.8. Side Street Setback It�an e�istin�easement is located in the rec�uired sicle street setuncic.tlie Comm�.init�� Developmeilt Director has the discretion to establish a reasonable setback li�oni the outer eci�e ��i�tt�e e<�seinent. Side Street Setback areas must be landscaped according to the principles set forth in Section 2.3. Street and Open Space Regulations except where exceptions are noted within the Private Frontage Standards for a particular Frontage Type or in Section 2.1. District Zones Regulations. Several Frontage Types'plan and section illustrations depict the setback dimension with an"x". The minimum and maximum value for that setback dimension shall be as specified in Section 21. District Zones Regulations. 2.1.3 Mixed Use Avenue District Zone Regulations Le end: ---:Not Permitted U:Upper Floors Only G Grouud Floor Ouly Permitted:These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in Secrion 222.Buildiug Use Required:These are Required etemeuts of aLl new deveLoptnent as indicated. Limited:These froutages may onLy be applied to access Lobbies for upper floor uses that are differeut from the grouud floor use (A):For Anchor Stores: A1:Lar er than 25,000 s .ft..1 floor/20 ft.is ennitted, A2:lar er than 50.000 s .ft..re ulariou does not a t . A3:lar er thau 50.000 s .ft.. arkin t e is ennitted �. • •. Street/Street Category Spragve Ave. Other Streets �.3.1.Street Standards 2.2.1.�uilding Orientation to Streets and Public 1)stree[Provision �equt�ea �equuea O en S aces req�rired or not required requu�ed requu�ed 2)Pre-Located Street requu�ed requu�ed 's�:��r,a�it�?.t+a?}"+$4treit-r�re- �-acres- >:�ca�as 2.2.2.�UIIdifIgUS� 3) MaximumBlockLength 660fret 660feet 1 Retail 4)Street Configuration requu�ed requu�ed a Cit-Center Retail 5)Street Type b Nei hborhood Center Retail --- --- a)Plaza Drive N/A --- c Mised-Use Avenue Retaff pe�mitted b)Cit,y Street I�/A d Corner Store Retaff c)Neighborhood Street N/A pe�miued e Gatewa-Commercial Avenue Retail d)Neighborhood Green Street N/A peimitted Gatewa Commercial Center Retail --- --- e)Service Street N/A --- 2 Civic uasi-Civic&Cultural pe�mitted pe�mitted �Alley h/A 3 Office pe�mitted pe�mitted g)Passage n/A a i,' h[inaus[rial p�a,tnea p�,T,tn�a 2.3.2.Open Space Standards �Lodging(w/common entrvl pe�mitted pe�mitted seesecROn233 6)Live-Work pexmitted pexmitted 7)Residential � a)Mulfl-Famil,y w/Common Entry pe�mitted pe�mitted 2.4.1.Pefklflg TypeS b)Attached Sin le-Family w/Individual Entry --- pexmitted 1)Surface Parldng c Detached Sin le-Fa�mly Housin --- --- a)Front lot --- pe�miaed 2.2.3.Building H�ight b)siae 1ot penntnea penntaea minimum height 1 floor/20 ft 1 floor/20 ft c)Rear lot peimitted peimitted masimum height 4 florn�s/53 fr 4 floors/53 fr 2)Parldng Structure 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes a)Esposea p�,a,ta�a p�,r,tnea req�rired or not applicable requu�ed requu�ed b)Wrapped-Ground Level pe�miued pe�mitted 2.2.5.PublicFrontagelmprovements c)wrappea-ani,evels p�a,tn�a p�,,,tnea req�rired or not required requu�ed notrequu�ed d)Partially Submerged Podium pexmitted pe�miaed 2.2.6.Private Frontage e)unaergrouna Par�dng p�,ntceea p�,T,taea 1)shoptront p�,,,tnea p�,nta�a 2.4.2.Parking Standards 2)Corner Entry peimitted pexmitted seesecROn2.42 3)Arcade pexmitted --- � 4)Grand Portico pe�mitted pe�mitted 5)Forecourt p�,a,tnea p�a,tn�a 2.5.2.Height Massing&Composition 6)Grand Entry peemittzd peemitted Top requu�ed required '�Common Lobby Entry limited limited Base requu�ed requu�ed s)stoop p�,,,,ta�a p�a,tnea 2.5.3.Length Massing&Composition 9)Porch --- --- StreehvallIncrement 1508 SOft 10)Front Door --- --- Sidewall&Rearwall Increment N/A NA 11)Parldng Structure Entry pe�mitted pexmitted � 12)Vehide Displa,y:Option 1 --- --- 13)Vehicle Display:Option2 --- --- 2.6.2.SIgn�ge Types 14)EdgeTreatmentFenced --- pe�mitted seesecfion2.6 13)Edge Treatment Terraced --- pexmitted 14)Edge Treahnent Flush pe�mitted ye�mitted 2.2.7.Front S'treet Setbacle minimum/masimum 20 ft/25 fr 10 ft/20 fr 2.2.8.Side Street Setbacle minimum/masimum 5 ft/15 fr 10 8/20 fr 2.2.9.Side Yard Setbacle minimum w/living space windows 10 ft 10 8 minimum w/out living space windows �ft 5 8 2.2.10.Rear Yard Setbacle minimum setback 10 8 10 8 2.2.11.Alley Setbacle minimum setback 5 8 5 8 2.2.12.Fronta e Govera e minimum percentage covered 60°'o no min. 2.2.13.�u i I d-to-Go e n er req�rired or not required requu�ed requu�ed 2.2.14.Mar.imum�uilding Length P:\Community Development\07 Planning Commission\2010 Meeting-Planning Commission\09-23-10 PC Meeting\SARP Revision Draft-2.1.3 Mixed Use Matrix 8-1Bak,§�10A of 13 CTA-08-10 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted August 2009 Book II—2312 Street and Open Space Regulations Page 43 of 123 2.3.1.2 Pre-located Streets The pre-located street map(see Figure 2312) above)shows�"°�Uoteiitial alignments for future streets within the corridor. . � It is desirable to have additional access points into new development The exact location of new streets will be determined at the time of development. The new street alignments are also considered future acquisition areas. To ensure that new streets can be constructed in the future,buildings may not be constructed on a pre-located street and buildings must be set back the minimum distance shown on the district zone charts located in Section 21. The street or future alignment may be relocated at the disaretion of the Community Development Director/Designee if the applicant can show that the proposed new configuration satisfies the same traffic requirements and establishes an equivalent interconnected street network. z.�.i.� ��r�v;,,,,,�,, iz��e��� ao.o,,,roa. ;�,,;,,�,,o,�,,,,.,a��;o� „+r,,,�,;�,., � �;,�,o���vo�� ��; � 2.3.1.3 Maximum Block Length The maximum intersection spacing far local access streets is 660 feet per Table 7.5 (Chapter 7 Street Elements)of the Citv of Spokane Vallev Street Standards adopted December,2009. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,�`�p��p� PLANNING DIVISION ������� 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106;Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.92 L 1000 ♦ Fax. 509.92 L 1008 ♦ cityhall(�a snokanevalley.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) FILE NUMBER: CTA-08-10 DESCxIPTlo1v oF PxoPOSAL: Zoning code text amendments to the following sections of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1) Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability) Consider increasing the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations; 2) Chapter 2.1.3 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone) Consider adding existing single-family dwellings as a permitted use; 3) Chapter 22.7 (Front Street Setback) and Chapter 2.2.8 (Side Street Setback) Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible; and 4) Chapter 2.3.12 (Pre-located Streets) Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement. APPLICA1vT: City of Spokane Valley LoCATION OF PROPOSAL: City of Spokane Valley, Washington LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Planning Division D�'rE1tMI1vATlolv: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, 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 4321C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2). There is no comment period for this DNS. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Community Development Department Community Development Department Ciry of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: (509) 720-5300/FX: (509) 921-1008 PH: (509)720-5332 /FX: (509) 921-1008 kmcclun�(a�spokanevallev.or� mharnois(cr�,spolcanevallev.or� DATE ISSUED: September 3, 2010 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. This appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the Ciry's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 11.10.170 (Appeals) of the City's Environmental Ordinance, and the required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to Section 11.10.170.3 of the Ciry's Interim Environmental Ordinance, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. Determination of Non-Significance CTA-08--10 Sept 3,2010 Copies of the DNS were provided to the following agencies and/or persons: Central Valley School DistrictNo. 356 City of Liberty Lake, Community Development City of Spokane,Planning Services City of Spokane School District No. 81 East Valley School District No. 361 Spokane County, Boundary Review Board Spokane County, Building and Planning Spokane County, Division of Utilities -Information Services Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County, Fire District No. 9 Spokane County, Regional Health District Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Town of Millwood,Planning and Building Washington State Department of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Department of Ecology(Spokane) West Valley School DistrictNo. 363 Page 2 of 2 CTA-08-10 Comments from the June 24 Mixed Use Avenue Community Meeting: Director McClung welcomed the attendees (there was a head count of 38) and introduced staff. Senior Planner Kuhta gave a presentation giving the background, intent and design of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. This is the discussion that came after the presentation: Dwight Hume, Scott would could you clarify what market value means to you guys for non- conforming use? 80% damage of market value. Is that just assessed value as shown on the assessor's records. Scott: We would use the assessed value on the Assessor's records. Grant Person: Your objective seems to be to put the vehicles behind so that you don't have vehicles on the street. Is that correct? Scott: Repeated the question and stated that is the objective of the plan, in the Mixed Use areas there is an allowance to have side parking, side street parking or side building parking between the back of sidewalk and the building. This plan gets away from covering it with parking. Mike Young: Pm from Spokane Recycling and we own a small community buy-back center for non-ferias metal and aluminum cans on lst and Union and it's our only location here in the Valley. I was wondering under what category would that, would that be non-conforming? Scott: yes, essentially that is a non-conforming use in this Mixed Use area. Mike: I wanted to know what category, you would put that under? Scott: it would be at least a light industrial use if most of your containment is inside, if it is outside it is more of a hea�y industrial use. Mike: Most of it in inside, we do have some machinery outside but it is under an awning, and aluminum can densifier. Scott: it sounds to be more like a light industrial, maybe a heavy industrial we would be happy to talk specifically about your situation if you wanted to set up an appointment it sounds like at least a light industrial use. Tom Smith: I would like to get a separate appointment would you explain to the audience how you get a separate appointment? Scott: We have cards you can fill out, put your name address, address of your business, so we can look at it before-hand and a phone number and we will call you back within the week to make an appointment to ha�e you come in and chat with us. Grant Person: A couple of observations, Scott, there is going to be difficulry getting insurance as well as financing on these non-conforming issues. Another observation would be that, although there is an attempt to create versatiliry, there is an enormous amount of design requirements that are being dictated by your rules that take away a lot of flexibility. I can appreciate the fact that this is what we would like to see down the street, when you set those types of requirements and policies up it takes away a lot of freedom and flexibility to deal with various uses that come along. Scott: the first point is that there is a concern about non-conforming uses and insurance and financing. Kathy do you want to speak to that? Then the next point is that these rules appear to CTA-08-10 take away flexibility on how on how sites are developed, which there is a more of a predictable form that this is looking for. That is true. Grant: You are forcing specific design criteria. Scott: repeated the statement. Yes, there are specific design criteria but there is great flexibility, if you look at it within the code, it is not requiring brick buildings it is not requiring certain things but there are some elements of buildings that definitely it is dictating. Frank Larson: I own the land there on lst and Union and the way it is now you have half in one kind of zoning, and the other half is residential zoning. Now the parcels next to me got the same problem I got, except they can't get there without a road. And you are not gonna allow any roads in one acre. So I would like to see mine in all one zone -industrial. Scott: Thank you, he is referring to some of the properties along Appleway are in the residential boulevard zone and it split zones property and we will be addressing that issue when we talk about the residential boulevard zone. That is an issue we will be talking about through the process. Sir, if you want to come in and talk specifically about how these regulations effect your property, fill out a card, and I talked to you on the phone I believe, and we can have you come in and talk more individually. Kathy: One of the reasons we are asking you to speak into the mike is because we are providing verbatim minutes to the council and if you don't speak into the microphone we don't pick you up very well. Dwight Hume: with me today is the owners of property bounded by Progress on the south side of Sprague down to First, then over to and including Liberty Tire, and that is a variety of land use, but under single ownership. It includes detached single family homes and strip center, and a tire store, post office. I now see your use matrix includes post office. We prepared some letters to leave with you today that address this particular property, and I won't go into all those particular details, but I had a question. I didn't hear what you were going to do with detached single family in Mixed Use. Is there something forth coming that is going to acknowledge them and allow them? Scott: That is an issue that we are obviously concerned about when we did the non-conforming uses. The way other jurisdictions handle it is, it is when development happens and you see a lot of single family homes in our industrial areas so the way other jurisdictions handle it is you make those uses, you can't do new single family but you can make those existing ones conforming. That is something we can look at doing. Through these initial amendments. Dwight: The problem otherwise that I see here and maybe this is relevant to your considerations in this instance we have some fairly old typical early housing to the Valley and they are rentals. But those more than commercial buildings are probable suspect to fire and complete damage and if that happened you can't replace it because it exceeds 80%. Then if that happens you have a pocket or hole in the middle of everything that you really can't bring into your MUA standards. Because the rest of the block is still houses that sort of thing. You lose it. Scott: That is a good point and we talked briefly with Council about that when we made the presentation last week, about that very issue. We also said that if something happened there was a concern from one of our Councilmembers `what would happen if a single family house burned down right now, in these zone, what could we do for them?' We do have the ability to do text amendments . we do have the abiliry to do an emergency text amendment get it through the CTA-08-10 process if it is something that needed to be as soon as possible. My guess is this will be something that will be brought through the process to make a change over the next couple of months. Dwight: Address too, the pre-designated streets as you talked about that earlier. You just cookie cuttered them in, every so many feet, with the idea that you will fit them in where they will best fit. Or if five acres of contiguous ownership there the need for mitigation of traffic, but what if there isn't any room, within the site to accommodate it due to other improvements? Can you look at traffic mitigation and say we don't need it? Scott: it just really depends on the site specific issue and the type of development. We could speculate a lot about situations, but until we know how things are going to be develop and we work through that process it is difficult, but we know there is a clause in the code that says if there is another alternative to that can be proposed by the developer to the director that can meet those connectivity aspirations then we can work on that. There is some flexibility to provide an alternative connectivity. Jerry Shadduck: I have two concerns, we own two properties just north of Sprague on Bowdish if you look at the map on page 5 it shows you that they designated as parcels, and all the area around them are b-3 which is the mixed use. Am I right on that? B-3 is Mixed Use. Scott: That is a previous zoning map. (Scott is showing him the correct map) Jerry: I guess I have one other concern, there was a picture of the property with fence, that is non-conforming, is that an issue we have to worry about? Scott: I didn't go out and measure it, if it is five feet it is fine. It appeared to be pretty close to that fence. Jerry: Actually it is 2-3 inches off the end of the house gutter line. Scott: I don't know specifically I did not go out and measure that. It appeared to be pretty close. Jerry: It is, it is less than 2 feet from the house. Scott: the house, but your property line could be beyond that fence. Jerry: I believe our properry line is actually is right at the eve of the house. Kathy: Yes it is, and I will talk to you later about your situation. You don't need to worry. Mike King: Scott, what and when do you need to address a non-conforming uses? What do you do with property that has a non-conforming use and when do you have to address it? Scott: You don't have to do anything to address a non-conforming use. If that is what the question is. Non-conforming uses can continue forever. Unless the regulations changed at some point down the road. There is nothing in this code that would require you to do anything to change that non-conforming use. We talked about the expansion rules, you can expand non- conforming uses, you can expand it onto adjacent property if it is under the same ownership, there are allowances to continue with non-conforming uses. Dwight Hume: What about non-conforming site standards? Not meeting the setbacks? Scott: the question is non-conforming site standards. If your expansion meets that 50% threshold — so if you want to a big major expansion on your property and it exceeds 50% of the CTA-08-10 value of the appraised or assessed value of the building and the land. If you have a big addition or big remodel where it exceeds 50% of the value of the building and the land either assessed or appraised, you can pick which one you want to use, then you have to start conforming with the code. I can tell you we would be very, we would work with whatever that scenario to try to get to the regulations as they are written. The concern is that if you have a building that is set way back and you want to put a big addition on it, how do you get to that new set back? That is the question and we would have to work with the scenario, whatever the development is to try to get to, as close to the regulations as we can. I can tell you we have looked at development scenarios since this has been adopted. It is new and we are working really hard to try to work with the property owners to accomplish what they would like to accomplish. This is not, these are the rules, this is the way it has to be, you can't do it if it doesn't meet this. We are trying to work as best we can. There is a lot of scenarios that we can't even speculate will even come across our desk until we see them. But that is an example of something that can be tweaked in this code right now. If there is a concern about that and how this code treats existing development we can look at that. The Council wants to hear about it. Dwight: can we clarify one last point on that? If you have multiple buildings on site, you were just talking about one building, and you have the assessed value of each building, do you take just that one building into play or do you the value of the entire site? Scott: The question is if you have multiple buildings on the site and you have one building you want to redo, what comes into play. Dwight: 50%value of all the site, or 50%value of the building you are playing with? Scott: I think we would probably look at it, because if it is on one piece of properry, you can't separate the property underneath it we would look at the whole thing. Mac Whiteford: I gotta a map here I would like to display, Scott: we can't display it Mac: My name is Mac Whiteford I am an associate broker with Kimle and Haygood Company. I have been an active commercial realtor in Spokane for over 32 years. I began in 1977 with Alvin J. Wolfe out in the Valley. And since 1979 I have worked almost exclusively in retail real estate, both in sales and leasing. Some of the successful Valley transactions in which I have been directly involved are the Marie Callendar's Restaurant on Argonne and I-90, the Target and Safeway properties at Sprague and Evergreen, the Staples and Sports Authority stores at the Spokane Valley Mall, and the Starbucks stores at Pines and Sprague and at Sprague and Thierman, and the Chuck E. Cheese property at Sprague and Progress. I represent the owners of the southeast corner of Sprague and Progress, they own property in addition to that, down to and including the Liberty Tire Store Center and south to lst Ave. All of that properry except for one residential lot. That properry that they own is now Mixed Use Ave. I would like to address a couple of things that I heard in Scott's presentation. The first of those being Costco being a medium box user in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Costco is a regional retailer. I know of no Costco store under 100,000 square feet. Also mentioned was 37th and Grand, the Starbucks store there, which I was directly involved in, that building is a very expensive building. Made that way in order to accommodate the drive through, which Starbucks required however the rents that that store and that project involve supported the expensive design and that support was due to the higher density and the disposable income in that are on the South Hill. In 2006 and 2007 I CTA-08-10 became aware of the plan SARP and the change in zoning which was under consideration by the City at that time. While I was working to sell the property on the northwest corner of Sprague and Progress. Across the intersection from the subject property on the Southeast corner of Sprague and Progress. Today the northwest corner is occupied by Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank and is zoned Mixed Use Avenue. That means it is non-conforming. Prior to the rezone it was clear that if the Mixed Use Ave. zoning became a reality before we closed our sale of the present Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank would be prohibited uses. Not allowed. As it turned out these properties, the property was sold and the property was developed prior to the enactment of the SARP Mixed Use Ave. zoning. The City of Spokane Valley has benefited from this outcome by increasing its tax base and resulting revenue which otherwise would have been lost to the Ciry of the projects had been prohibited. If you are familiar with Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank it is a prime example of market forces at work Planners clearly do not understand market forces, at least as they affect retail development. Retail development is negatively impacted by programs like SARP. The SARP plan with its unrealistic and restrictive development standards i.e.: parking in the rear of the building which retailers hate for the most part, short circuits market forces and lessens the chances that other retailers willlocate in the SARP area of the Ciry. Due primarily to the higher expense involved in the new SARP development requirements. The result is the City and the public both loose. The City looses or will lose tax base and tax revenues and the public has fewer places to do business and fewer retail choices. Sprague Avenue is a retail street. Retail properties typically carry higher land values than those uses allowed under Mixed Use Avenue. The approved uses under Mixed Use Avenue namely the ones that they list, not on the expanded list, but in the first part of the rules, it lists new office, lodging, medium box retail sales and service, and Costco is mentioned, and large scale housing, stacked units and townhomes. These are unrealistic uses for the subject property at least the property I represent. Banks and full service restaurants are prohibited in the Mixed Use Ave zone currently. That prohibition of banks and full service restaurants in that zone is a huge loss to my owners as their property is on a fully signalized corner, Progress Road. The new Inland Northwest Bank is on the opposite corner of this intersection and ironically the bank and Chuck E. Cheese are today non- conforming dues due to the new MUA zone standards. Regarding the property on the southeast corner of the intersection, my owner's property has been down zoned in my opinion. The value of their property has been reduced by the implementation of the Mixed Use Ave zone. with its use restrictions and expensive new development standards. Why was their property rezoned at all, when the natural boundary for a zone change is logically west of Progress Rd. not east. Instead the present Mixed Use Ave. zoning creates a small island of Mixed Use Ave zoning on the southeast of Sprague and Progress while the rest of the block, east of Sullivan and south to lst Ave is zoned Neighborhood Center. The property on the northeast corner of Sprague and Progress across from the subject property was not down zoned to Mixed Use Ave like this. It remains Neighborhood Center. The zoning on my owners property should be returned to Neighborhood Center the same zoning as the properties east of the subject along the south side of Sprague Ave. Thank you. (I believe this is Theron Lamb) Early in your presentation you quoted a study that basically said that the commercial property was a 14% vacancy, and that basically that was too much commercialland available and that was sort of the justification for the downsizing almost. In the chart you handed out it had a lot of residential uses added on. As you mentioned earlier most zoning was B-3. Now in the SARP zoning you have all these residential, assisted living, CTA-08-10 daycares, etc. and like apartment like complexes. Is there any reason to believe that the market for residential real estate is not going to have the same problems as commercial real estate? I don't know if I worded that very well, but you mentioned that the commercial real estate market is struggling and is there any reason to believe that the residential market is not struggling as well is my question. Scott: One example I can think of, and we have pointed this out in a couple of ineetings, is that there is more demand it appears there is more demand for residential in certain areas. There are new apartments going in on the south side of Appleway. At the time those were put in you could put retail development there, on the south side of Appleway, those are now apartments. There is a retirement home going in at Farr and Appleway. The market is interesting in how it works. No, we don't know how everything is going to play out, with the market but that is an example of where retail wasn't working, residential is working. The point of the study that we did everyone is competing for limited retail dollars. We also did another study that we did not mention that we examined retail demand and how much, what we call leakage, is there? There is not much leakage at all, if you look across the sector of retail development, or retail rypes of sales. The point here is that we have pretty much everything we have for retail here, and it maybe moves from one point to another. Maybe there are some spots that are very attractive for certain uses, but in total if you look at the whole area everyone is competing for the same retail dollars. That is why the plan is trying to more residential use allowed in the this Mixed Use segment. Dick Behm: My name is Richard Behm. I own Behm Center at 9405 E Sprague. We are 4 generations same ownership. We have survived Highway 10, and the building of the freeway, and the widening of Sprague Ave. into 7lanes where they condemned our property, and now the one way, which is the most severe thing we've had. There is 4 generations of ownership on our property. We are one of the few, the Hollenbacks, Prings, Falcos, and Behms are all generation ownerships. 3, 4 and 5 generation ownerships. We have survived a long time. I have had a light industrial plant, it has been non-conforming for the last 30 years. Under the new regulations it becomes conforming and Jennie's Restaurant becomes non-conforming. As I understand it, the key thing here is that it is legal non-conforming use. I asked Frank Tombari from Banner Bank to come today and he couldn't, but talking to the bank a legal non-conforming use has no effect on mortgages, Scott Pearson is here from Northwest Insurance Brokers the same thing effects insurance. If it is a legal non-conforming use, then it won't affect your insurance. Individual situations might be a little different, but my point is what affects all of us in the Dishman area of Sprague is the one-way street. That has decreased our volume of business 30-40% depending on what kind of business you are in. The restaurant business immediately lost30-40% after the formation of the one-way street and it has never come back Other businesses are not that affected, if they are a destination type business. Fortunately we are on the one block the whole length of Sprague Ave. where you can actually go around a 300 x 600 foot block between Willow and Locust, which is very fortunate for us. I have no problems with these plans as long as there is ability to adjust for individual situations. The Community Development Director has to ha�e that authority to be able to adjust to the particular things that come up. I think that you should emphasize the fact that it is a legal non-conforming use and can be replaced. That eliminates a lot of the objections. Thank you. Kathi Shirley: I understand what the plan is attempting to da You are trying to make a city center, make Sprague Ave a little bit nicer. The problem is you are putting undue burden on CTA-08-10 property owners to meet the development standards and there is no money. You are not going to help us. So if we want to do an addition we are going to pay for it. I don't know if that is fair. I would also like to point out that the development standards that you are using aren't really popular with people. If you look at the corner of Liberty Lake Road and the off ramp for the freeway, I think it is Appleway actually. The Walgreens they put out there, everyone hates that Walgreens because it meets those conforming standards that you ha�e. Everybody in Liberty Lake says `oh it is a big brick wall' because it is sitting close to the road, the parking is on the side and in the rear just like you are saying. So that is what you look at. And yes, you get some windows and a little awning here and there. But it is still not a pretty view. I don't think people are going to like what you are doing here. You really need to take this back and say to the Ciry, to the community again and ask so you really want it to look like this, because that is not a pretty view. If you are starting a new town or like some of the towns in CA that have successfully done these kinds of things, yea it's ok, because everybody is used to it. We've all got businesses here with signage and access issues. Why should we pay for this, the Ciry's Plan? Kathy: thanking you all for participating this morning. We all know you gave up some time this morning and make sure if you want a follow-up meeting, you give us the information so we can contact you. We will report the results of this particular meeting in July, July 13. Other business as it is related to the Sprague Appleway Plan is we are taking our first few code amendments to the Planning Commission starting tonight. This will be an ongoing process probably lasting all summer or well over the next year. If you are interested read our website or read the newspaper or contact us and we will give you as much information as we can. Additional comments will be taken until July 30, and the comment sheets are on the table outside.