2004, 08-10 Regular MeetingCALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION: Paster Darrell Cole. Spokane Valley Wesleyan
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IN'TRODI VTION OF SPECIAL. GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
COMMITTEE. BOARD. LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT:
PROCLAMATION: "Health Unit Coordinator Day"
Council Requests All Electronic Devices be Turned Off Ducting Council Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS For members of the Public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on
the Agenda. Please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes.
1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A
CounciImember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2004
b. Approval of July 30. 2004 payroll of 5152,004.66
c. Approval of Account Payables in the amount of S1,175,133.1 7
Councd Apauta 06-1D-04 Regular Meeting Inge 1 of 2
'`), 6p6i±
t_
AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING #49
Tucsda■, August 10, 2004 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -032 Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations - Ken Thompson [public comment]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-033 Establishing Dimensional Standards (Setbacks) -
Mnrina Sukup [public comment]
4. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance 04-034 Administrative Variances/Exceptions -
Marinn Sukup [public comment]
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -035 Interim Zoning Estate Lots - Marina Sukup
[public comment]
6. Motion Consideration Regarding Full Width Paving Ballot Issue -Neil Kersten [public comment]
7. Motion Consideration Regarding Fire District Annexation Ballot Issue - Nina Regor [public comment]
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Maximum of three minutes please: state your name and address for the record)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment]
8. Library Facilities Update - Nina Regor
9. Scooters/Motorized Bikes Report - Josh Leonard/Cary Driskell
10. Facility Use Agreement - Mike Jackson
11. INFORMATION ONLY: [no public comment]
a_ Salary Commission Update - Nina Regor
b. Planning Commission Minutes of July 8, 2004
c. Public Comment Follow -up Report
ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE SCHEDULE
Regular Counct7Meetings are generally held 2nd and 4 Tuesdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Council Study Sessions are generally held 1", Y and 5th Tuesdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Other Tentative Upcontim Meetinlls/Eventc:
August 1 2004, Council Study Session, 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
August 2.1, 2004, Regular Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
August 31, 2004, No Council Study Session or Council Meeting
September 7, 2004, Council Study Session, 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
September 14, 2004: Regular Meeting, PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2005 Budget Revenues
October 12, 2004: Regular Meeting, PUBLIC HEARING: 1" Hearing on 2005 Proposed Budget
Cktober 26, 2004: Regular Meeting, PUBLIC HEARING: Final 2005 Budget Hearing
NOTICE Individuals planning to attend the meeting who requite special assistance to acc:ommudate physical. hearing. ui other
impairments, please contact the City Cleric at (509) 921.1000 rs soon ai possible so dint arrangements mks he made.
Council Agenda 08 -Ib-04 Regular Meeting
Page 2 of 2
MOCLAXATION
CITY OE SPOKANE Vim ; W S. I I TW
WHERE AS, The National Association of.Health Unit Coordinators (NA was founded. in
1980; and
WHERE AS. Rapid advances in medicine have encouraged the growth and expansion of the
Unit Coordinator's responsibilities; and
WHERE AS, Over the last 50 years, this professional occupation has been known by as many
as 75 titles, although they ali perform the same or similar tasks: and
WHERE A.S, The Unit Coordinator sets up charts for patients admitted to the hospital, orders
lab tests and x -rays, transcribes physicians orders, completes payroll and scheduling, and performs
many other miscellaneous tasks that keeps their units running smoothly; and
WHERE AS, The National Association of Health Unit Coordinators is dedicated to promoting
health unit coordination as a profession though education, certification, and complying with the
NAHUC Standards of Practice, Standards of Education, and Code of Ethics; and
WHERE AS, NANU'S goals are to increase acceptance of and bring uniformity to the use of
the title Health Unit Coordinator nationally_
NOW, THEREFORE, I Mayor Michael DeVleming, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Spokane Valley, Washington, proclaim August 23 2004 as
"Health Unit Coordhnalor Day"
in the City of Spokane Valley; and l encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance.
Dated this
day of August. 2004
MICHAEL DEVLE1v1l'h1 , MA O
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 27 2004
Mayor DeVleming called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 48"' meeting.
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
PUBLIC COMMENTS: none
Staff:
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Tom Davis, Director of Spokane Valley "Young Life" gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Deputy Mayor
Wilhite to approve the agenda as presented. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Taylor: reported that he attended the annual 1NTEC meeting and mentioned that all board
positions are now full members and there are no loner any ex- officio positions; and that the Board
discussed projects for upcoming year.
Councilmember Schimmels: said that he attended a small picnic at Mirabeau with a group of senior
citizens, they had a tour of the new park and shelter area and heard a briefing on the progress of the
building site.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite: explained that she attended the Board Meeting for the Economic Development
Council where they discussed their goals and objectives for the upcoming year.
Councilmember Flanigan: said he attended the board meeting for the Public Health District and learned
more about fluoridation, and that the director of Public Health was authorized a pay increase; and that he
also attended a Valleyfest organizational meeting.
Councilmember Denenny: said he chaired and attended the Regional Health Meeting as mentioned by
Councilmember Flanigan.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming reported that response has been received from Spokane
County regarding wastewater treatment assets, and he would like to add that to a future agenda. Council
concurred. Mayor DeVleming also mentioned that "National Night Out" will be held next Tuesday; and
that he also attended a groundbreaking today at Mirabeau Point for the Washington Department of Fish
and Game, which relocated their new facility at Mirabeau.
Council Minutes 07 -27 -04 Page 1 of 4
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
1. CONSENT AGENDA. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by
Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to waive the reading and approve the
Consent Agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None.
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance 04-030 Amending Criminal Code re Noise — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Denenny to approve ordinance 04 -030. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that
this is the third touch on this issue, which was brought forward at the request of the Spokane Valley
Police Department to give them a tool to control noise disturbances. Attorney Driskell said there have
been no changes since the first reading. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. No comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
3. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance 04 -031 Amending Criminal Code re Open Container —
Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Schimmels to approve Ordinance 04 -031. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that this
would amend 8.20.020 of the City Code and would make the penalty consistent with state law, and that
the fine would be $50.00 plus court costs for a total amount of $103.00. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment. Greg Werner 11807 East 16 asked for clarification on the ordinance and if it would be
enforced on people's private property. Attorney Driskell said this addresses public places and private
property would not be subject to this ordinance. Attorney Driskell added that this would apply to open
containers in vehicles with the exception of commercial vehicles that have permission. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance 04 -032 Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Mayor DeVleming to advance ordinance 04 -032 to a second reading at a later date. Finance
Director Thompson reported that we have over 3,000 registered businesses; that it was previously agreed
that we would use the State's system for registration with a registration fee of $13.00 for for -profit
businesses and a $3.00 fee for non - profit businnsses. I-ie then went over some of the proposed changes in
the ordinance. After discussion concerning exemption 13 and the need for further clarification, Director
Thompson said that section will be modified for the second reading. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-033 Establishing Dimensional Standards (Setbacks) —
Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to advance ordinance 04 -033 to a second reading. Community
Development Director Sukup explained the proposal to amend some of the development regulations as
per her accompanying PowerPoint presentation, and added that these proposed changes will make the
system more home -owner friendly, especially in regard to backyard setbacks. Mayor DeVleming invited
public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried
Council Minutes 07.27 -04 Page 2 of 4
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -034 Administrative Variances /Exceptions — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, Community Development Director Sukup explained
the proposed ordinance as set out in the accompanying Request for Council Action form, that the
ordinance explains who would quality for the exceptions, and that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing last Thursday and unanimously recommends approval. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment. Greg Werner, 11807 East 16 said he is a little confused with setbacks and variances and it
sounds like these changes would allow for wider streets by taking more private property. Council
discussion then ensued regarding the appeal process and expediting the process. It was then proved by
Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmernber Flanigan to advance ordinance 04 -034 to a second
reading. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried. For the next reading, Council said they would like to have pictures and more examples.
7. Proposed Resolution: 04 -022 Setting Public Hearing Date for Street Vacation STV 03 -04 —
Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve Resolution 04 -022. Community Development Sukup
explained the process as per the accompanying PowerPoint presentation and said this is only setting a date
for the public hearing for the Planning Commission. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. No
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: in Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
8. Proposed Resolution 04 -023 Setting Public Rearing Date for Street Vacation STV 04 -04 —
Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve Resolution 04 -023. Community Development Sukup
explained the process as per the accompanying PowerPoint presentation and said this is only setting a date
for the public hearing for the Planning Commission. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. No
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
9. Motion Consideration: Approval of Aquifer Protection Area Interlocal Agreement — Neil Kersten
it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to approve the interlocal
and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Public Works Director Kersten explained the
agreement and brought council attention to the new section 2.7. Director Kersten also mentioned the
accompanying spreadsheet which shows the proposed allocation of the revenues based on the agreement.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: Lt F avor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment]
10. Animal Control Update — Nanc ' Hill
Director Nancy Hill gave her PowerPoint presentation to update Council on the animal shelter, on
SCRAPS, and on the concept of a regional facility, adding that Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and
Deer Park have positive inclinations toward such regionalization. She mentioned the idea of a one -stop
shop which would increase the service level; are said they are almost ready to create a financial model,
but are waiting for additional information which she will share with Council once all figures have been
collected. Ms. Hill said the shelter will handle approximately 8,000 animals this year, which would be a
record amount. Director Hill also discussed enforcement and their educational efforts. Councilmember
Taylor rnentioned that if we were to agree with the regional concept, he would like to see how costs
would be distributed, if it would be per capita or based on time or volume or some other formula. Ms.
Council Minutes 07-27-04 Page 3 of 4
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Hill said she will be examining other financing options and will send those results as well to Council. She
will also be examining other options concerning finances and will send a report back to council.
11. New City,Hall Initial Preferences —Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor gave her PowerPoint presentation explaining the summary of council
feedback on new city hall preferences. Ms. Regor added that Web Properties is in the process of
gathering additional information regarding our current lease (which expires February 2007), such as
buying down leasehold options and/or the ability to lease additional space, and that information will be
forthcoming at a later date. Ms. Regor also stated she will check with Web Properties concerning the
ability to lease year -to -year. Discussion followed regarding space requirements now, future space
requirements, lease options in the surrounding campus, cost differentials between leasing and owning,
the idea of having Parks and Recreation at CenterPlace, subleasing, extending the current lease, and of the
possibility of making some lease decision within the next six months.
12. CenterPlace Update — Mike Jackson
Parks and Recreation Director Jackson's PowerPoint presentation showed the status of the construction at
CenterPlace, and Director Jackson also discussed the construction schedule and ongoing issues for the
upcoming months.
As other items on the agenda were informational only, it was moved. by Councilmember Flanigan,
seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Council Minutes 07 -27-04 Page 4 of 4
Date Approved by Council:
Meeting Date: 8 - 10 - -04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
0 information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE :
Payroll for Period Ending July 30, 2004
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Payroll for period ending 07- 30 -04: Salary: $104,075.77
Benefits: $ 47,928.89
$152,004.66
STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Cenis /Courtney Moore
ATTACHMENTS
Meeting Date: 8 -10 -04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business 0 public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Claims: Voucher listing total for 7/23/04:
Voucher listing total for 7/30/04:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Approve claims vouchers as listed above, totaling $1,175,133.17
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Baslington
ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
$ 1,078,337.70
$ 96,795.47
vchlist
07/23/2004 1:00:48PM
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
Date Vendor
7/23/2004 000037 AMERICAN LINEN
7/23/2004 000168 B & C TELEPHONE INC.
7/23/2004 000574 BACHMAN, TONI
7/23/2004 000569 BROOKS, SUMMER
7/23/2004 000572 CARTER, CAROL
7/23/2004 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY
7/23/2004 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC
7/23/2004 000152 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO RE- 313- ATB40712078
RE- 313- ATB40712079
EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 09066100 7/19104
GEIGER CORRECTIONS CENTER June, 2004
7/23/2004 000246
7/23/2004 000171
7/23/2004 000222
7/23/2004 000161
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP.
IIMC
Invoice
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
437375
81528
07/20/04 Refund
07/16/04 SM Reimb.
7/20104 CC Reimb.
22657
22075
PO #
1413 Membership 40247
Description /Account
FLOOR MAT SERVICE
TELEPHONE SYSTEM SERVICE
Total :
REFUND SHELTER DAMAGE DEI
Total :
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
MISCELLANEOUS REIMBURSEM
Total :
MUNICIPAL CODE PUBLISHING
Total :
COFFEE SUPPLIES
REIMB TRAFFIC SVCS MAINT OF
REIMB ROADWAY MAINT OFF S`
Total :
WATER CHARGES
Total :
Total :
Total :
GEIGER CORRECTIONAL PROGI
Total :
22861 ICMA ANNUAL PLAN RENEWAL
Total :
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE
8688 Membership 40247 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES
Page: 1
Amount
45.23
45.23
137.83
137.83
50.00
50.00
65,48
65.48
73.71
73.71
6,141.76
6,141.76
93.35
93.35
6,865.53
2,301.03
9,166.56
153.02
153.02
10,170.20
10,170.20
250.00
250.00
66.00
100.00
Page: 1
vchlist
07/23/2004 1:00:48PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
5221 7/23/2004 000161 000161 I I MC
Invoice
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
(Continued)
PO #
5222 7/23/2004 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 51409
5223 7/23/2004 000573 JONES, GENA 07/20/04 Reimb.
5224 7/23/2004 000010 KINKO'S INC. 289700054719
5225 7/23/2004 000545 LO INK SPECIALTIES 5120 -1
5226 7/23/2004 000033 MCPC 4576311
5227 7/23/2004 000069 MERCIER, DAVID 07/16/04 DM Reimb.
5228 7/23/2004 000036 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 7/13/04 OFFICE DEPOT
7/21/04 OFFICE DEPOT 40249
5229 7/23/2004 000494 PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERVICES IN- 156302
5230 7/23/2004 000322 QWEST
5231 7/23/2004 000415 ROSAUERS U -CITY 544961
5232 7/23/2004 000542 SIERRA SILVER MINE TOUR, INC. 3690
5233 7/23/2004 000521 SPOKANE COUNTY COPY & MAIL CE PRT -C -00849
509- 921 -6787 511B
40201 OFFICE SUPPLIES - CLIPPER TA
Total :
40231
Description/Account
CITY PHOTO I.D. CARD
SHELTER DAMAGE DEPOSIT RE
Total :
LAMINATION
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSE
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES & SMALL TOC
Total :
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SEF
Total :
509 - 922 -7091 494B
Total :
COUNCIL MEETING SUPPLIES
Total :
40206 SIERRA SILVER MINE TOUR, INC
Total :
Page: 2
Amount
166.00
17.30
17.30
50.00
50.00
6.49
6.49
307.20
307.20
187.19
187.19
289.39
289.39
35.01
109.05
144.06
449.92
449.92
174.03
212.26
2.38
2.38
90.00
90.00
40189 COUNTY TELEPHONE DIRECTOI 13.45
Total : 13.45
Page: 2
vchlist
07/23/2004 1:00:48PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher List Page: 3
Spokane Valley
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount
5234 7/23/2004 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER 07/15/04 County COUNTY CONTRACT SERVICES 1,,
Total : 1035
,035,699.0 6
5235 7/23/2004 000311 SPRINT PCS 0141276664 -3 7/15/04 CELL PHONE CHARGES 770.67
Total : 770.67
5236 7/23/2004 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 22054 PROFESSIONAL LAW SERVICES 3,148.00
22573 PROFESSIONAL LAW SERVICES 2,252.00
Total : 5,400.00
5237 7/23/2004 000177 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, (NEOPOST P 07/22/04 Postage POSTAGE 2,000.00
Total : 2,000.00
5238 7/23/2004 000025 UNISOURCE CORPORATION 657 21213630 40241 COPIER PAPER 275.66
Total : 275.66
5239 7/23/2004 000280 USI, INC. 031444710001 40235 DIGISEAL FILM - PRINTING & BIN 173.95
Total : 173.95
5240 7/23/2004 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 07/16/04 Vera Water STREET POWER LIGHTING/WAT 170.13
Total : 170.13
5241 7/23/2004 000021 WITHERSPOON, KELLEY, DAVENPO 64673 PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICE 5,535.45
Total : 5,535.45
5242 7/23/2004 000310 WSAMA 28 MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
Total : 30.00
33 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,078,337.70
33 Vouchers in this report 1 07
Total vouchers : � 8,337.70
Page: 3
vchlist
07/23/2004 1:00:48PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucrier List Page: 4
Spokane Valley
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount
1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation
against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am
authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
Finance Director Date
Page: 4
vchlist
07/30/2004 1:53:42PM
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
Date Vendor
7/30/2004 000242 CAMPREGISTER.COM
7/30/2004 000101 CDWG
7/30/2004 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS
7/30/2004 000284
7/30/2004 000060
7/30/2004 000278
7/30/2004 000246
7/30/2004 000028
7/30/2004 000106 FEDEX
CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY
DENENNY, RICHARD
DRISKELL, CARY
EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1
FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK
Invoice
l _.1
— /
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
234 07/16/04
NY31862
7/30/2004 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DIST, 07/21/04 Consolidate
53526039
53526071
1- 893 -88045
7/30/2004 000179 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFF ASSOC 2433383
206292713
07/26/04 DD Reimb.
07/28/04 Reimb.
02051000 Dist. 1
07/30/04 MasterCard
7/30/04 MasterCard 2
PO #
40244 SMALL TOOLS & MINOR EQUIPN
Total :
40242
40242
40226
40190
40228
Description /Account
ONLINE REGISTRATIONS
WATER CHARGES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
40237 SMALL TOOLS & MINOR EQUIPN
Total :
DENENNY TRAVEL REIMBURSEP
Total :
REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAY CAP/
Total :
WATER CHARGES
CREDIT CARD CHARGES
CREDIT CARD CHARGES
FED EX CHARGE
GFOA PUBLICATIONS
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Page: 1
Amount
175.00
175.00
608.19
608.19
141.04
141.04
36.08
215.86
251.94
281.77
281.77
1,095.83
1,095.83
48.00
48.00
591.66
591.66
3,404.07
680.73
4,084.80
20.34
20.34
63.00
63.00
Page: 1
vchlist
07/30/2004 1:53:42PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
5255 7/30/2004 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS
5256 7/30/2004 000505
5257 7/30/2004 000117
5258
5259
5260
7/30/2004 000581
7/30/2004 000579
7/30/2004 000252
5262 7/30/2004 000033 MCPC
H & H FINANCIAL SERVICES
JOURNAL NEWS PUBLISHING
LEATH, MARY
LIPTAC, CARRIE
LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
5261 7/30/2004 000577 MAURER, DALE
Invoice
122080
122107
122108
122111
122112
122187
8012004
24811
24812
24813
24814
24815
24816
24817
Vc .' .,`.ar List
Spokane Valley
07/28/04 Refund
07/27/04 Refund
09609
10083
64535
07/27/04 Refund
PO #
Description /Account
EXCESS COPY CHARGES
EXCESS COPY CHARGES
MONTHLY COPIER RATE
EXCESS COPY CHARGES
MONTHLY COPIER RATE
MONTHLY COPIER RATE
Total :
MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENT
Total :
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATON 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
LEGAL PUBLICATION 7/23
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLES
Total :
REFUND PARK RESERVATION F
Total :
REFUND SHELTER RENTAL DEP
Total :
Total :
REFUND SHELTER RENTAL DEP
Total :
4578633 FREIGHT CHARGE FOR CUBICLE
Total :
Nage: 2
Amount
291.92
423.36
97.18
161.56
71.25
48.52
1,093.79
201.04
201.04
48.75
43.50
48.00
60.75
105.75
60.00
42.00
408.75
80.00
80.00
50.00
50.00
5.36
195.34
19.39
220.09
50.00
50.00
215.24
215.24
Page: 2
vchlist
07/30/2004 1:53:42PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
7/30/2004 000243
7/30/2004 000036
7/30/2004 000512
7/30/2004 000578
7/30/2004 000029
7/30/2004 000494
7/30/2004 000580
7/30/2004 000024
7/30/2004 000415
NORTHWEST SIGN SUPPLY
OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN
OFFICETEAM
OLIVER, REAGAN
PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP.
ROSAUERS U -CITY
5273 7/30/2004 000324 SCWD #3
5274 7/30/2004 000575 SEVERANCE, KEVIN
5275 7/30/2004 000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS
Invoice
5263 7/30/2004 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER COMPA 08343 -02 7/22/04
698618
252982982 -001
11475954
07/27/04 Refund
5618533 -JY04
PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERVICES IN- 156513
REAL LIFE MINISTRIES, C/O DEB FAI 07/27/04 Refund
RESOURCE COMPUTING INC. 36429
545599
548904
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
170- 0040 -03
07/30/04 KS Reimb.
04 -26
PO #
40255
40256
Description /Account
TRAFFIC LIGHTS
PRINTING & BINDING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SEF
Total :
REFUND SHELTER RENTAL DEP
Total :
MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL PAY
Total :
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SEF
Total :
REFUND SHELTER RENTAL DEP
Total :
IT SUPPORT
CAMP SUPPLIES
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES
WATER CHARGES
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
REIMBURSEMENT FOR GAS
Total :
ENGINEERING SERVICES - JUNE
Page: 3
Amount
10.07
10.07
185.05
185.05
131.81
131.81
467.78
467.78
50.00
50.00
447.53
447.53
562.40
562.40
50.00
50.00
2,243.08
2,243.08
7.14
24.70
31.84
219.62
219.62
5.00
5.00
68,792.00
Page: 3
vchlist
07/30/2004 1: 53:42PM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
5275 7/30/2004 000172
5276 7/30/2004 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB
5277 7/30/2004 000093
5278 7/30/2004 000167
38 Vouchers in this report
000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS (Continued)
THE SPOKESMAN - REVIEW
VERA WATER & POWER
5279 7/30/2004 000576 VONBUTHORST, MONICA
5280 7/30/2004 000100 WABO
5281 7/30/2004 000254 WFOA 2004 CONFERENCE
38 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been fumished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation
against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am
authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
Finance Director Date
Invoice
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
7/7/05 JULY CONTRACT PAYMENT
Total :
2916468 Renewal
07/22/04 Vera
07/23/04 Vera
07/27/04 Vera
07/27/04 Refund
3732
711
747
PO #
40252
Description /Account
Total :
RENEW NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIF
Total :
STREET POWER LIGHTING
STREET POWER LIGHTING/WAT
STREET POWER LIGHTINGMIAT
Total :
REFUND SHELTER RENTAL DEP
Total :
PUBLICATIONS
Total :
REGISTRATION FOR WFOA 200
REGISTRATION FOR WFOA 200
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
Page:
4
Amount
68,792.00
12, 500.00
12,500.00
78.00
78.00
53.39
553.49
77.70
684.58
50.00
50.00
106.23
106.23
250.00
250.00
500.00
96,795.47
96,795.47
Page: 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent X old business new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information admin. report X pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Second reading of an ordinance amending the city's business
registration system
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 34 adopted a business registration system for the
City of Spokane Valley in March of 2003.
BACKGROUND: The city has a database of 2900+ registered businesses. Staff has identified
several changes that are needed in the original ordinance. The City Council discussed these
changes at meetings on June 1, June 22, and July 27. At the July 27, council meeting, the
council held the first reading of an amending ordinance and forwarded it to the August 10
council meeting for a second reading.
Two changes have been made to the exemptions section, 5.05.030, since the council reviewed
the amending ordinance on July 27. Paragraph B has been clarified to indicate those using the
telephone, internet and the mail from outside Spokane Valley city limits are exempt, and
paragraph G has been modified to exempt craft and food booths lasting 10 days or less.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to adopt the ordinance is recommended.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Ongoing city costs to register businesses in 2005, and
recovery of costs spent in 2004, are expected to total about $35,000 each year. A city
business registration fee of $13 /year will pay for these costs. A financial review will be
scheduled for 2007 with changes implemented in 2008.
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-032
AN ORDINANCE OF TEE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY iMUNICiPAL CODE TITLE 5.05
BUSINESS REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY.
WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to adopt regulations for registering businesses operating
within their corporate boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to make certain modifications to the City's business
registration requirements for ease of administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a registration system which will assist the City
in identifying the composition of the commercial community to enhance the marketing, development and
exchange of information between the City and its businesses; and
WHEREAS, emergency contact information is needed to facilitate after hours communication
with property owners, business owners and their representatives; and
WHEREAS, business registration is intended to collect and maintain information as opposed to
raise revenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1:
Section 5.05.01.0. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Business" means all kinds of vocations, occupations, professions, enterprises,
establishments, industries, services and all other kinds of activities and matters that require
registration or licensing with the State of Washington or are conducted i'e - private- prod -er
benefit -on any premises in the City of Spokane Valley. "Business" also means activities and
matters conducted by public, charitable, educational. literary, fraternal or religious organizations
w of Spokane V
B. "City" means the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington.
C. "Engaging in business" means commencing, conducting, or continuing in
business, the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, as well as liquidating a business when the
liquidators thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
D. "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, firm, joint stock
company, partnership, joint venture, trust, business trust, club, association, society, or any group
of individuals acting as a unit or otherwise.
E. "Tax year" means the calendar year commencing January 1 st and ending on
December 31st.
Section 5.05.020. Business Registration Required.
A. On or before. December 31, 20043-, every person engaging in business or continuing
business after December 31, 2004 4.._:.,,. the "alenclar year shall register with the City by
completing a registration I4eei it g form and, if required, pay a registration fee. If more than one
business is located on a single premises, separate registrations shall be required for each separate
business conducted.
B, The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with
the State of Washington Master License Service under which that agency shall accept and process
City Business Registration Applications.
Section 5.05.030. Exemptions.
The following entities services and activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
A - � " �i mecttel ties irtaludin5 p i44 c -and pri -cute- elemenn ecendary -nnd
high sehoelst
A.1:3. Persons who deliver newspapers and periodicals;
B. G. Persons who solicit orders from retail establishments via the telephone. Internet or
mail for the delivery and sale of goods, wares and merchandise €er-- r-esale unless the person's
principal place of business is located within the City;
---g
operate _ 6 i .� . D '� . . . , , b s
p ptiffeSet
C. B. Minors engaged in babysitting; and
D.P. The casual sale of items of personal property where the person conducting such sale
is not regularly engaged in the business of selling items of personal property (for example, garage
sales, service agency bake sales),;. -
E. Sales by farmers or gardeners of their own farm products raised and grown
exclusively upon lands owned or occupied by them
P. Providers of Internet or wireless phone services where the provider operates from
premises located outside the City and the only event occurring within the City is receipt of such
goods and services: and
G. Temporary craft booths and food booths lasting ten (10) days or less in any one
location.
Section 5.05.040 Application Procedure.
A. Application for the business registration shall be made in writing to the city clerk
upon a form provided by the City. The application shall state the name, type and address of the
business or businesses, the owner, operator or agent and such other information as requested by
the city clerk.
ATTEST:
B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application must be made by one of the partners; if
a corporation, by one of the officers thereof; if a foreign corporation, partnership or nonresident
individual, by the resident agent or local manager of the corporation, partnership or individual.
C. The city clerk shall maintain a record of all registered businesses.
Section 5.05.050 Fee – Terms – Penalty.
A. Gommenci-nti; January 1 2OO4 hf3usiness registration shall occur on a calendar -year
basis and shall expire on December 31st of the year for which the registration was issued.
B. No A fee shall be charged for businesses registeratieng dufingfor the 20053 calendar
year and years thereafter. Thereafte- Business registration fees shall be established by the cCity
Ceouncil nisi, a r Lion a bby resolution.
C. Failure. to pay the registration fee by the. applicable date shall result in a late fee of
50% of the annual registration fee.
D. Failure to .av the annual fee ma result in non - issuance of a Washin non State
License. as determined by the Washineton State De
ailment of Licensin
Section 5.05.060. Transfer or sale of business – New license required.
Upon the sale or transfer of any business, the registration issued to the prior owner or
transferer shall automatically expire on the date of such sale or transfer and the new owner
intending to continue such business in the City shall apply for a new registration pursuant to the
procedures established by this chapter.
Section 5.05.070. Violation - Penalty
Any person, as defined herein, and the officers, directors, managing agents, or partners of
any corporation, firm, partnership or other organization or business violating or failing to comply
with any provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a class 2 civil infraction pursuant to
Chapter 7.80 RCW.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication
of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2004.
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
SECTION 1:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
GTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-032
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 5.05
BUSINESS REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY.
WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to adopt regulations for registering businesses operating
within their corporate boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to make certain modifications to the City's business
registration requirements for ease of administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a registration system which will assist the City
in identifying the composition of the commercial community to enhance the marketing, development and
exchange of information between the City and its businesses; and
WHEREAS, emergency contact information is needed to facilitate after hours communication
with property owners, business owners and their representatives; and
WHEREAS, business registration is intended to collect and maintain information as opposed to
raise revenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washing on, do ordain as
follows:
Section 5.05.010. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Business" means all kinds of vocations, occupations, professions, enterprises,
establishments, industries, services and all other kinds of activities and matters that require
registration or licensing with the State of Washington or are conducted on any premises in the
City of Spokane Valley. '`Business" also means activities and matters conducted by public,
charitable, educational, literary, fraternal or religious organizations within the City of Spokane
Valley.
B. "City" means the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington.
C. "Engaging in business" means commencing, conducting, or continuing in
business, the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, as well as liquidating a business when the
liquidators thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
D. "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, firm, joint stock
company, partnership, joint venture, trust, business trust, club, association, society, or any group
of individuals acting as a unit or otherwise.
r. "Tax year" means the calendar year commencing January 1st and ending on
December 31st.
Section 5.05.020. Business Registration Required.
A. On or before December 31, 2004, every person engaging in business or continuing
business after December 31, 2004 shall register with the City by completing a registration form
and, if required, pay a registration fee. If more than one business is located on a single premise,
separate registrations shall be required for each separate business conducted.
B. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with
the State of Washington Master License Service under which that agency shall accept and process
City Business Registration Applications.
Section 5.05.030. Exemptions.
The following services and activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Persons who deliver newspapers and periodicals;
B. Persons who solicit orders from retail establishments via the telephone, Internet or
mail for the delivery and sale of goods, wares and merchandise unless the person's place of
business is located within the City;
C. Minors engaged in babysitting;
D. The casual sale of items of personal property where the person conducting such sale is
not regularly engaged in the business of selling items of personal property (for example, garage
sales, service agency bake sales);
E. Sales by farmers or gardeners of their own farm products raised and grown exclusively
upon lands owned or occupied by them;
F. Providers of Internet or wireless phone services where the provider operates from
premises located outside the City and the only event occurring within the City is receipt of such
goods and services; and
G. Temporary craft booths and food booths lasting ten (10) days or Tess in any one
location.
Section 5.05.040 Application Procedure.
A. Application for the business registration shall be made in writing to the city clerk
upon a form provided by the City. The application shall state the name, type and address of the
business or businesses, the owner, operator or agent and such other information as requested by
the city clerk.
B. If the applicant is a partnership, the application must be made by one of the partners; if
a corporation, by one of the officers thereof; if a foreign corporation, partnership or nonresident
individual, by the resident agent or local manager of the corporation, partnership or individual.
C. The city clerk shall maintain a record of all registered businesses.
Section 5.05.050 Fee — Terms — Penalty.
A. Business registration shall occur on a calendar -year basis and shall expire on
December 31st of the year for which the registration was issued.
Section 5.05.070. Violation - Penalty
Any person, as defined herein, and the officers, directors, managing agents, or partners of
any corporation, firm, partnership or other organization or business violating or failing to comply
with any provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a class 2 civil infraction pursuant to
Chapter 7.80 RCW.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication
of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2004.
ATTEST:
B. A fee shall be charged for businesses registering for the 2005 calendar year and
years thereafter. Business registration fees shall be established by City Council resolution.
C. Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of
50% of the annual registration fee.
D. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non - issuance of a Washington State
License, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing.
Section 5.05.060. Transfer or sale of business — New license required.
Upon the sale or transfer of any business, the registration issued to the prior owner or
transferer shall automatically expire on the date of such sale or transfer and the new owner
intending to continue such business in the City shall apply for a new registration pursuant to the
procedures established by this chapter.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business g public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading:Proposed ordinance establishing Section 4.15.1
Residential Standards and Section 4.15.2 Non - Residential
Dimensional Standards of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development
Code. The proposal consolidates and modifies regulations conceming
height, area and setbacks contained in the Interim Zoning Code,
deletes obsolete and/or non -urban provisions, provides for severability
and effective date.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.63.105, WAC 365 - 195 -845, WAC 365 - 195 -855,
Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -53
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on interim development
regulations requiring review on April 6, 2004 and
on this issue on May 4, 2004. The Planning
Commission was briefed on the proposed
standards on July 8, 2004, and held a public
hearing on July 22, 2004. City Council advanced
the ordinance to a second reading on July 27,
2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to Ordinance No. 03 -52, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as interim
development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 03 -53). The interim Zoning Code includes
many regulations which do not apply within urban areas and other regulations which staff has
suggested should be amended to eliminate redundancy, ambiguity and conflicts in enforcement.
The proposed amendment would consolidate dimensional standards for development into two
tables, residential and non - residential. The proposal would also amend residential dimensional
standards as follows:
1. Front yard setbacks: reduced to fifteen feet from 25 feet, measured from the property
line or the edge of the border easement.
2. Garage setbacks: twenty feet, added to allow parking within the driveway which does not
overhang public right -of -way or border easements. Footnote 5) added to allow attached
side - loading garages a setback of fifteen feet.
3. Side yard setbacks: reduced to a flat five feet.
4. Side yard setbacks (flanking street): reduced to fifteen feet. A significant portion of the
Administrative Exceptions relate to side yard setbacks on corner lots.
5. Rear Yards: the minimum size of rear yard would be increased from 15 feet to 20 feet
for single - family and duplex developments only.
6. Minimum lot sizes and other dimensional requirements within Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) have been deleted.
There is no change proposed for setback requirements of any accessory structure. Rural
residential zoning classifications SRR -5, R -5, SRR -1, SR -1 and SR-1/2 are repealed as
inappropriate for urban development and because no property within the corporate limits
Administrative Report
Dimensional Standards
Page 2 of 2
presently maintains this zoning classification. Rural Residential -10 is retained only because of
existing property retains this designation.
No changes to the non - residential dimensional standards are proposed. The repealing clause
would delete a provision which requires a minimum separation between Neighborhood Business
(B -1) zones of 2,640 feet, unless it is within 100 feet of another B -1 zone. The Interim
Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of business clusters rather than arterial strip
development, although there is no specific reference in the Comprehensive Plan that the
spacing of these zones is designed to accomplish this objective nor any evidence that the
requirement is intended to accomplish this objective.
The proposed amendment in the Interim Development Regulations is subject to review by the
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. The Environmental Checklist
was completed on May 20, 2004 and a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) issued.
Appeals to the DNS were to have been submitted not later than June 11, 2004.
OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments, or disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -033
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 53 TO
ESTABLISH SECTIONS 4.15.1 RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL
STANDARDS AND 4.15.2 NON - RESIDENTIAL DIIMENSIONAL
STANDARDS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT
CODE; REPEALING PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Interim Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to
Ordinance 53, specifies dimensional standards for residential and non- residential development; and
Whereas, WAC 365 -195 -845 provides that "[t]he development regulations of' planning
jurisdictions should include provisions addressing the general procedures for processing applications for
development, designed to promote timeliness, fairness and predictability"; and
Whereas, WAC 365 -195 -855 which provides that "[On the drafting of development
regulations.....procedures for avoiding takings, such as variances or exemptions, should be built into the
overall regulatory scheme;" and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Goal ED.5a is to "[ p]rovide consistent, fair and timely
regulations that are flexible, responsive and effective" and
WHEREAS, Policy ED.5.6 directs "[r] development regulations continuously to ensure clarity,
consistency, predictability and direction," including "[p]rovide opportunities for citizens to initiate
amendments to inconsistent, outdated, inappropriate or unnecessary or confusing regulations.." consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan (RCW 35A.63.105); and
WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the Washington
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to WAC 365 -195 -620; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Section 4.15.1 Residential Dimensional Standards and Section 4.15.2 Non -
Residential Dimensional Standards of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code are hereby
established as provided in Exhibit "A" and "13" attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes.
Section 2. Repealer:. The interim Zoning Code, Sections 14.616.305 through 14.616.335,
14.618.305 through 14.618.335, 14.620.305 through 14.620.335, 14.622.305 through 14.622.335,
14.624.309 through 14.624.335; 14.626.310 through 14.626.335, 14.628.315 through 14.628.335,
14.630.310 through 14.630.335, 14.632.310 through 14.632.335, 14.634.310 through 14.634.335,
14.636.310 through 14.635.325, and Chapters 14.608 Semi -Rural Residential -5 (SR.R. -5), 14.609 Rural -5
(R -5) 14.610 Semi -Rural Residential -2 (SRR -2), 14.612 Suburban Residential -1 (SR -1), 14.614
Suburban Residential -112 (SR -112), and 14.812 Solar Developments. arc hereby repealed.
Ordinance 04 -033 Dimensional Standards (Setbacks) Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by
law.
ATTEST:
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2004.
City Clerk. Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Ordinance O4-033 Dimensional Standards (Setbacks) Page 2 of 2
Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
Miciiroum— Setback -5' fer-eash- stesy- of- etrusitlre
"Clear view' Triangle required
(2) Or -55-fe lnc 01- the- readway, whichever-is- greater Measured from proper line outside border easement, if any
Zero setbacks along rear and/or one side are allowed provided that a 5-0" construction and maintenance easement(s) is recorded with the
43) Spokane County Auditor prior to issuance of a building pemiiL Minimum rear yard setbacks on zero lot line configuration shall not be Tess than fifty
(50) feet or the sum of the rear yards required by the underlying zone, whichever is greater.
44) Minimum side yard setbacks between dwelling units and adjacent lots shall not be less than 10 feet on the side opposite the zero in a zero lot line
configuration
Institutional and Office uses have the same setback as residential uses in zones where permitted. Attached garages loading from the side may
have the same setback as a principal structure,
(
(5)
UR -3 51314"
UR 7(31('►
UR 12 (3)(4►
UR 22 43)(4)
UR-7-
UR-42
Single
Family
Duplex
Single
Family
Duplex
Multi-
family
Single
Family
Duplex
Multi-
family
Single
Family
Duplex
Multi -
family
1 wnwium
Lot Area /Dwelling Unit
10.000
20,000
6.000
11,000
15,000
4,200
5,000
6,000
1,600
3,200
6,000
Lot Frontage
80
80
65
90
100
50
5o
60
20
40
60
Lot Depth
NIA
N/A
N/A
80
80
80
80
100
80
80
100
Front Yard Setback (5)
25 -15
25.4. x1
2-5-15.
25 -15
25 -15
25 -15
25 -15 21
25 -]2
25 -15
25 -15
25-15
Garage Setback'
MI
4b
20
20
2042)
20 (2)
2642)
5+=
20
20
20
Rear Yard Setback r41424—
20
20
4.5 20
45 a
15
45 20
45 20
15
45 IQ
45 20
15
Side Yard Setback (=ns)
5+
5+: 5
5+1 5
5+ ¢
5+. 5
5+! 5
5+.' 5
5+' 5
5+! 5
5+ 5
5+1 5
Side Yard Setback (flanking
Street)
25 -15 (21
26-15
25-15
25 -15
25 -1f ►
25 -15
25 -15
25 -15
25 -15
25 -15
26 -15 2-
Norte
Nome
wnwrxen
Density (DU /Acre)
4.35
4,35
7
7
7
12
12
12
22
22
22
Lot Coverage
50.0%
50.0%
55.0%
55.0%
55.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
Building Height (in feet)
35
35
35
35
35
40
40
40
50
50
50
Building Height (in stories)
2/,
2
2%
2'4
3
3
3_ 4
4
4
Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
Miciiroum— Setback -5' fer-eash- stesy- of- etrusitlre
"Clear view' Triangle required
(2) Or -55-fe lnc 01- the- readway, whichever-is- greater Measured from proper line outside border easement, if any
Zero setbacks along rear and/or one side are allowed provided that a 5-0" construction and maintenance easement(s) is recorded with the
43) Spokane County Auditor prior to issuance of a building pemiiL Minimum rear yard setbacks on zero lot line configuration shall not be Tess than fifty
(50) feet or the sum of the rear yards required by the underlying zone, whichever is greater.
44) Minimum side yard setbacks between dwelling units and adjacent lots shall not be less than 10 feet on the side opposite the zero in a zero lot line
configuration
Institutional and Office uses have the same setback as residential uses in zones where permitted. Attached garages loading from the side may
have the same setback as a principal structure,
(
(5)
R1.196
-
SOLAR-LOT-STANDARDS
UR-3.5
UR-7-
UR-42
UR-22
UR-3,5
UR 7
UR-42
UR22
SF
Duplex
SF
I mnttstutNi
6e1- AreafOwe1I ng -Unit
77000
4 200
3
800
6;000
47200
3
5000
800
601-Frontage
40
40
45
30
58
50
45
50
30
trot -Depth
N/A
WA
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
80
80
N/A
Front Yard - Setback
ab
45
45
4,5
25Fr4
25
25"+
met'
2614
Roar Yard Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
20
45
45
4a
4b
Side-Yard-Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5+=
54.
5+'
5+
5 +=
Csmer -1 ot-Setbacks
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
25
25
257'
25
25
Density- {St•1/Acre)
5,35
7
4-2
22
435
7i''
"'
42
22
l et- Leverage
Nerre
60,0%
Norte
Nome
60,0%
68:9%
60,0%
60,0%
60,0%
Building - Height (in fc:.t)
35
36
40
50
35
36
40
40
nia
Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
Miciiroum— Setback -5' fer-eash- stesy- of- etrusitlre
"Clear view' Triangle required
(2) Or -55-fe lnc 01- the- readway, whichever-is- greater Measured from proper line outside border easement, if any
Zero setbacks along rear and/or one side are allowed provided that a 5-0" construction and maintenance easement(s) is recorded with the
43) Spokane County Auditor prior to issuance of a building pemiiL Minimum rear yard setbacks on zero lot line configuration shall not be Tess than fifty
(50) feet or the sum of the rear yards required by the underlying zone, whichever is greater.
44) Minimum side yard setbacks between dwelling units and adjacent lots shall not be less than 10 feet on the side opposite the zero in a zero lot line
configuration
Institutional and Office uses have the same setback as residential uses in zones where permitted. Attached garages loading from the side may
have the same setback as a principal structure,
(
(5)
Mini ash- story- ot- stratture
to Limited- by- endestytng -zone
(2) Or -55-fo 44(e rthe- sente4i.ne-o{:-the•roadway Never -is- greater
in-aticlitian4Q-Density-Bonus
Section 4.15.2 Non Z.ne Dimensional Standards
100 Feet adjacent to designated arterial or collector
Maximum height reduced to 25 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
Residential allowed only with Commercial on the first floor and only 50% of Floor area
800 sq ft/4 du + 100 sq ft/du >4 up to 5,000 square feeL
800 sq ft/8 du + 100 sq ft/du >8 up to 10,000 square feet.
800 sq ft/12 du + 100 sq ft/du >12 up to 15,000 square feet.
Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 150 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone
F-ive•feet- per-stery
Or the minimum established by the adjacent zoning district
100 feet adjacent to highway, major or secondary arterial, 50 feet from all other public streets
B1
B2
B 3
Residential'
ssaulsng
i delluapisaa
Business
c deltuaprsaa
ssauisng
I1
12
I3
wnur!viyl
Lot Area
7,200
5,000
6,000
n/a
6,000
n/a
1 acre
15,000
nla
Lot Frontage
50
50
50
50
45
n/a
125
90
90
Lot Width
n/a
50
nla
nia
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
n/a
Lot Depth
nla
nla
rbla
140
80
n/a
nla
&a
n/a
Front Yard Setback
35
35
35
35
35
35
(s)
35
35
Rear Yard Setback
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
CO
i5
Rear Yard Setback adjacent to Residential
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
50
n/a
n/a
Side Yard Setback
nla
0
nla
0
n/a
0
n/a
(7) 5
(r) 5
Side Yard Adjacent UR 3.5
25
20
15
15
25
50
m 5
Side Yard Adjacent UR 7 4 thru UR -22
25
10
15
15
20
50
(r) 5
100
Side Yard Adjacent B2, B3,12
25
Side Yard Adjacent B1, 11
50
Side Yard Setbacks (flanking street)
35
35
25
35
25
35
50'
35
35
Open Space Dedication
151
nia
(4)
nla
(9)
n/a
nia
n/a
nla
wnwpcevi
Density (DU /Acre)
7
nla
12
n/a
22
nla
nla
n/a
n/a
Lot Coverage _
50.0%
50.0%
55.0%
55.0%
60.0%
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Building Height (in feet)
35
35
50O °)
35
60
60
40
40
65
Building Height (in stories)
2'A
2%
4
2'/2
3
3
4
3
5
Section 4.15.2 Non Z.ne Dimensional Standards
100 Feet adjacent to designated arterial or collector
Maximum height reduced to 25 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
Residential allowed only with Commercial on the first floor and only 50% of Floor area
800 sq ft/4 du + 100 sq ft/du >4 up to 5,000 square feeL
800 sq ft/8 du + 100 sq ft/du >8 up to 10,000 square feet.
800 sq ft/12 du + 100 sq ft/du >12 up to 15,000 square feet.
Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 150 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone
F-ive•feet- per-stery
Or the minimum established by the adjacent zoning district
100 feet adjacent to highway, major or secondary arterial, 50 feet from all other public streets
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ® public
hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending
legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading: Proposed ordinance Amending
Ordinance 03 -053 relating to Administrative Exceptions
and Administrative Variances.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -53
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on interim development regulations
requiring review on April 6, 2004. The Planning Commission was
briefed on July 8, 2004. Planning Commission held a public hearing
on July 22, 2004. Council advanced the proposal to a second
reading on July 27, 2004, with requests for clarification.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Zoning Code of Spokane County as
interim development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 03 -53). As part of that
ordinance, Council included a City - initiated section (14.404.090 Administrative
Variances) which ostensibly granted additional discretion for administrative approvals to
building setback, height and lot area requirements up to 25 %. Since °variances° require
notice to adjacent property owners and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner,
they cannot be approved administratively.
This agenda item addresses housekeeping changes and policy issues.
Housekeeping Change
The proposed ordinance repeals 14.404.090 in its entirety and incorporates it into
Section 14.506 Administrative Exception. Both current sections are attached.
Content Changes /Policy Issues
Obsolete provisions relating to "Arterial /Overlay Zones° and "Future Acquisition areas°
are deleted, but the original intent was preserved in a new subsection 10 which identifies
Administrative Exceptions as also applicable to improved properties adversely impacted
by voluntary dedication of rights -of -way, eminent domain proceedings or purchase of
right -of -way by the City, County, State or Federal agency.
There was a discrepancy between the Administrative Variance section and the
Administrative Exception section which becomes a separate policy consideration. The
°Variance° section allowed up to a 25% variance of the numerical zoning ordinance
standards for setbacks, lot coverage, size of lot, and building height as provided for in
the current regulation. The "Exception" section allows for a 10% deviation.
Concurrent with this agenda item, Council has been considering a separate ordinance to
amend dimensional setbacks. The first reading of that ordinance was approved by
Council on July 27, and the second reading is scheduled for August 10. Taking into
account these proposed changes as well, a 10% deviation may be appropriate. The
Administrative Report
Administrative Exceptions
Page 2 of 2
following table shows the effect of a 25% exception vs. a 10% exception on allowable
setbacks with the proposed changes in the minimum setbacks.
Staff believes that the change to minimum setbacks will significantly decrease the need
for exceptions. While some exceptions may still be necessary, a 10% exception
generally gives customers more leeway than the current regulations provide.
Maintaining a 25% exception after changing the minimum setbacks may have a negative
impact in certain situations. For instance, if a garage setback is less than 18 feet, a car
parked in the driveway would extend into the street.
A determination of Non - Significance was issued on May 6, 2004 and a draft proposal
was submitted to CTED and other agencies for their review on May 10, 2004.
OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments, disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approval providing for a 10% administrative
exception building setback, height and lot area requirements.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance;
Current Regulations 14.506 Administrative Exception and
14.404.090 Administrative Variance
Current Regulations
With Proposed Changes to Minimum
Setbacks
Minimum (ft)
25%
Exception
Minimum (ft)
25%
Exception
11.25
10%
Exception
13,5
Front Yard
25
18.75
15
Flanking Street Yard
25
18.75
15
11.25
13.5
1 Garage setback
25
18.75
20
15
18 i
1 Side Yard
5lstory
3,75
5
3.75
4.5
Side Yard with Second Story
10
7.5
n/a
3.75
n/a
Rear yard
15
11.25
20
15
18
Administrative Report
Administrative Exceptions
Page 2 of 2
following table shows the effect of a 25% exception vs. a 10% exception on allowable
setbacks with the proposed changes in the minimum setbacks.
Staff believes that the change to minimum setbacks will significantly decrease the need
for exceptions. While some exceptions may still be necessary, a 10% exception
generally gives customers more leeway than the current regulations provide.
Maintaining a 25% exception after changing the minimum setbacks may have a negative
impact in certain situations. For instance, if a garage setback is less than 18 feet, a car
parked in the driveway would extend into the street.
A determination of Non - Significance was issued on May 6, 2004 and a draft proposal
was submitted to CTED and other agencies for their review on May 10, 2004.
OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments, disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approval providing for a 10% administrative
exception building setback, height and lot area requirements.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance;
Current Regulations 14.506 Administrative Exception and
14.404.090 Administrative Variance
17RAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -034
AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE 03 -053 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDDIG
FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 03 -053 adopted the Spokane County
Zoning Code as Interim Development Regulations pursuant to the requirements of RCW Chap. 36.70A;
and
fol lows:
14.506.000 Intent
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
Section 1. Chapter 14.506 of the Spokane Valley Interim Development Regulations is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Chapter 14.506 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION
The Community Development Director may approve minor deviations to requirements for setbacks, lot
coverage, minimum lot size and building height where the strict application of Wheiiever-the-Depagnient
this Code is found unreasonably detrimental to
deteFrnine
the development of the property and the interests of the property owner,
in 11 .506.020subj ect to 14.605.030, Approval Criteria - the -Dep rove- -ef-den-y-s
• ep
Director- ley -wr itten -pa liey7
14.506.020 Allowed Exceptions
Exceptions may be considered only when they involve any of the following circumstances.
1. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one (1) foot.
2. Under the following conditions:
a. A parcel cstablished prior to March 31, 2003 that does not meet the buildable square footage
requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district. or
Ordinance 04 -034 Admin Variances Page 1 of 5
DRAFT
' b. A legally non - conforming dwelling with respect to setbacks. height and size which otherwise
could not be expanded or reconstructed; or
c. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003 that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which
could not otherwise be reconstructed.
3. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for ten- twenty -five percent (4 -025 %) or Tess of the
required yard.
4. Building height requirements where the deviation is for twenty-five ten- percent (254 -0 %) or less of the
maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of
adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded.
5. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for five twenty five percent 044)(25 %) or less
of the required lot area.
6. Maximum building coverage requirements where the veree- deviation is for five twenty five
percent (84)(25 %) or less of the maximum building coverage,
67. Lot frontage and /or width under the following circumstances:
a. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is for ten percent (10 %) or less than
the required lot frontage.
b. Lot frontage- andith- requifenients- inth., GA, RR 10,
finding-thet-neither acent -pr
e- required- let - fro ntage-
be. Lot frontage and /or width requirements where the deviation is greater than that listed in
14.506.020(62a)( 6b) provided that the Department sba14-eRlyappfev .
afe
adve - - = - ; - .. . - b • parttmentreview -may ineluile require
circulation to affected agencies end may - result ig in conditions of approval.
g8. Up to one -half (1/2) of a private tower's "impact area" off of the applicant's property.
89. Flanking Street Yard setbacks, provided that:
the- 4cvietien
a. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning
classification of the pre - January 1, 1991 Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, and subsequently on
January 1, 1991 a new zoning classification from the Zoning Code of Spokane, Washington was
assigned to the subject property; and
Ordinance 04 -034 Admin Variances Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
b. Any Flanking Yard Setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required
Flanking Street setback standards of the pre - January 1, 1991 Zoning classification of the subject
property.
10. Any improved property rendered non - conforming through voluntary dedication of right -of -way, the
exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, the County or State or
Federal agency.
910. —A -- oa el -car
Engineer.
p a
A ifien-Areaprav ed - eed for gre
d ei&.ir
Over-lay -den
raced er -lesse
parking -° ris ;end-(
may-bedeereased-ne-in
n eed f r_iess- setback -er
Ordinance 04 -034 Adntiin Variances
A AA - .. .
re- the- prey-is
4iatlRead- map- whieh -lees
teat 11.710.220(2).
spenble- ferthe -f tore- less- er- releeatien -ef the
tq isi+ien -AFea
revided -(a)
al
Page 3 cf5
DRAFT
future- less- er -clos
i t ative last-reserevisiens of 11.710.380 shal -�.. ll-be used- prier- to- preoeediig to 11.101.080.
14.506.030 Approval Criteria
Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the Community Development
Director if it is shown that:.
1. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the vicinity in
which it is proposed;
2. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity
by protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other resources;
3. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of
existin • land uses and all lei all , ermitted uses within the zonin district it occu. ies
4. Grantin T the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the .ublic health safe ' and
welfare within the city.
14.506.040 Procedures
The decision and conditions of approval of the Department in granting or denying an administrative
exception should be submitted in writing to the applicant within thirty (30) days, but no longer than sixty
(60) days, of receipt of a complete application. Such decision must indicate how the administrative
exception is consistent or inconsistent with any criteria or guidelines set forth herein by—he—Ptanning
Director.
If the Department determines that a requested administrative exception does not meet appropriate criteria,
the application may be processed as a variance in the manner outlined in Section 14.404.080."
Section 2. Section 14.404.090 Administrative Variance is hereby repealed.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication
of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law.
Ordinance 04 -034 Admin Variances Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
ATTEST:
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2004.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Ordinance 04 -034 Admin Variances Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report [X] pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading: Proposed ordinance amending Ordinance No. 53 to
establish Chapter 14.615 Urban Residential Estate (UR -1) Zone and
applicable development regulations, and to establish Interim Zoning in
certain areas, making findings of fact and approving a work plan.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.63.220, Spokane Valley Ordinance 53
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: A moratorium or interim zoning ordinance may be effective for not longer than
six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium of interim zoning ordinance may be
renewed for one or more six -month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings
of fact are made prior to each renewal.
The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Ordinance No.
52, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as interim development
regulations for the new city (Ordinance 53). The Comprehensive Plan establishes the following
Policies in relevant part:" ....Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including
six dwelling units per acre" (UL.9.1) and ° Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average
residential density in new development of at least 4 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban
Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types." (UL.9.2) The zoning classifications
established by these regulations provide for a maximum density of seven dwelling units /acre for
areas designated as "Low Density Residential" or "LDR" by the Comprehensive Plan.
Two well- established neighborhoods located within areas designated for Low Density
Residential (LDR) uses have requested consideration of a regulatory mechanism that would
continue to permit the keeping of a limited number of large animals, primarily horses. These
neighborhoods were originally established over twenty -five years ago to allow the keeping of
such animals, a practice that was permitted under the previous zoning classification.
WAC 365- 195- 310(2)(I) provides that "[i]n developing the housing element attention should be
working with the desires of residents to preserve the character and vitality of existing
neighborhoods, along with the rights of people to live in the neighborhood of their choice ".
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2004. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of interim zoning for Rotchford Acres, Shelley Acres
Addition and portions of the Ponderosa and made finding of fact for consideration by the City
Council by a vote of 6 -1.
A Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) was issued on April 26, 2004 and a draft sent to the
Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) on the same
day.
OPTIONS: Advance to a second reading, provide additional direction to the staff, or take no
action.
Administrative Report
Urban Residential Estate Interim Zoning
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Advance the ordinance to a second reading and
approve the findings of fact and workplan.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft ordinance.
Presentation
AUG -05 -2004 THU 11 :04 ft1 Ci'ED LOCAL GOVT
DRA 1•
August 4, 2004
1•AX NU, 315U 15. 25bU
The Honorable Michael deVclming, Mayor
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Street
Spokane Valley, Washington 99026
Dear Mayor DcVelming and Mcrnbers of the Council:
Thank you for sending Washington State Community, Trade, and Economic Development
(CTED) your draft development regulation amendments for the City of Spokane Valiey. This
letter contains our comments on your proposed changes. We acknowledge the substantial
investment of time, energy, and resources that amendments to your development regulations
require. CTED also appreciates Spokane Valley's generous offer to extend the tirncframe during
which this letter may be submitted for comment. Thank you for the extension.
Things we especially like in Spokane Valley's proposed amendments include:
• Simplifying the procedure to address requests for minor modifications to the code by
means of "administrative exceptions" rather than by "variances" should create an
efficient process that effectively deals with this type of request.
• Proposed amendments to reduce dimensional standards for setbacks has the potential to
simplify administration of the code, to allow for successful urbanized conversion of land
that is already developed to Spokane County's rural standards, and to enhance future
enforcement opportunities.
• Language in the proposed Urban Residential Estate Zone is sufficiently detailed to
indicate that Spokane Valley aims to avoid or reduce municipal obligation to repair
poorly planned, haphazard development by instilling this temporary land use control. A
narrow application of the proposed interim zone for two distinct, already built out
subdivisions should help limit possible negative impacts while Spokane Valley attends to
the development of its urban design standards.
We have a concern that the proposed ordinance establishes a maximum allowable residential
density of one dwelling unit per acre, or a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. We are
concerned that this will prohibit compact urban development and will interfere with the city's
duty under Goals 1 and 2 of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to prevent sprawl and
r. uz
AUG 05 THU 11:0b AM UTE° LUURL liUV I'
DRAFT
Honorable Michael DeVelming
July 27, 2004
Page 3
encourage urban patterns of development.' We recommend not adopting amendments to your
code that would limit residential densities to those that are not urban in nature.
One of the most important functions of a city's land use designations is to foster patterns of
development that manage public expenditures for services and infrastructure. Urban densities
can be defined as those densities where urban services can be provided cost - effectively. 'The
GMA does not define what constitutes adequate facilities and does not require that they be
provided immediately throughout the urban area. However, compact urban development
generally requires, at a minimum, road infrastructure, public water service, sanitary sewer and
adequate stormwater management. Higher densities have the potential to significantly Iower the
costs per unit of provlding urban services.
Higher urban densities also tend to reduce housing costs. More dense urban development
implicitly results in smaller lot sizes for single - family homes, and multi - family housing forms.
Both of these typically provide less expensive housing options. This concept and the preceding
one are two important reasons why the GMA emphasizes compact urban form as a strategy to
accommodate growth. Although Goal 3 of the GMA establishes a duty to provide for a range of
housing choices and densities, the range of densities in a city must be urban in nature.
Although cities have a duty to preserve the existing housing stock, it dots not have a duty under
Goal 3 to perpetuate pre -GMA patterns of low - density residential development. Redevelopment
of existing neighborhoods is not required, but your development regulations should not prohibit
development at compact, urban densities.
Congratulations to you, your planning commission, staff, and involved citizens for the good
work on your draft aunendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations. If you
have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues,
please call me at (360) 725 -3068. We look forward to receiving copies of your adopted
development regulation amendments, and extend our continued support to the City of Spokane
Valley in achieving the goals of growth management,
Sincerely,
Dee Caputo
Senior Planner
Growth Management Services
HX NU, Jbu f'a i Lb t1
I) i.ncourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be
provided in an efficient manner. [RCW 36.70A.020(1)J
2) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density
development. [RCW 36.70A.020(2)J.
AUG Ub - 'LUU4 FHU 11: U5 Afl U FEU LUUAL UUV 1
DRAM'
Honorable Michael Dc %relining
July 27, 2004
Page 3
cc
hfIX ICU, itiU (53 'LSJU r, U4
David Mercier, Spokane Valley City Administrator
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director, City of Spokanc Valley
Stiorkane
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT
PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING TO (URBAN RESDIENTIAL ESTATE
(UR -1)
STAFF REPORT DATE: June 18, 2004
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request for consideration of zoning controls to limit residential densities and
to continue practice of allowing the keeping of large animals on residential lots.
PROPOSAL LOCATION: Portions of the Ponderosa and all of Rotchford Acres residential subdivisions.
STAFF PLANNER: Marina Sukup, AICP, Director, Spokane Valley Community Development Dept.
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Size & Characteristics:
Ponderosa: Located adjacent to Browne's Mountain on the southern
edge of the City, abutting the Dishman Natural Area on the east and
the Iller Conservation area on the south. Fully developed single - family
residential lots generally exceeding one acre in size, served by local
access and residential collectors. Limited access to municipal
wastewater collection system. Terrain hilly with intermittent streams
feeding Chester Creek. Portion of the subdivision located within the
100 -year floodplain. Large stands of native Ponderosa pines. Abuts a
closed landfill. Platted in phases between 1964 and 1992.
Rotchford Acres: Located on the eastern edge of the City. Fully
developed single - family residential lots generally exceeding one acre in
size, served by local access and residential collectors. No access to
municipal wastewater collection system. Rolling terrain abutting steep
hills with drainage into Saltese Creek. Saltese Creek is located within
the 100 -year floodplain. Platted in 1974.
SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING
Subject Properties:
Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential
Zoning — Urban Residential 3.5 (UR -3.5), Urban Residential 7 (UR -7)
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions (UR -1 Interim zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30, 2004
1 of 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Relevant provisions of the Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive Plan are found in Chapter 6
(Housing) includes the Vision — "Spokane County is a community that provides the opportunity for a
variety of housing types and development patterns for all incomes and lifestyles while preserving the
environment and the character of existing neighborhoods."
"Planning Principles
The following planning principles, developed through citizen participation efforts, form the basis for
development of the Urban Land Use Chapter.
• Compact urban forms should be encouraged that create a greater sense of "community," with
pedestrian /bicycle- friendly settlement patterns.
• Neighborhood character should be preserved and protected.
• Jobs, housing, services and other activities should be within easy walking distance and shorter
commute times of each other.
• Communities should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and
recreational uses.
• Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected
routes.
• Communities should have a diversity of . housing and job types that enable residents from a
wide range of economic levels and age groups to work and reside within their boundaries.
General Goals
UL.la Provide a healthful, safe and sustainable urban environment that offers a variety of
opportunities for affordable housing and employment.
UL.1 b Create a future rich in cultural and ethnic diversity that embraces family and community values
and recognizes the interests of the whole community.
Goal UL.2
standards.
Policies
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Spokane County through urban design
UL.2.1 Establish minimum performance standards within the zoning code for nuisances such as
noise, vibration, smoke, particulate matter, odors, heat and glare and other aspects as appropriate to
ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighborhoods.
UL.2.2 The design of development proposals should accommodate and complement environmental
features and conditions, and preserve and protect significant cultural resources.
UL.2.6 Develop urban design "guidelines' that provide consistency of application for the design
review process. The guidelines should focus on the functional interrelationships between land use, site
design, neighborhood character and transportation systems.
UL.2.9 Develop neighborhood, subarea and community plans with specific design standards
that reflect and preserve community character.
UL.2.11 Promote linkage of developments with open space, parks, natural areas and street
connections.
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions (UR -1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30, 2004
2 of 5
UL.2.12Enhance and preserve the site characteristics of residential development (existing trees,
watercourses, historic features and similar assets) through sensitive site planning tools such as
clustering, lot averaging, transfer of development rights and flexible setback requirements.
Goal UL.4 Encourage exemplary developments and creative design through the use of
performance standards.
Policy
UL.4.1 Allow flexibility and innovative design through the use of performance standards which
emphasize outcomes.
Goal H.1 Coordinate housing policies and programs with other jurisdictions, agencies and
neighborhoods.
H. 1.3 — "Provide opportunities for early and continuous participation of citizens and neighborhood
groups in land use and community development planning processes."
H. 1.5 — "Encourage the creation and continued operation and effectiveness of neighborhood
associations through neighborhood and subarea planning programs.
Goal H -2 Reduce regulatory barriers and allow greater flexibility in the housing
development process.
Policy
H2.2- When developing housing regulations, consider the balance between housing affordability and
environmental quality, design quality and maintenance of neighborhood character.
H2.3. Develop consistent, precise, fair and enforceable regulations that maintain environmental quality
and public health and safety standards, while minimizing housing development costs.
Housing Policy H2.5. Provide incentives for safe and decent housing that is in close proximity to jobs,
transportation and daily activities.
Goal H.3a Develop a variety of housing options for all economic groups
Policy
H3.2 Ensure that the desigr'df infill development preserves the character of the neighborhood.
Goal ED.5b Promote public/private partnerships that encourage innovation and creativity in the
economic expansion of our region.
Policy
ED.5.6 Review development regulations continuously to assure clarity, consistency, predictability and
direction. Provide opportunities for citizens to initiate amendments to inconsistent, outdated,
inappropriate or unnecessary or confusing regulations. Amendments shall be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:
Ponderosa: Low density residential designed for on- premises maintenance of a limited number of
horses. Heavily wooded with rugged terrain in parts. Expansion to the west precluded because of the
Dishman Natural Area and terrain. Over 95% of Tots fully developed. Some remain vacant because of
topography.
Rotchford Acres: Low density residential designed for on- premises maintenance of a limited number
of horses. Terrain is relatively flat east of Sullivan Road with steep hillside limiting any easterly
expansion. Equine easements provided on local streets. Subdivision is fully developed.
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions (UR -1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30, 2004
3 of 5
Social Character: Well- organized and cohesive neighborhoods.
DESIGN QUALITY: Local access and residential collectors designed to accommodate lots of
approximately one acre. Direct access to public streets. Single- family housing is well- maintained
and designed for residential privacy. A limited number of large animals, especially horses is a design
theme in both neighborhoods.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure the quality
of residential design to preserve neighborhood character.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
Wastewater. Limited access to public sewer in the Ponderosa. Balance of property relies on septic
systems. Rotchford Acres relies entirely on septic systems. Re- subdivision to increase residential
densities should not be permitted absent an organized wastewater collection and treatment system.
Potable Water. Ponderosa is served by Spokane County Water District #3, Rotchford by Vera Irrigation
Dist. #14, both Group °A" Community Water Systems. Re- subdivision to increase residential densities
will require adequate supply and pressure for domestic consumption and fire protection.
Stormwater: the Ponderosa subdivision has intermittent streams that drain to Chester Creek. The
contribution of to the rate and volume of flows from additional impervious cover resulting from re-
subdivision could result in an environmental damage as yet undetermined for which mitigation would
need to be established in a planned and coordinated manner. Similar concerns concerning drainage
which could affect Saltese Creek
Erodable soils: Both the Rotchford and Ponderosa subdivisions include or abut geological hazard
areas which require further evaluation prior to allowing additional residential densities.
Native Vegetation /habitat: Ponderosa includes areas of wildlife critical habitat for White Tail Deer and
threatened species.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure the
continued preservation of environmental quality in outlying areas with limited public
infrastructure and specific environmental conditions, such as steep slopes, intermittent
flooding and highly erodable soils.
PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY:
Access: Ponderosa: Property lies west of the Union Pacific Railroad with only two points of access.
Additional access should be required prior to any increase in residential densities for evacuation and
emergency services.
Animal Maintenance: The requirements for the maintenance and upkeep of even a limited number of
large animals raises issues of compatibility resulting from noise, odor, proximity to residential
structures, flies, etc.. These issues are compounded with increased residential densities and
requirements for buffering for any additional residential densities may be required.
Landfill: Ponderosa: The proximity of a closed landfill to an increased number of residences requires
additional study.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure continued
compatible principal and accessory land uses within residential neighborhoods.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Current property owners purchased property with notice of existing regulations pertaining to the
keeping of large animals. The Short Plat process requires notice only to adjacent property owners.
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions (UR -1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30, 2004
4 of 5
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA): Ordinance No. 48 (effective
March 31, 2003) adopted on an interim basis by reference the Spokane Environmental Ordinance
(Spokane County) thereby implementing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 197-
11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) within the jurisdictional limits of the City of
Spokane Valley. An Environmental checklist was completed and a Determination of Non - Significance
was issued on April 26, 2004. Conclusions were based on the finding that a regulation preserving the
status quo would have no adverse environmental impact.
Conclusion(s):
Permitting piecemeal increase in residential densities without the establishment of
performance and design standards raise serious issues related to preservation of
neighborhood character and design, maintaining environmental quality, public health and
safety, and the adequacy of public notice, which require additional study prior to the
establishment of permanent regulation.
III. DECISION
The Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres should be zoned UR -1 (see Exhibits "A" and "B" attached)
on an interim basis pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 following a public hearing before the Planning
Commission, pending resolution of issues identified above. Resolution of issues shall be
accomplished in accordance with the Workplan attached as Exhibit "C"
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions (UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30, 2004
5 of 5
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Spe -- t.andards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Spe;. •ondards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
14,816
RR -10
SRR-5-
SRR-2-
SR-1-
SR -4/2-
UR -1
UR -3.5
UR -7
UR -12
UR -22
14.605.020 RESIDENTIAL USES
Accessory Structure(s)
P- Acc(1)
P- Acc( -1)
R- Ass(a
P- Ass(4)-
P- Ass(a
P- Acc(1)
P- Acc(1)
P- Acc(1)
-)-
-)-
Billboard
N
N-
N-
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Caretaker's residence
P(1)
P(-1)-
P(14-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Clustered housing
PUD only
Community residential facility (8 or less residents)
N
N
N-
P-
P-
P
P
N
N
N
Community residential facility, greater than 8 residents,
no more than 25)
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
P
P
P
Community treatment facility (8 or less residents)
N
N-
14-
C-U-
GU-
C.U.
C.U.
N
N
N
Cornmunity treatment facility, greater than 8 residents,
no more than 20)
N
N-
14-
N-
N-
N
N
C.U.
C.U.
C.U.
Conditional residential accessory unit
C.U.(1)
C.U:( -1}
C,U.(1)-
6441
G4141)-
C.U.(1)
C.U.(1)
N
N
N
-)-
Density bonus (under Chapter 14.704)
N
N.
N-
PUD-
PUD-
N
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
Dependent Relative manufactured (mobile) home
P- Acc.(1)
P- Ass,04
P- Acc, (.1 -)
R- Acc,(4)
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Dormitory
P
P-
P-
P
P.
N
P
P
P
P
Duplex
P
P-
P-
P-
P-
N
P
P
P
P
Fraternity, sorority
P
P-
P-
P-
P-
N
P
P
P
P
Home industry
C.U. ,
Gtd-
GU-
C,U-
C.U-
N
C.U.
N
N
N
Home profession
P- Acc.(4)
P-Aee (4)
P- Acc:(4)
P- Acc,(4)
P- Acc44)
p- Acc.(4)
P- Acc.(4)
P- Acc.(4)
P- Aoc.(4)
P- Acc.(4)
Household pets
P
P-
R
1-
R
p
p
p
p
p
Manufactured (mobile) home
P(2)
P{2)
P(2.)
P(2)
P(24
P(2)
P(2)
P(2)
P(2)
N
Manufactured (mobile) home park
P(2)
P(2)
P(23
P(2)
P(2)
N
P(2)
P(2)
P(2)
P(2)
Multifamily dwelling
N
N-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
P
P
P
Nursing home. convalescent home
N
14-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
P
P
P
Prison, jail, or institution
C.U.
14-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Private repeater facility
P
R
P-
q
P-
a.
P
P
P
P
Retirement/elderly apartment
N
N-
N.
N-
N-
N
N
P
P
P
Single - family dwelling. new
P
P-.
P-
P-
P-
P
P
P
P
P
Solar collector & associated sys
P -Acc.
P -Acc,
P-Acc,
P-Ace:
P -Ass:
P -Acc.
P -Acc.
P -Acc.
P -Acc.
P -Acc.
Transitional community facility(8 or less residents)
N
N
14-
GU.-
C,U-
C,U.
C.U.
N
N
N
Transitional community facility(greater than 8 residents,
no more than 20 residents)
N
N-
14-
N.
N-
N
N
C.U.
C.U.
C.U.
Tower, private
P- Acc.(1)
P- Ass.( -1-)
P- Ass44)
P- Arc:( -1-)
P- Acc4-1.)
P- Aoc.(t)
P- Aoc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
14.605.040 USE Public /Semi - Public
Adult Entertainment establishment
N
N-
N-
N•
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Adult Retail Use Establishment
N
N-
14-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Archery, rifle, gun, pistol ranges /dubs
C.U.
64U-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Business or professional office
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
P
P
Cemetery
C.U.
GU-
N.
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Church and parsonage
P
P-
P-
P-
P-
P
P
P
P
P
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Spe -- t.andards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Spe;. •ondards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
14,816
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Specific standards
Chapter X4.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Specific standards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C.U.(1) Chap 14.816
RR -10
SRR-5-
SRR-2-
SR -1-
SR -4l2
UR -1
UR -3.5
UR -7
UR -12
UR -22
Commercial composting storage/processing
C.U.
N-
N
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Community hall, club, or lodge
P(1)
P-(4)
P(44
P(49
P(-14
P(1)
P(1)
P
P
P
Community recreational facility
P- Acc.(1)
P-4cc.(1)
P- Acc,(1)
P- Ase -F13
P- Acc:(4 -)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P(1)
Community transit center
P(1)
P(14
P(1.)
P(4)
P(4)
N
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
Day care center
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
C.U.
C.U.
Day care center (in a church or a public or private
school)
P(
P(
P(1)
P(4)
P(
.P..(.11
P(
P(
P(
P(
Exercise facility /gym athletic club)
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
P(1)
Family day care home
P
P
P
P
R
P
p
p
p
p
Fire station
P
R
P
P
R
P
P
P
P
P
Golf course
P(1)
P(4)
P(-1)
P
R
N
P
N
N
N
Golf driving range!training center
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
P(1)
Hospital
C.U.
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
Incinerator
C.U.
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Landfill
C.U.
N-
N-
N.
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Library
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
Medical Office
N
N-
14-
14-
N-
N
14
N
N
P
Mini -day care center (in a dwelling)
P
P
P
P
R
P
P
P
p
p
Mini -day care center (not in a dwelling)
N
14-
N-
N-
N-
)_V
14
N
P
P
Nonmotorized trail system
C.V.
C.,U-
N-
14-
N-
N
N
N
14
14
Nursery school
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Park -and -ride facility
P(1)
P(-1)
P(-1 -)
P(-1 -)
P(1.)
N
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
Park, public (including caretakers residence)
P
P
R
R
R
P
P
P
P
P
Post office
P
P
P
R
R
P
P
P
P
p
Public utility local distribution
P
P
R
P
R
j?
P
P
P
P
Public utility transmission facility
P(1)
P(1)
P(-1-)
P(3
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
P(1)
Racetracks
C.U.
N-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Recreational area, commercial
N
14-
N-
N-
N.
N
N
N
14
N
Sanitarium
C.U.
P
N.
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
14
Schools - public and private
1. kindergarten
P
P
P
p
P
P
P
P
p
P
2. elementary
p
R
P
p
p
p
P
P
P
P
3. middle
P
p
R
R
R
P
P
P
p
P
4. junior high
P
P
P
P
p
P
P
P
p
p
5. high
P
P
P
P.
P
N
N
14
P
P
6. junior college
P
P
p
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
7. college or university
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
8. Expansion of existing structure on adjacent
property
P
P
R
P
R
E
P
P
P
p
Sewage sludge land application
P(1)
G4.1-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Solid waste hauler
N
14-
14-
N-
N-
N
14
N
N
N
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Specific standards
Chapter X4.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Specific standards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C.U.(1) Chap 14.816
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Spe;''=-'andards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Spe - `liandards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C_U.(1y` -" 14.816
RR -10
SRR-&-
SRR-2-
SR-4-
SR-1-12-
UR -1
UR -3.5
UR -7
UR -12
UR -22
Solid waste recycling/transfer site
P(1)
P(1)
P(4)
G:U-
CM,
N
N
N
N
14
Solid waste recycling /transfer site
C.U.
eAll,
C-U-
G:U-
C:U-
N
14
N
N
N
Tower
P(1)
P(4)
€M-
GU-
C,14-
N
N
N
N
N
Video Board
N
14-
N-
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Wireless Communication Antenna Array
P- Aoc.(1)
P Acc.(1)
P Acc.(1)
P- Acc:(4 -)
P- Aec.(1•)
P
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
P- Aoc.(1)
Wireless Communication Support Tower
C.U.
GU-
C-U-
C,-,U,-
C:U1-
C.U. .
C.U.
C.U.
C.U.
C.U.
14.605.060 USE - Agricultural, Silvicultural, and
Agriculture - Related
Agricultural processing plant, warehouse
P
P
N-
14-
14-
14
N
N
14
N
Agricultural product stand
P(1)
P(
P(4)
R(1)
14-
N
14
N
N
N
Airstrip for crop dusting /spraying
N
14-
14-
N-
N-
N
N
14
N
14
Airstrip, personal
P(1)
R(-1)
14-
N-
14-
14
N
N
N
14
Airstrip, private
C.U.
C:tU-
14-
14-
14-
14
N
N
N
N
Animal clinic large /small veterinary
C.U.
G U-
C:U-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Animal clinic - veterinary -small animals
C.U.
C-U,
GU-
N-
14-
N
N
N
C.U.
P(1)
Animal, Wildlife Rehabilitation/Scientific Research
P(1)
PM
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Animal raising and /or keeping
P(1)
P 43
P(1-)
P(4)
P (4)
P(],)
N
14
N
14
Beekeeping, commercial
P
P
P Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
N-
Zl
N
N
14
14
Beekeeping, hobby
P
P
P- Ass:(1)
P- Aee
P- Aec:( -1)
P-Acc.(1)
P- Acc.(1)
N
N
N
-(1)
Circus
N
N-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Cultivation of land commercial
P
P
P
P
N-
N
14
N
N
N
Dairy
N
14-
14-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
14
Farm machinery sales & repair
P ' .
N-
14-
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Feed lot
N
14-
14-
14-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Feed mill
P
N-
14-
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Fish hatchery
P
P
14-
N-
N-
.N
N
N
N
N
Floriculture flower growing
P
P
P
R
P -Acc:
N
N
N
N
N
Gardening
P
P
P
P
R
P
P
P
P
P
Gasohol plant
P(1)
P{7)
N-
14-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Grain elevator
P
P
14-
14-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Grazing
P
P
P
R
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Greenhouse - commercial
P
P
P
P
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Hazardous waste treatment/storage off -site
N
N-
N-
N-
14-
N
N
N
N
N
Hazardous waste treatment/storage on -site
P- Acc.(1)
14-
N-
N-
N-
Nf
N
N
N
N
Horse boarding and training
P
P
N-
N-
14-
P(1)
N
14
N
14
Horticulture vegetable growing
P
P
P
P
P-Acc:
N
N
14
N
N
Inherently Dangerous MammaUReptile Keeping
P(1)
GU-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Kennel
C.U.
C-U.-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
14
N
Kennel, private
C.U. ,
C-U,
CM-
C:U-
C:U-
CU.
C.U.
N
N
N
Nursery - wholesale
P
P
P
P
14-
14
N
14
N
N
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Spe;''=-'andards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Spe - `liandards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C_U.(1y` -" 14.816
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Specific standards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Specific standards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C.U.(1) Chap 14.816
RR -10
SRR-5-
SRR -2-
SR 1-
SR -712-
UR -1
UR -3.5
UR -7
UR -12
UR -22
Orchard
P
R
P
P
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Pigeon, performinglshow
P- Acc.(1)
P Ace: (-1•)
P- Ass:(1 -)
P- Accr(1.)
P -Aec()
P- Ac�(11
P- Acc.(1)
N
N
N
Riding stable
P
R
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Sawmill and lumber mill
P(1)
P.(4 -)
N-
N-
N-
Ll
N
N
N
N
Transient - agricultural labor residence
N
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Tree farming
P
P
P
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Truck gardening
P
R
P
R
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Vineyard
P
P
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Winery
C.U.
GU—
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
N
Zoological Park
P(1)
P(1)
N-
N-
N-
N
N
N
N
14
P Permitted
P(4) Definition
N Not permitted
(1) Specific standards
Chapter 14.605
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
P(1) Chap 14.615 - 14.622 standards
P- (Acc.) Permitted accessory
(1) Specific standards
EXHIBIT "A"
P(2) Chap 14.808
C.U.(1) Chap 14.816
Ponderosa (Portion
Exhibit "B" Residential Estate (UR -1) Proposed Interim Zoning Boundaries
Rotchford
Acres
fD
Tatk Mom
Stmt
Finish
Duration
as w
^a a
w o.
Or 03
QZ
Mb An
I XI I Apo I ;40
219 1 U. Ow
.N• IM 14
Apr rt/i
I
Naial txwfu x1 QnasaCm
6130+27104
111112004
17 6.
2
DeS(p1(Imlay
10112+c1004
12
8.4w
3
Envirorvrwmtal Qu21ty
613000 4
2/2512065
3
4
P Iiie.Naetn
I112.t12004
y1nr.as
14w
s
Public Notice
1214'2034
2n8/2065
10.4w
6
Ra9.11a0ory Rati4*w
?125'2005
1(26/2606
47.2w
Exhibit - C' UR -1 Interim Zoning Work Plan
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -035
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASIMNGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 03 -53 TO PROVIDE INTERIM ZONING
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14.615 URBAN RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (UR -1)
ZONE ESTABLISHED HEREIN.
WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act provides that all zoning regulations be consistent with
an adopted Comprehensive Plan (RCW 35A.63.105); and
W - TEREAS, The Interim Zoning Code adopted by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to
Ordinance 03 -53, specifies a maximum net density (dwelling units /acre) for all residential zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 provides for establishment of interim zoning for up to one year
following a public hearing where a Work plan is developed for related studies; and
WHEREAS, the interim zoning may be extended for one or more six -month periods if a
subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and
WHEREAS, "Low Density Residential" is identified as LDR in the adopted Plan, with maximum
densities ranging from one to 4.35 (UR 3.5) and 7 (UR 7) within designated districts; and
WHEREAS, WAC 365- 195- 310(2)(1) provides that "[i]n developing the housing element
attention should be working with the desires of residents to preserve the character and vitality of existing
neighborhoods, along with the rights of people to live in the neighborhood of their choice "; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan states that "Spokane County is a community that provides
the opportunity for a variety of housing types and development patterns for all incomes and lifestyles
while preserving the environment and the character of existing neighborhoods "; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan establishes the following Policies in relevant part: "UL.9.1.
....Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including six dwelling units per acre" and
"UL.9.2 Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at
least 4 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing
types. "; and
WHEREAS, certain well- established neighborhoods located within areas designated for Low
Density Residential (LDR) uses have requested consideration of a regulatory mechanism that would
continue to permit the keeping of a limited number of large animals, primarily horses; and
\ \TH.EREAS, these neighborhoods were originally established to allow the keeping of such
animals; and
WHEREAS, these neighborhoods have been in existence for over twenty -five years.
Ordinance 04 -035 Interim Estate Zone Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the Washington
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106WAC 365 -
195-620; and
J
DRAFT
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
Section 1. Chapter 14.615 of the Interim Zoning Code is hereby established as an
amendment to Ordinance No. 03 -53 to read as follows:
"Chapter 14.615
Urban Residential Estate (UR -1) Zone
14.615.100 Purpose and intent
The purpose of the UR -1 zone is to preserve the character and vitality of existing neighborhoods which
have historically permitted the keeping of a limited number of large animals and livestock. Lots are
presently served by a public water system and may require connection to a public sewer system. The
residential character necessitates the provision of paved roads and other public facilities.
14.615.210 Permitted Uses
Hereafter in the UR -1 zone no building, structure improvements or portion thereof shall be erected,
constructed, converted, established, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or premises be used, except for
those uses specifically permitted in this zone pursuant to Chapter 14.605, Residential Zones Matrix,
Section 14.416, and 14.816. in addition, the following specific standards are required for the following
permitted uses.
A. Residential uses
B. Public and Semipublic Uses
1. Community hall, club or lodge, provided that it is related to local community social
activities and its principal activity includes a service customarily carried on as a business.
2. Public utility transmission facility, provided that:
a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right -of -way to
assure for the proper construction, continued maintenance, and general safety
to the properties adjoining the public utility transmission facility;
b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of
access located a minimum of ten (10) feet above the ground;
c. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance,
landscaping, buffering, or design, as determined by the Zoning Administrator;
and
d. The height of the structure above ground does not exceed one hundred twenty-
five (125) feet.
3. Day care center (in a church or public or private school), provided that:
a. There are no more than fifty (50) children;
b. Any outside play area shall not be closer than fifty (50) feet to a property line;
or
c. Any outside play area must be completely enclosed with a minimum four (4)-
foot fence.
Ordinance 04 -035 interim Estate Zone Page 2 of 7
DRAFT
14.615.220 Accessory Uses
1. The keeping of poultry and livestock, excluding swine, is permitted subject to the
following conditions:
a. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock, including but not limited to
any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be
located not less than seventy -five feet from any habitation; and
b. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock, including but not limited to,
any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be
located within the front yard nor be closer than ten feet from any side property line;
c. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines or llama shall be permitted per
gross acre, or
d. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or
e. Any equivalent combination of c. and d. above; and
f. A maximum of one animal or fowl including duck, turkey, goose or similar
domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, nutria, chinchilla or similar animal , may be
raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area or fraction thereof. In addition, a
shed, coop, hutch or similar containment structure must be constructed prior to the
acquisition of any small livestock to ensure containment of the livestock on the
premises.
g. Structures, pens, yards, enclosures, pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean
and sanitary condition. In the event that the City receives complaint(s) concerning
the maintenance of animals on individual premises, the Spokane County
Conservation District will evaluate conditions and propose environmentally
acceptable measures for remediation.
2. Home profession, provided that a home profession permit is obtained;
3. Tower, private, provided:
a. That a building permit for the private tower is obtained, reviewed and signed off by
the Community Development Department
b. The applicant shall furnish a site plan showing height and location of the private
tower;
c. The applicant shall furnish a copy of the tower manufacturer's construction /erection
specifications;
d. The private tower shall be erected in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications;
e. The applicant shall show that the impact area (that area in all directions equal to the
private tower's height above grade) is completely on his /her property. Up to one -half
(1/2) of the tower's impact area in distance may be administratively approved if off of
the applicant's property pursuant to Section 14.506.020(8); or, the applicant has
secured an easement(s) for all property in the towers impact area if not entirely on
his/her ownership. Such easement(s) shall be recorded with the County Auditor. with
a statement that only the Planning Department can remove the recordation;
f. That generally a residence has to be on the same site as the private tower, except for a
private repeater facility or remote base operations;
g. That the height limitation of the zone is not exceeded without approval of a variance
or administrative exception as respectively pertains; and
Ordinance 04 -035 Interim Estate Zone Page 3 of 7
DRAFT
h. That the setbacks for the private tower shall be the accessory use setbacks of the zone
where it is located, if detached, and shall be the primary use setbacks of the zone
where it is located, if attached to the primary use/building of the property.
4. Beekeeping, hobby, provided that:
d. The activity shall be accessory to a residential use only;
e. The number of beehives shall be limited to one (1) beehive per four thousand
three hundred fifty -six (4,356) square feet of lot area up to a maximum of
twenty-five (25) beehives; and
f. The beehives shall maintain at least the accessory use setbacks and be
completely enclosed with a six (6) -foot barrier (solid fence, hedge,
landscaping, etc.) that necessitates the bees flying over; or
g. The beehives shall maintain at least a twenty -five (25) -foot setback from all
property lines and be isolated from public access by a security fence; or
h. The beehives shall maintain at least the accessory use setbacks, be not less than
ten (10) feet in height above grade, and be isolated from public access by a
security fence or located on a restricted access platform.
5. Accessory Structure(s) are permitted under the following provisions:
a.
Lot Size Total Combined Square Footage of
Structure(s) Allowed
i. Less than 30,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. or 10% of lot size
whichever is greater
ii. 30,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre 3,000 sq.ft.
iii. Greater than 1 acre to 2 acres 4,000 sq.ft.
iv. Greater than 2 acres 10% of lot size
b. One accessory structure not exceeding 1,000 square feet, shall be permitted prior to the
construction of a primary use. This structure is not for residential occupancy, business use, or
outside vehicle repair.
6. Wireless communication antenna array, provided:
a. That mounted antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet above the existing structure to
which they are attached.
b. That before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have demonstrated that
all applicable requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal
Aviation Administration and any required aviation easements have been satisfied.
c. That the antenna array is pointed or finished in such a manner to match the existing
structure in which it is placed upon, if possible.
14.615.230 Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically authorized in the UR -1 zone are prohibited, including, but not limited to, the
following:
1 General agriculture use, except as specifically permitted in this section;
4. General industrial use;
5. General commercial use; and
6. Mining.
14.615.240 Conditional Uses
Those uses designated as conditional uses within the UR -3.5 zone on the Residential Zones Matrix,
Chapter 14.605, may be permitted in the UR -1 zone, subject to the same standards and requirements.
Ordinance 04 -035 Interim Estate Zone Page 4 of 7
DRAFT
provided that a conditional use permit authorizing such use has been granted, as set forth in Section
14.404.100.
14.615.300 Development Standards
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of Sections 14.615.305
thru 14.615.355 shall be provided to the Department.
14.615.305 Density
The maximum density of dwelling units in the UR -1 zone shall be one (1) Dwelling units per acre.
14.615.310 Minimum Lot Area
The minimum lot area for residential units in the UR -1 zone shall be 40,000 square feet per residential
unit.
14.615.315 Minimum Frontap
The minimum frontage for residential units in the UR -1 zone shall be eighty (80) feet on a public road or
street.
14.616.325 Minimum Yards
The minimum yards and setbacks for permitted and accessory uses in the UR -1 zone shall be as follows:
A.. All Uses Except Accessory Uses
1. Front Yard: A minimum fifty -five (55) -foot setback the centerline of all roadway rights -of-
way or thirty -five (35) -foot setback from the lot front line, whichever provides the greater
setback from the centerline of the roadway right -of -way.
2. Side Yard: Each lot shall have side yard(s) of at least five (5) feet for each story of building.
3. Flanking Street Yard: A minimum fifty -five (55 )-foot setback from the centerline of all
roadway rights -of -way or thirty -five (35) -foot setback from the existing property line,
whichever provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right -of -way.
4. R.ear Yard: The minimum rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet.
B. Accessory Uses
1. Front Yard: A minimum fifty -five (55) -foot setback from the centerline of all roadway rights -
of -way or twenty-five (35) -foot setback from the lot front line, whichever provides the
greatest setback from the centerline.of the roadway right -of -way.
2. Side Yard:
Structure Height (at peak)
0 -15 feet = S feet
Over 15 feet = 5 feet plus one (1) additional foot for each additional foot of structure
height over 15 feet
Flanking Street Side Yard: A minimum fifty -five (55) -foot setback from the centerline of
all roadway rights -of -way or a thirty-five (35) -foot setback from the existing property
line, whichever provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right -of-
way.
3. Rear Yard:
Structure Height (at peak)
0-15 feet = 5 feet
Ordinance 04 -035 Interim instate Zone Page 5 of 7
r
DRAFT
Over 15 feet = 5 feet plus one (1) additional foot for each additional foot of structure
height over 15 feet
4. Other Yards: No other yards are required beyond those required for "clear view triangle" as
noted in Section 14.810.020 (2) or for other safety and health standards as determined by the
Department.
14.615.330 Maximum Building Coverage
The maximum building coverage in the UR -1 zone shall be thirty percent (30 %) of the lot area.
14.615.335 Maximum Building Weight
The maximum height of buildings or structures in the UR -1 zone shall be thirty -five (35) feet.
14.615.340 Parking Standards
Parking standards for uses in the UR -1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.802.
14.615.345 Signage Standards
Signage standards for uses in the UR -1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.804.
14.615.350 Landscaping Standards
Landscaping standards for uses in the UR -1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.806.
14.615.355 Storage Standards
All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) shall be wholly within a building or shall be
screened from view from the surrounding properties and shall be. accessory to the permitted use on the
site. There shall be no storage in any required front yard or flanking street yard. Vehicle storage shall
conform to the provisions of Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -067, as it may be amended from time to
time.
1:
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Spokane Valley is hereby amended to establish Urban
Residential Estate (UR -1) zoning on two tracts shown as Exhibits "A" and "13"
Section 3. Amendment. The Zoning Code, Section 14.605.020 14.605.080 Residential Use
Matrix is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ".
Section 4. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the Spokane
County Code, or any other law, rule or regulation or Resolution referenced in the attached Development
Regulation is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the
Development Regulations, then such provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule or
regulation is hereby adopted by reference.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication
of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law.
Ordinance 04 -035 interim Estate Zone Page 6 of 7
DRAFT
PASSED by the City Council this day of 2004.
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskcll
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 04 -035 Interim Estate Zone
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Page 7 of 7
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent
❑ information
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
City Manager Sign -off:
X old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration Regarding Full Width Paving Ballot Issue
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Ordinance 04 -029 Authorizing Election
and Property Tax Levy.
BACKGROUND: On July 20, 2004 the Council approved Ordinance 04-029 which if approved
by the voters, would provide $6 million over six years to pay for full width paving of the existing
streets in conjunction with Spokane County's Septic Tank Elimination Program. Property
owners would pay approximately $.21 per thousand dollars of taxable value to support this
program with tax receipts set aside in a dedicated fund for use only on street capital
improvements.
Spokane County's Septic Tank Elimination Program will be constructing sewer lines under
Spokane Valley's streets to eliminate septic tanks and the discharge of septic waste into the
aquifer which provides drinking water to thousands of Spokane Valley citizens. Once the sewer
lines are installed, the County will repave the part of the street where there are sewer trenches.
The City's proposed bond sale would provide funding to install paving in the remaining part of
the street. This will provide new streets for those neighborhoods.
OPTIONS: Support the ballot proposition, not support the measure or take no position.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: That the City Council pass a motion stating its
position on the pending full -width paving ballot issue.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENT:
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent
❑ information
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Issue
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
City Manager Sign -off:
old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
Motion Consideration Regarding Fire District Annexation Ballot
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 52.04 provides for the establishment of fire services
within newly incorporated cities.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On June 22, 2004, the Spokane Valley City Council
approved a motion which placed on the September 14, 2004 ballot a proposition to the qualified
voters of Spokane Valley for approval or rejection of annexation to Spokane County Fire District
One and Spokane County Fire District Eight.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is temporarily annexed to Fire Districts One and
Eight. That temporary annexation expires as of January 1, 2005. During the fall and winter of
2003, the City evaluated a number of various service models.
Ultimately, the City Council chose to submit for voter consideration a proposal to annex to the
two districts. In the community survey (400 randomly selected telephone respondents within the
city) conducted as part of the City's comprehensive plan process, 95% rated the quality of fire
services as good, very good or excellent. Of the five percent who rated fire services as fair or
poor, 62% would not want to pay additional taxes to fund a higher level of service. The proposal
to annex to both fire districts results in the service level as well as the financial status quo for
city residents.
Pursuant to the City's motion on June 22, the Board of County Commissioners has adopted a
resolution placing the annexation election on the September 14, 2004 election date.
OPTIONS: 1) Take a position for or against the ballot measure to annex to Fire Districts One
and Eight; or 2) Take no position.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
(X] information ❑ admin. report d pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In February 2004, Council approved a library service
agreement with the Spokane County Library District (SCLD). On June 29, 2004, staff provided
an update on the work of the Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND: The 2004 Library services agreement with SCLD included the formation of a
Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee. Deputy Mayor Diana Wilhite is the Council
representative on the committee.
The Committee held its last meeting on July 21. It reviewed and approved the final report,
which is attached.
The recommendation calls for an expanded main Valley branch, centrally located within the City
on an arterial. The timeline for this recommendation is within the next ten years. The second
recommendation is to build a smaller satellite branch as the City's population approaches
100,000 — within the next 20 years or so.
The next step of the process is to incorporate the long term library facility needs into the draft
Comprehensive Plan for further public input.
OPTIONS: 1) Include Committee recommendations in the draft Comprehensive Plan; 2)
Modify the recommendations for inclusion in the Plan; or 3) Develop alternative
recommendations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time, though any capital improvements would
require a financial investment.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities: Report and Recommendations
4 Ir0
�� Illl�llll ��
SPOKANE COUNTY
LIBRARY DISTRICT
40
t ''fcid.org
)Administrative Offices
4322 N. Argonne Road
Spokane, WA 99212-1868
admingscld.org
509.924.4122
FAX 509.928.4157
July 23, 2004
The I-Ionorable Michael DeVleming and
City Council
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dear Mayor DeVleming and Council Members:
I'm pleased to transmit to you the enclosed document, Spokane Valley Library Capital
Facilities: Report and Recommendations to the Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane
County Library District. Board of Trustees, which was reviewed and approved by the
Advisory at its July 21 meeting..
1 understand that Deputy City Manager Nina Regor will be formally presenting this
report to you at your August 10 meeting. Unfortunately, 1'11 be on vacation on that
.date and unable to attend. I'm sure that Nina will be able to answer any questions
that you might have,and if she can't I'll be happy to respond to them after 1 get back.
The report will be presented to the District's Board of Trustees at its August 19
regular meeting. _
We look forward to working with the City of Spokane Valley to address its library
capital facility needs. •
Sincerely,
Michael J. Wirt
Director
Enc.
•
SPOKANE VALLEY LIBRARY CAPITAL FACILITIES:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Spokane Valley City Council
& the Spokane County Library District Board of Trustees
Prepared by
Michael J. Wirt, Director
Spokane County Library District
July 23, 2004
PA RIO NO
SPOKANE Cows
LIBRMY DISTRICT'
W A7V t rW.O�g `
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
City of Spokane Valley 5
Spokane County Library District 6
Current Library Facilities Serving Spokane Valley Residents 9
Comparison with Library Facilities in Comparable Washington Cities 12
Spokane Valley Demographics 13
Public Library Facility Standards 16
Community Research 17
Spokane Valley Library Facilities Assessment 22
Research Conclusions 24
Facility Alternatives Considered 25
General Library Planning Considerations 28
Facility Recommendations 29
Financing 31
Spokane Valley Library Space Needs Analysis 33
Appendix A -1 33
Appendix A -2 34
Appendix A -3 35
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Spokane County Library District's 2001 -2003 Strategic Plan included an objective to replace
Valley Library with a larger resource library to serve the Spokane Valley by the end of 2006.
However, with 2001 efforts toward Spokane Valley incorporation, all Spokane Valley facility
planning activities were suspended pending the outcome of the incorporation vote and city
council decision on future library service provision.
A somewhat broader Spokane Valley library capital facilities planning process resumed in
March 2004, with the District contractually responsible in collaboration with the city through an
advisory committee that included District and city representatives.
Spokane Valley Library Services
With incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley was removed from Spokane County Library
District's jurisdiction. However, Spokane Valley property owners continued to pay the
District's property tax levy and continued to receive services through the end of the 2003
incorporation year.
2004 library services are provided through a one -year library services agreement with the City
of Spokane Valley that requires the District to "provide the public library services to residents
of the City at the same service level and upon the same terms and conditions as are now being
provided to all other residents within the District."
Current Library Facilities Serving Spokane Valley Residents
Of the three SCLD branches in the Spokane Valley area, only one —Valley Library at 12004 East
Main Avenue —is located within the City of Spokane Valley. The other two, Argonne (4322 N.
Argonne Road in the Pasadena Park area) and Otis Orchards 22324 East Wellesley in Otis
Orchards) are in the unincorporated area.
As of a May 2004, 35,544 City of Spokane Valley residents were SCLD cardholders. Valley
Library was the primary branch of registration, with Argonne second, and Otis Orchards third
with 3% registered at other SCLD bra.nches. Besides all 10 SCLD branches, over 1,500 residents
had obtained cards from Spokane Public Library with whom SCLD has a reciprocal use
agreement.
Information considered in developing recommendations
Several types of information were considered in developing reco_rnrnendations for future
Spokane Valley library facilities. They included comparisons with library facilities in
comparable Washington cities, Spokane Valley demographics, public library facility standards,
an analysis of current Spokane Valley area libraries, pros and cons of various facility
alternatives, and community research.
Community research
A random sample telephone survey of city residents conducted in late March -early April 2004
explored reactions to a number of proposed facility and service changes currently being
1
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
considered. The survey was also designed to collect information on local library use,
satisfaction with library services, and preferences regarding future library services. 400
interviews were completed and the questionnaire included 88 questions. Precision of estimates
at 95% confidence is ± 4.9% and at 90% confidence is ± 4.1 %.
A community open house held on May 27 was attended by approximately 75 people. 75% lived
within Spokane Valley and represented all geographic areas of the city. The same information
solicited at the open house was also available in printed form from the three Spokane Valley
area branches. Information was obtained on satisfaction with facilities and service, facility
improvement options, preferred library locations if a new main library were to replace the
current Valley Library and for one or two new branches, and willingness to pay for new
libraries.
Research conclusions
An analysis of demographic data, library comparisons, current facilities, and application of
facility standards leads to the conclusion that additional library space is needed to serve
Spokane Valley residents and that expanding the current Valley Library isn't a viable
alternative. However, community input showed a very high level (98%) of overall satisfaction
with SCLD services and a high level of satisfaction with current facilities, even though two
specific areas with lower satisfaction levels —each of which has significant space implications—
are materials availability and public access computer availability. There was only modest
interest in funding new facilities, demonstrating a strong need for co.mmu.nity education about
future library facility needs.
Recommendations
Recommendations use a target Spokane Valley population of 100,000, assume that the libraries
are part of a system, and that residents continue to use all SCLD branches as well as Spokane
Public Library facilities.
1. Spokane Valley library facilities should total approximately 59,000 square feet In light of
the area's geography, population distribution, and existing SCLD branch locations, the total
space should be divided between a "main library" and a future neighborhood library. The
new main library (approximately 49,000 s.f. to serve a primary population target of 80,000)
should replace the existing Valley Library, and be located on an arterial street within
approximately a half mile of the Sprague corridor between Dartmouth and Sullivan Roads.
The estimated cost in 2004 $ is $11.4 million.
2. A neighborhood branch of approximately 15,000 square feet to serve a population target of
20,000 should be added as the city's population increases. Its location would depend upon
the location of the main library, but should be separated by two to three miles. The
estimated cost in 2004 $ is 3.6 million.
In the short term (1 -5 years) make the best of current facilities, determine preferred locations
and potentially purchase site(s), develop funding plan and potentially secure funding, and
initiate a public education program to demonstrate facility needs and library service vision to
residents.
In the mid-term (5 -10 years), secure funding and purchase site(s) if not already done, replace the
Valley Library and sell the existing building. In the long -term (10-20 years), secure funding for
and build a neighborhood branch.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 3
Financing
Capita 1
Voter- approved general obligation bonds are the normal financing method for library projects
of this size. If not annexed to SCLD, a library bond issue proposal is the sole responsibility of
the City, as a library district cannot levy property taxes outside its legal boundaries. If annexed
to SCLD, the district can take the lead, with the most probable option being asking voters to
form a Library Capital Facility Area (LCFA) within the proposed facility's service area, which
could extend beyond the city limits.
Debt service costs (2004 $) for an $11.4 million new main library project are estimated to be
approximately 19c per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($19 per $100,000) in the first year,
decreasing annually with increase in total assessed valuation. The $3.6 million neighborhood
branch would be approximately 6Q per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($6 per $100,000) in the first
year.
Operational
The assumption inherent in this facilities plan is that with an efficient building design and
continuing staff productivity improvements, a larger Valley Library and an eventual new
branch can be operated at normal District funding levels of 50c per $1,000 of assessed valuation,
as has been the case with previous facility expansions.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
Spokane County Library District's 2001 -2003 Strategic Plan included the following objective:
"Replace Valley Library with a larger resource library to serve the Spokane Valley by the end of
2006." Activities related to this objective were scheduled to begin in 2002 with a library service
needs assessment. While Valley Library's space and design limitations were apparent to staff, it
would be necessary to determine facility requirements for an increased materials collection,
increased customer seating, additional computer workstations, and increased meeting and
study room space.
During 2001, a new effort toward Spokane Valley incorporation began and by mid -2002 a
proposal to create the City of Spokane Valley was approved by voters. The new city comprised
a majority of the area traditionally referred to as "the Valley." Because the incorporation
removed the new city from the District's legal service area, all Spokane Valley facility planning
activities were suspended pending a city council decision on future library service provision.
The city's desire to include library capital facilities plaiuung in its 2004 service contract with the
District delayed the commencement of those activities until after the contract's February 2004
approval. The contract placed responsibility for Spokane Valley library capital facilities
planning with the District, in collaboration with the city through an advisory committee that
included District and city representatives. Advisory committee members are:
City of Spokane Valley
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Jennie Willardson, Citizen Appointee
Spokane County Library District
Claudia Parkins, Trustee
Michael J. Wirt, Director
Ellen Miller, Regional Library Manger
The advisory committee met four times between March and July 2004. lt—
• Reviewed and advised on the planning process in genera]. and community open house
format.
• Reviewed results of the telephone survey and the open house feedback.
■ Reviewed background materials on community demographics, SCLD library services to
Spokane Valley residents, and library facilities in comparable Washington cities.
• Used all of the above information as the basis for capital facilities plan
recommendations.
4
Spokane Valley Library Capital facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
The City of Spokane Valley was created in a May 2002 vote, after several incorporation attempts
over the past decade. Its official incorporation date was March 31, 2003. It comprises a
majority, but not all, of the designated Urban Growth Area in the greater Spokane Valley. The
areas traditionally referred to as "the Valley" that aren't in the new city include the far
northwest residential area (Pasadena Park and Northwood); far south residential areas
including Painted Hills and Bella Vista; the eastern Valley area of Otis Orchards, East Farms,
and Newman Lake; as well as the Town of Millwood.
Spokane Valley's 2004 population is estimated by the state Office of Financial Management at
83,950. Another estimated 15,000 - 20,000 residents live in the u.ni.ncorporated Spokane Valley.
The city's 38.5 square mile land area includes virtually the entire Valley commercial and
industrial base. The 2004 population density is 2,181; lower than most of the state's larger cities.
Under the state's Growth Management Act (GMA), population growth is allocated among
urban and rural areas. The state's Office of Financial Management provides county 20 -year
population projections, and the local allocations are determined by the county legislative
authority, in Spokane County's case, the Board of County Commissioners. The City of Spokane
Valley allocation hasn't yet been made; however, a 15,000 population increase is currently being
used as an estimate.
The most population growth is occurring in the eastern and southeastern portion of the city. An
April 2004 Central Valley School District report indicates that the highest areas of school
enrollment growth will be in the Greenacres area, but that Adams (Veradale) and Broadway
(central) Elementary schools will also be over capacity by 2008.
The city is currently developing its comprehensive plan, including a capital facilities plan, as
required by GMA. The city council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan in the
interim until a Spokane Valley plan can be developed and approved. It includes a library Level
of Service (LOS) requirement of 0.41 square feet of library facilities per capita, slightly less than
the actual 0.43 square feet per capita at the time of plan adoption. The draft city vision is
"Spokane Valley: a community of opportunity where families and individuals can grow and
play, and businesses will flourish and prosper."
Consistent with the city council intent that most services be provided by outside contract, only
building, planning. engineering, permitting, code enforcement, and recreation services are
handled by city employees. Law enforcement, road maintenance, parks maintenance, animal
control, and wastewater treatment are provided by Spokane County; fire and emergency
medical services by Spokane Valley Fire District; and library services by Spokane County
Library District.
The city is served primarily by three school districts: East Valley, Central Valley and West
Valley. They have a combined total of 18 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, 3 conventional
high schools, an alternative high school., and 3 other specialized educational facilities. In
addition, the Spokane School District operates one elementary school within the city.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 6
Spokane Valley Library Services
With incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley was removed from Spokane County Library
District's jurisdiction. However, under state law Spokane Valley property owners continued to
pay the District's property tax levy and continued to receive services through the end of the
2003 incorporation year.
One SCLD branch —Valley Library —is located within the city limits. The other two libraries
serving Spokane Valley residents — Argonne and Otis Orchards —are in the unincorporated
Valley.
2004 library services are provided through a one -year library services agreement with the City
of Spokane Valley that requires the District to "provide the public library services to residents
of the City -at the same service level and upon the same terms and conditions as are now being
provided to all other residents within the District."
SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
Established by a 1942 vote of the electorate of unincorporated Spokane County, Spokane
County Library District continues to provide public library services to the 119,844 residents of
the unincorporated county, the 19,846 residents in the eight cities and towns annexed to the
District for library services (Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood,
Rockford and Waverly), and 86,393 residents of cities contracting for library services (Airway
Heights and Spokane Valley). Three municipalities, Spokane, Liberty Lake and Spangle, aren't
served by the District.
One of 28 library districts in Washington State, SCLD serves the 8th largest population of all
state public libraries, district and municipal. In 2002 (the latest available statistics) it was 10th in
total operating expenditures but40th in operating expenditures per capita. By comparison,
Spokane Public Library, which serves a slightly lower population, was 8th in total operating
expenditures and 21st in operating expenditures per capita.
As with other library districts, SCLD operates as a system with centralized administrative and
support functions, with its 10 -branch libraries serving only as public service outlets. The
410,000 -item library materials collection has also been developed to support the system concept
and through a networked computer system and Web site, library cardholders have access to
materials in any branch.
Primary library district funding is a dedicated property tax levy set by the Legislature at a
maximum of 304' per $1000 of valuation on real and personal property within the District. It is
levied against property in the unincorporated county and a.n.nexed cities and. towns. Like most
library districts, SCLD has traditionally charged contracting cities and towns an annual fee
based on the levy rate in the remainder of the District.
Spokane Valley Library Capital facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 7
2004 - 2006 Strategic Plan
Spokane County Library District's 2004 -2006 Strategic Plan was developed with the
assumptions that excellence must be defined locally, excellence rests more on commitment than
on unlimited resources, and excellence is a moving target and must be continually maintained.
The foundation for the plan is a community vision and community needs identified by 60
community leaders and representatives in interviews conducted by District trustees and staff.
As a member of the larger community, Spokane County Library District has an obligation to
work with other agencies, organizations, and individuals to help meet these needs to achieve
the vision. To that end, the District's mission and goals, and activities undertaken to achieve
those goals are intended to help meet the community's needs.
The Strategic Plan drives services and programs offered by SCLD.
Mission statement
l
Spokane County Library District gives residents of all ages the means to grow and learn
throughout their lives; to get answers to their questions; to find, evaluate, and use information
effectively; to satisfy recreational reading interests; and to meet and interact with others in the
community.
Goals
1. Community members will have information and answers to questions on a broad
variety of topics related to their work, school, and personal life.
2. Popular books, book - related activities, and information on current issues and events will
be available to adults.
3. Community residents will have the skills needed to find, evaluate, and use information
resources of all types.
4. Children will have an environment and the resources that encourage reading and
learning.
5. Teens and adults will have resources for personal growth and enrichment.
6. individuals and groups in the community will have public space and an environment
that is recognized as inviting and neutral for meeting, gathering, and learning about
community activities and events.
Services
In carrying out the strategic plan, SCLD provides a typical range of public library services. At
the core is a general interest library materials collection at all reading and interest levels and in a
variety of formats— print, audio - visual, and electronic.
Access to materials is facilitated for customers through an online catalog, available in libraries
and on the Web, that includes value added .information such as cover art, reviews, and plot
summaries. In addition, staff provide reference assistance — helping customers find specific
information —and readers' advising — helping customers find what they'd like to read. Most
physical materials can be checked out and most electronic resources can be accessed both in the
library and remotely.
In addition to the online catalog and Web site, technology- related services include self -
checkout; online holds placement; online databases; in- library Internet access; computers with
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 8
office reference, and educational software. The Web site extends library hours by providing
remote access to a variety of information and services besides the catalog, such as holds
placement, customer account information access, online database access, Internet workstation
booking, book lists, and an extensive list of Web site links, arranged by subject.
Young people's programs, all aimed at fostering a love of reading and learning, are a service
keystone. Storytime programs are offered for children through pre - school age throughout the
year and an annual summer reading program targets school age children and teens. Monthly
after school programs are also offered. Regular adult -level programming is also offered.
SCLD's commitment to the communities it serves is carried out through availability of meeting
and conference rooms to the public; public bulletin board space ineach branch; and making
branch space available for distribution of information from community organizations.
Facilities
SCLD's 10 facilities total 96,600 square feet of space, approximately 15% of which is devoted to
administrative and support services — 12,000 square feet in the Argonne Road facility and 2,500
square feet in the Valley Library facility. This amounts to about 0.43 square feet per capita,
slightly below the 0.46 average for libraries serving over 100,000 population in Washington
State.
SCLD's first branch was the Valley Library, opened in 1955. Until a new North Spokane branch
was opened in 1972, the only other facility owned by the District was the small Orchard Avenue
Library, located in the West Valley area in an old fire station on Park Road. Branches in
contracting cities and towns were located in small facilities provided by the municipality. From
1968 through 1979 the District's headquarters operations were located at 11811 E. First.
Because the District's relatively modest physical plant limited both services and materials
collection size, SCLD began a facility upgrade program i,n the n-t,id -1980s with a major expansion
and renovation of the Valley Library funded by a District -wide voter- approved property tax
levy lid override. The District assisted the City of Cheney with plans for a new library building
that was opened in 1988, and provided the furniture, equipment and shelving.
A 1988 voter - approved $5 million bond issue provided funds for the Cheney project, as well as
expansion of the North Spokane branch (1990); relocation of the Argonne branch and support
services to a new building (1990); furniture, equipment, and shelving for the new Medical Lake
branch built by the city (1991); construction of a new branch in Otis Orchards (1992); a
technology upgrade; and major materials collection purchases. The focus of the facility projects
in this capital program was the suburban service area — the Spokane Valley and the North side.
In 1996 voters approved $7.65 million in bond funding for another capital improvement
program. Beside further technology upgrades and materials collection enhancements, this
program focused on the smaller cities and rural areas served by SCLD. The Cheney and
Fairfield branches were expanded and updated (1997 and 1999, respectively) and the Airway
Heights and Deer Park branches were replaced with new buildings (1997 and 1998,
respectively). In addition, there were interior and exterior renovations at Valley Library (1998)
and in support services (1997). Though not part of the original plan, investment earnings from
bond proceeds allowed the purchase of furniture, equipment, shelving, and materials for a new
Moran Prairie storefront branch in the South suburban area as well as the site for a permanent
branch (2000).
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 9
2001 -2003 Strategic Plan called for planning to begin to replace Valley Library with a larger
facility by 2006 and to assess North suburban 1.ibrary facility needs. The former was postponed
due to Spokane Valley incorporation; the latter has been postponed pending a resolution of
long -term library services plans for the City of Spokane Valley.
CURRENT LIBRARY FACILITIES SERVING SPOKANE VALLEY RESIDENTS
As of a May 2004 analysis of cardholder addresses and branch of registration, 35,544 City of
Spokane Valley residents were SCLD cardholders. Valley Library was the primary branch of
registration (80 %), with Argonne second (13 %) and Otis Orchards third (4 %). The other 3%
registered at other SCLD branches, including 61 at Airway Heights, 123 at Cheney, 47 at Deer
Park, 23 at Fairfield, 44. at Medical Lake, 212 at Moran Prairie, and 407 at North Spokane.
Another 245 are outreach service customers. This is typical of library card registration patterns,
given the overall mobility of county residents and their being accustomed to using the branch
most convenient to them, whether to their residence, place of work, school, shopping, or family
members.
As is evident from library card registration patterns, Spokane Valley residents' library use
extends beyond the City and even "the Valley." Besides all 10 SCLD branches, over 1,500
residents have obtained cards from Spokane Public Library with whom SCLD has a reciprocal
use agreement. Requested materials may come from any branch and SCLD's Web site affords
access to many services without having to visit a library.
This report, however, focuses on those facilities in and geographically nearest the city.
Valley Library
The branch most used by city residents is the Valley Library, located at 12004 East Main Avenue
near the Pines and Sprague intersection. It has been located there for almost 50 years. The
building also houses the District's outreach services department (hall of whose services are
provided within Spokane Valley) and information technology department. It also serves as the
regional resource library for one of SCLD's two administrative regions that includes the Valley,
Argonne, Otis Orchards, Fairfield, and Moran Prairie branches.
The original facility was occupied in 1955 as the District's first branch and its headquarters. A
major expansion and renovation more than doubled its size in 1987. There have been minor
space reallocations since then to respond to changing use patterns, the most significant just
recently completed.
Sta tistics
Size: approx. 22,100 s.f. (excluding District support uses)
• Collection size: 106,753 volumes (June 2004)
• Periodical titles: 271
• Seating: total =86; adult lounge=16, at tables =51; teen lounge =0, at tables =3; children
lounge =8, at tables =8
• Public catalog /database workstations: 15
• Public Internet workstations: 13
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 10
• Public software workstations: 4
• Specialized public workstations: 2
• Meeting room capacity: 100 seated
• Conference room capacity: 8
• Parking capacity: 65
Argonne Library
The branch next most used by Spokane Valley residents is the Argonne Library, 4322 North
Argonne Road, in the Pasadena Park area north of the city limits. Its primary service area is the
West Valley and Trentwood areas, but its location on the Argonne corridor makes it convenient
for commuters.
The current building, which also houses the District's administrative and support operations,
was occupied in 1990. It replaced a much smaller leased facility on the corner of Argonne Road
and Grace Avenue in Millwood, two blocks north of Trent.
Statistics
• Size: approx. 8,000 s.f. (of the 20,000 s.f. building)
• Collection size: 42,626 volumes (June 2004)
• Periodical titles: 138
• Seating: total =70; adult lounge =9, at tables =35; teen lounge =4, at tables =8; children
lounge =6, at tables=8
• Public catalog /database workstations: 3
• Public Internet workstations: 5
• Public software workstations: 2
• Meeting room capacity: 50 seated
• Conference room capacity: 8
• Parking capacity: 75
Otis Orchards Library
The Otis Orchards Library, 22324 East Wellesley Avenue in Otis Orchards, is just east of
Harvard Road. About 15% of its registered customers have City of Spokane Valley addresses.
It's closest to the Trentwood and north Greenacres areas.
The Otis Orchards Library opened in 1992 as a new branch to serve the East Valley area.
Statistics
• Size: 6,000 s.f.
• Collection size: 26,582 volumes (June 2004)
• Periodical titles: 109
• Seating: total =35; adult lounge =7, at tables =14; teen lounge=4, at tables =2; children
lounge =8, at tables =0
• Public catalog /database workstations: 3
• Public Internet workstations: 3
• Public software workstations: 2
• Meeting room capacity: 25 seated
• Conference room capacity: n/a
• Parking capacity: 29
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 11
Administrative Offices
SCLD's Ad_rninistrative Offices, located at 4322 North Argonne Road in the same building
housing the Argonne Library, provides a variety of services for the District as a whole,
including administrative, HR, payroll, purchasing, facilities maintenance, public information,
graphics, library materials collection, and adult and children's program support. These
functions are integral to each library's operation and their centralisation P1i mina tes the need to
devote branch staff and space for them. For example, all library materials are selected., ordered,
received, cataloged, and processed at the Administrative Offices, so they arrive in libraries
already in the catalog database and ready to be shelved.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Sources: WA State Dept. of Revenue; WA State Office of Financial Mgt; WA State Library
Notes:
1. The latest available library data is for 2002 so 2002 population data is also used.
2. There were 225 cities within counties that have a library district; 161 were annexed, 45 contract, and 19 independent.
12
COMPARISON WITH LIBRARY FACILITIES IN COMPARABLE WASHINGTON CITIES
1 In this context, "central" Means main library for independent cities and large regional branch for cities affiliated with library districts.
2 Combined square footage and combined collection size if more than one branch.
3 Square footage includes all library system administrative and support services space.
4 Estimate only; city wasn't incorporated until 2003.
5 2004 collection total lower than this 2002 number as the result of a major weeding project in 2003 -2004.
i
2002
libraries
population
status
central]
size /s.f.
collection?
bra.nch(es)
size/s.f.
collection?
50,000 to 100,000 population
Everett
96,070
Independent
1
55,000 3
320,705
1
8,500
6,774
Kent
84,275
Annexed
1
22,600
155,066
Federal Way
83,850
Annexed
1
25,000
206,340
1
10,800
79,675
Spokane Valley
82,500 4
fart of District
1
22,100
126,794 s
Yakima
79,1.20
Contract
1
42,960
296,108
2
7,830
65,984
Bellingham
69,260
Independent
1
44,000 3
310,580
• 1
10,250
20,000
Lakewood
58,662
Annexed
1
35,600
175,367
Kennewick
56,280
Annexed
1
32,500
233,023
1
20,440
36,340
Renton
53,840
independent
'1
22,200
144,648
1
6,600
39,545
Shoreline
53,250
Annexed
1
20,000
188,055
100,000 - 150,000 population
Vancouver
148,800
Annexed
1
36,000 3
266,626
3
24,000
149,122
Bellevue
117,000
Annexed
1
80,000
597,409
1
9,140
67,768
150,000+ population
195,500
Inde endent
1
116,885 3
n/a
5
62,700
rr a
S }okane
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Sources: WA State Dept. of Revenue; WA State Office of Financial Mgt; WA State Library
Notes:
1. The latest available library data is for 2002 so 2002 population data is also used.
2. There were 225 cities within counties that have a library district; 161 were annexed, 45 contract, and 19 independent.
12
COMPARISON WITH LIBRARY FACILITIES IN COMPARABLE WASHINGTON CITIES
1 In this context, "central" Means main library for independent cities and large regional branch for cities affiliated with library districts.
2 Combined square footage and combined collection size if more than one branch.
3 Square footage includes all library system administrative and support services space.
4 Estimate only; city wasn't incorporated until 2003.
5 2004 collection total lower than this 2002 number as the result of a major weeding project in 2003 -2004.
i
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
The primarY source for the most current detailed U.S. demographic information is the 2000
Census, which provides breakdowns by counties, cities, and a variety of sub -areas such as
census tracks, designated areas, and blocks. Because the City of Spokane Valley wasn't yet
incorporated in 2000, census information specific to the city isn't available.
The report, A Demographic and Economic Analysis for the Spokane Valley, prepared by the Institute
for Public Policy and Economic Analysis, Eastern Washington University, provides the best
available Spokane Valley economic and demographic information based on an analysis of 2000
Census data. It compiles data from the sub -areas that most closely approximate the geographic
area of the city. Most of those, however, include some unincorporated area.
The remainder of this section is excerpted verbatim from the above EWU report; therefore,
quotations marks have been omitted.
13
SPOKANE VALLEY DEMOGRAPHICS
Population demographics
Population, age, race, family, and housing characteristics can provide important information
regarding the types of public services that residents are likely to value —for example, a city with
a majority of residents who are at or close to retirement will face different demands for services
than a city with a majority of residents who are in the prime of their working lives.
The population of the Spokane Valley area is approaching 100,000 [Note: the 2004 State of
Washington Office of :Financial Management population estimate for the City of Spokane Valley
is 83,950]. From 1990 to 2000, the population grew from 83,557 to 96,466, or 1.4% on an
annualized basis. By comparison, the population of the country, state, and county grew at 1.2 %,
1.9 %, and 1.5% respectively, on an annualized basis. If the Valley's population growth
continues to average 1.4% per year, it will take roughly 51 years for the population to double
from its current level. By comparison, if the Valley's average growth rate increases to that of the
state, (1.9 %), it will take only 37 years to double.
The mean age of Valley area residents is approximately 36 (the median age in the US is about
35). This means that the majority of people are in the prime of their working lives. In terms of
race, the Valley area has a relatively more homogeneous population compared to the U.S. as a
whole -94% of the population reported as "white" compared to 75% for the U.S.
In terms of family demographics, the Valley area compared to the U.S. as a whole has a
comparable population of family households (68% of all households), female householders with
no husband present (11%), and householders 65 years and older (9 %). The Valley's average
family size (3.05) implies that most family households are caring for at least one child. Finally,
the housing occupancy and tenure statistics indicate that approximately 94% of housing units
are occupied and 68% of all housing units are owner occupied; for the U.S. as a whole, the same
percentages are 91.% and 66%, respectively. These statistics indicate that home ownership is
slightly more widespread in the Valley area.
Since the Valley area has a significant number of home - owning families with at least one child,
issues such as school quality, the availability of parks and recreation services, and other related
issues will likely be important for the new city. For obvious reasons, these same issues can also
play an important role in a city's ability to attract new firms and their employees.
POPULATION
Number
Percent
Total population
96,466
100
Under 18 years
25,914
26.9
18 years and over
70,552
73.1
6 Years and over
14,025
14.5
87.0
% with bachelor's degree or higher
19.4
HOUSEI -IOLOS
27.7
% with professional or graduate degree
Total households
37,798
100
Family households (families)
25,698
68.0
With own children under 18 years
12,822
33.9
Householder living alone
9,833
26.0
Households 65 years and older .
3,425
9.1
Households with individuals under 18 years
13,345
35.3
Households with individuals 65 years and over
7,994
211
Average household size
2.58
Average family size
3.05
Category
Spokane
Valley
County
State
Population 25 years and Over
% with less than a 9th grade education
3.0
32.9
4.3
hi h school graduate or higher
88.9
89.1
87.0
% with bachelor's degree or higher
19.4
25
27.7
% with professional or graduate degree
5.7
8.7
9.3
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 14
Educational attainment
Spokane Valley Area Summary Demographic Data, Census 2000
(includes some unincorporated areas)
Educational Attainment in the Spokane Valley Area, Census 2000
The percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree or higher is lower relative to the county and
the state. In part, this reflects the limited opportunities in medium size cities, like the Valley, for
employment in industries that require advanced degrees. Therefore, when an individual
finishes his or her degree locally, they are often compelled to leave the area to find work in their
field. This is one reason why smaller localities have a difficult time retaining workers that
would be attractive to cutting -edge industries such as biotechnology. Consequently, holding
other influences constant, a new city cannot expect to increase its income growth unless the
shares of residents with a bachelor's degree, professional degree, or graduate degree grow.
Employment
Compared to the county and the state, the proportions of Valley occupations in the sales and
office categories are relatively high. In general, the data reflect the movement over the last half -
century to a non - manufacturing, non - agricultural based economy. In terms of government
employment, the proportion of the Valley's labor force employed by government (12 %) is
noticeably lower than that of the county (16 %) or the state (17 %).
Region
Median
household
Median Family
Median Family
Ratio "
Yardley
$ 29,680
$ 40,941
0.86
Itti]lwood (excluding Town of Millwood)
30,995
38,091
0.80
Dishrnan-Mica (some UA °)
45,589
54,307
1.15
Opportunity
38,454
44,677
0.94
Veradale - Shelley Lake (some UAI
45,052
50,722
1.07
Greenacres (some, UA *)
38,710
42,282
0.89
Trentwood
37,870
44,313
0.93
Mount Spokane (some WV')
55,750
30,743
1.08
Otis Orchards -East Farms (some UA *)
42,891
46,068
0.97
Category
Spokane
Valley
County
State
% in management, professional and related occupations
28.8
33.0
35.6
% in service occupations
15.5
16.9
14.9
% in sales and office occupations
30.3
28.4
25.9
% in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
0.3
0.4
1.6
% in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations
9.7
8.6
9.4
in production, transportation, and material moving occupations
'15.3
12.7
1.2.7
% government workers (Local, state, federal)
12.3
15.7
16.5
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Occupations of Spokane Valley Area Residents, Census 2000
15
Median income and poverty rates
The median income in the Valley area compares favorably with the county, but is below that for
the state. However, the difference between the state's median income and the Valley area's is
heavily influenced by King County and Kaiser Aluminum's employment reductions. In terms
of regions within the Valley, the Dishman -Mica, Veradale- Shelley Lake, and Mount Spokane
areas represent above average income areas; in contrast, incomes in the Yardley and Millwood
areas stand out as below average.
Income in Spokane Valley Area Regions, Census 2000
* UA Unincorporated area
"* Ratio of an area's median family income to the median family income for the Valley area
The Valley area, as compared to the state, has a higher proportion of households and families in
the middle income ($25,000 to $74,999) and lower income categories (less than $10,000 to
524,999). The proportion of households and families in the higher income categories ($75,000 to
more than $200,000) is lower than that for the state. The Valley's income distribution is
relatively tight around the median household and family incomes, but slightly skewed m the
direction of the 1os'er income categories.
Poverty rate data show that the Valley area as a whole has lower poverty rates than the state
and the county across all four categories. This could be due to a higher labor force participation
rate in the Valley, or a larger proportion of two income families. Within the Valley, the Yardley,
Millwood, Dishnlan -Mica, and Trentwood areas stand out with higher than average poverty
rates in one or more categories.
`� J
Region
All Ages
Families:
Children
Under 18
65 Years &
Over
'Yu of All
Families
Yardley
15.6%
24.l%
11.9%
12.4%
Millwood (excluding Town of Millwood)
12.8
16.6
9.1
10.3
Dishman -Mica (some UA *)
10.3
16.5
5.9
7.8
Opportunity
8.9
10.9
6.0
6.1
Veradale- Shelley Lake (some UA *)
5.7
33
75
2.9
Greenacres (some UA *)
9.0
11.7
33
5.8
Trentwood
9.7
103
12.9
9.1
Mount Spokane (some UA *)
6.8
8.8
6.1
4.8
Otis Orchards East Farms (some UA *)
6.0
5.7
10.5
4.5
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Poverty in Spokane Valley Area Regions, Census 2000
16
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITY STANDARDS
National standards for public libraries are no longer published; all planning is local based on
community needs. However, one state has its own standards (Wisconsin) and another
(Colorado) is currently developing them. Nolan Lushington's Libraries Designed for Users; A 21s
Centunj Guide includes some standards information. In addition, as previously mentioned,
Spokane County's Capital Facilities Plan includes a Level of Service measure for libraries.
As described below, these three methods for determining library space needs result in a range
of 41,000 to 68,000 gross square feet of facilities.
Wisconsin
The "Needs Assessment -A Starting Point" chapter in the State of Wisconsin's Wisconsin Library
Building Project Handbook by Anders C. Dahlgren explains how to compute an estimate of ideal
collection size, seating, and building space needed for a target population. The caveat in their
materials collection formula is that it's based on an independent library without access to a
system collection rather than a branch.
Based on the 2004 Spokane Valley population of 83,950 and an estimated 15,000 GMA
population allocation, a reasonable target population is 100,000. Using this relatively detailed
approach would require a maximum materials collection size of 250,000 books and 10,000
audio - visual materials, which could be reduced by some amount for a system branch. 200 seats
(lounge and at tables) would be required. There are no formulas for the number of computer
workstations or meeting room seating, but based on current numbers, 60 computer
workstations and two 100 -seat meeting rooms would appear to be appropriate.
Applying standard library space allocation formulas, approximately 59,000 gross square feet of
building space would be required to accommodate the above public service areas and requisite
staff work areas. This is a reasonable library space needs estimate for a single building serving
a city of 100,000. When spread over more than one building, the total increases due to the need
for duplication of resources and required space.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 17
Colorado
A Colorado State Library task force is currently developing new standards for the state's public
libraries, with a June 18, 2004 preliminary draft document available for comment. The
proposed facility - related standards are calculated from on actual 2003 measures for Colorado's
public libraries and are set forth in terms of Essential (50% of libraries are at or above the level);
Enhanced (75% of the libraries are at or above) and Comprehensive (95% of libraries are at or
above this level). The Enhanced Level, besides providing space for accessing and using
materials, also provides space for some specialized library usage such as study rooms and
storytime space.
While these standards, like Wisconsin's, include specific recornmendations for the library
materials collection, they also include a shortcut for total facility square footage that's not part
of Wisconsin's. Rather than determining collection size, seating, computer workstations, etc.,
and calculating the space required for them, square footage per capita standards are given for
the three service levels based on population. Assuming use of the Enhanced. Level for Spokane
Valley would require 68,000 square feet of space -0.68 square feet per capita.
Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan Level of Service
The Spokane County Comprehensive Flan Capital Facilities Plan specifies a minimum Level of
Service (LOS) for public libraries of 0.41 square feet of space per capita. This number is based
solely on actual Spokane County Library District square footage after the construction of the
new Moran Prairie branch.
Applying this LOS to Spokane Valley's target population results in the need for 41,000 square
feet of library space.
COMMUNITY RESEARCH
Introduction
Because public libraries are community based, public library facility planning must be
community based. Perceptions and opinions of constituents — cardholders and non - cardholders
alike— should be determined and considered, along with other relevant factors. Two methods
were used to obtain feedback on current library services and. the facilities from which they're
provided — a random sample telephone survey and a community open house.
Random sample telephone survey
In March 2004, SCLD commissioned Strategic Research Associates to conduct a telephone
survey among heads -of- households, age 18 or older, living in the City of Spokane Valley. The
survey's primary objective was to explore reactions to a number of proposed facility and service
changes currently being considered. The survey was also designed to collect information on
local library use, satisfaction l.ri.th library services, and preferences regarding future library
services.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 18
400 interviews were completed between March 31 and Apri110, 2004. The questionnaire
included 88 questions. A single interview took, on average, 17 minutes to administer. Precision
of estimates at 95% confidence is ± 4.9% and at 90% confidence is ± 4.1 %. Margins -of -error for
sub- groups (for example, females or those with children) are less precise.
Characteristics of library users
Two - thirds (67 %) of the 400 respondents reported a household member (adult or child) having
visited a local library within the last 12 months. About one -third (32%) said at least one
household member visits a local library at least once a month. Library use was primarily
associated with parental status and education. Those with children and the more highly
educated were significantly more likely than others to report frequent library visits. Younger to
middle -aged adults were also more likely to visit, but this was primarily due to the relationship
between age and parental status. The presence of children in the household helps to drive
library use.
Household use of local libraries and library services
Two - thirds (66%) said an adult household member had visited a public library within the past
12 months, 22% had visited a Web site of a public library, and 20% had called a public library to
get reference information. (For households with children, the comparable children's use rates
were 70%, 15%, and 9 %, respectively.) Among past library visitors, most (86 %) had checked out
library materials, 56% had used reference services, and about a third (31 %) had used library
computers. Only 9% had attended a library program or event and only 8% had used a library
meeting room. Correlations between pairs of activities were generally low, indicating that
participation in one does not necessarily lead to participation in another. Among children
having visited local libraries, 91% had checked out library materials, 42% had used the library
for homework assistance, and 27% had used library computers. Among all respondents, 48%
said a household member had visited the Valley Library and 18 %, the Argonne Library. Only
7% reported a visit to the Downtown (Spokane) Library.
Satisfaction with local library services
Among the 233 with a favorite library (for most, either the Valley or Argonne Library),
satisfaction levels with that library were high. Most (77 %) indicated they were "very likely" to
continue using it. Those using the Argonne Library were significantly more satisfied with its
parking than were Valley Library users, but otherwise, satisfaction levels did not differ
significantly between the two facilities. Overall, library visitors were most satisfied with
customer service, location, atmosphere, seating, and turnaround time for materials. They were
least satisfied with the number of adult programs, availability of meeting rooms, convenience of
hours, and availability of new materials. Those with children were most satisfied with
children's customer service and least satisfied with materials and services for teens.
Preferences regarding Valley -area library services
Respondents were asked to rate their degree of support or opposition to three facility concepts.
The overall results leaned toward m.id.dle -cost concept "A" (build a main library but keep
Argonne and Otis Orchards Libraries as is). Thirty -eight percent (38 %) favored it, while 33%
were opposed. Frequent library visitors were much more likely than others to support "A."
Lower -cost concept "C" (build three smaller neighborhood libraries) was next, with 22%
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan_ Report and Recommendations 19
favoring it and 55% opposed. A disproportionate number expressed concern that the smaller
facilities envisioned by "C" would yield fewer services. Higher -cost concept "B" (build a main
library and move the Argonne Library) performed poorly: only 14% favored it, and 62% were
opposed. Many respondents objected to the anticipated tax increase associated with "5" and to
the proposal to move the Argonne Library.
Regarding Spokane Valley libraries, respondents tended to favor the following:
• Keep libraries closed on Sundays.
• Keep current staffing and library hours.
• Keep the funding emphasis between books and materials versus on -line resources as
now (although one -third favored more for books and other materials).
• Keep adult and youth funding allocations as they are now (although 30% recommended
increases in youth services).
• Keep libraries in neighborhood locations:
Enticements to increase library use
Over half (52 %) said having more new materials available would make their household
members at least a little more likely to use Valley libraries. Three other items - having longer
operating hours, faster tuniaround, and improved parking - produced enticement scores that
were above - average (relative to all the items tested). Frequent library visitors were significantly
more likely than others to be enticed by new materials, longer hours, and more comfortable
seating. For children, improving their programs and events, improving the adequacy of their
materials, and increasing the number of programs for them produced the highest youth
enticement scores. •
Community open house
Attendance
Approximately 75 people attended the May 27 community open house at Valley Library to
provide input on Spokane Valley library services and facilities. Of those attendees who
identified the location of their residence on the map, 75% lived within Spokane Valley and
represented all geographic areas of the city. Non -city residents were primarily from the
Pasadena Park and Northwood areas.
The same information solicited at the open house was also available in printed form from the
three Spokane Valley area branches. 62 packets were completed and returned, representing
58% Spokane Valley and 39% non -city residents.
The open house was publicized primarily through Spokane Valley area library branches and the
SCLD Web site, although articles in the Valley edition of the Spokesman Review also drew
attention to the event. Even with the external publicity, those attending the open house and
responding to the questionnaire were largely self - selected library users.
Questions
Input was sought on areas similar to that of the telephone survey, but much less detailed. They
included satisfaction with facilities and services, facility options that were somewhat different
from those in the telephone survey, preferred locations for future facilities, and potential capital
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 20
costs. Attendees and respondents also had the opportunity to provide open- ended comments
on each subject area and in general.
Satisfaction with facilities and services
The following table shows "very satisfied" and "moderately satisfied" ratings for respondents
who noted Valley Library or Argonne Library as their primary library. It also shows those who
responded that they "don't know." The sample for Otis Orchards was too small to provide
useful information.
The "not very satisfied" and "not at all satisfied" responses aren't included but can easily be
inferred. The highest dissatisfaction level was for Valley Library ease of parking at 7 %.
Facility improvement options
Respondents were asked to each of the following facility improvement options, the first
two not requiring an increase in annual operating funds but the third and fourth having higher
operational costs.
1.. Leave all three libraries just as they are now
2. Replace Valley Library with a new, larger main library; leave the Argonne and Otis
Orchards branches as they are now
3. Leave all three libraries just as they are now and add one or two branches in Spokane
Valley
4. Replace Valley Library with a new, larger main library; add one or two branches in
Spokane Valley, leaving the Argonne and Otis Orchards branches as they are now
They were also offered the opportunity to create their own vision as a 5th option.
Valley Libr
Very
Argonne Library
Moderate
Don't
know
Rating factor
Very
Moderate
Don't
know
Convenience of location
90%
10%
0%
90%
7%
0%
Convenience of hours
76%
21%
0%
85%
5%
0%
Ease of parking
68%
26%
0%
97%
3%
0%
Sufficient seating
81%
10%
7%
97%
3%
0%
Sufficient Internet computers
57%
12%
30%
92%
4%
4%
Public meeting room availability
63%
13%
24%
85%
4%
11%
General library atmosphere
87%
12%
0%
97%
3%
0%
Customer service
99%
196
0%
96%
4%
0%
New materials availability
83%
11 %
3%
90%
10%
0%
Number of adult programs
33%
8%
59%
50%
25%
25%
.. Getting materials when needed
86%
11%
1%
93%
7%
0%
Adequacy of children's materials
93%
7%
0%
92%
8%
0%
Number of children's programs
75%
8%
17%
91%
9%
0%
Materials and services for teens
58%
5%
37%
85%
896
8%
Customer service for children
91.%
7%
0%
92%
8%
Oro
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 20
costs. Attendees and respondents also had the opportunity to provide open- ended comments
on each subject area and in general.
Satisfaction with facilities and services
The following table shows "very satisfied" and "moderately satisfied" ratings for respondents
who noted Valley Library or Argonne Library as their primary library. It also shows those who
responded that they "don't know." The sample for Otis Orchards was too small to provide
useful information.
The "not very satisfied" and "not at all satisfied" responses aren't included but can easily be
inferred. The highest dissatisfaction level was for Valley Library ease of parking at 7 %.
Facility improvement options
Respondents were asked to each of the following facility improvement options, the first
two not requiring an increase in annual operating funds but the third and fourth having higher
operational costs.
1.. Leave all three libraries just as they are now
2. Replace Valley Library with a new, larger main library; leave the Argonne and Otis
Orchards branches as they are now
3. Leave all three libraries just as they are now and add one or two branches in Spokane
Valley
4. Replace Valley Library with a new, larger main library; add one or two branches in
Spokane Valley, leaving the Argonne and Otis Orchards branches as they are now
They were also offered the opportunity to create their own vision as a 5th option.
Spokane Malley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
21
The Option 5 comments strongly favored leaving things as they are, more or less repeating
Option 1.
Librarl locations
Respondents were asked to suggest library locations for each the three following scenarios.
Because of the open - ended nature of the question, responses can't be shown in a table format.
1. If a new main library was to replace the current Valley Library
About 35% of responses preferred a Pines and Sprague area location: a new site, an
expansion of the existing building, or replacing the existing building on the same
site. Another 15 % mentioned locations west of Pines, primarily to the University
intersection.
The next largest group, about 20%, suggested. a location east of Pines to as far as the
Sullivan area. This included use of the former Safeco building at Sprague and
Adams. The Mirabeau Park area had one mention.
Several responses (15 %) were stated in the negative —where not to locate. Areas
mentioned were University City, the Valley Mall, Mirabeau, and the former
Albertson's store at Pines and Sprague.
Finally, some people noted factors to be considered in choosing a location: on a bus
route, accessible to pedestrians, and on a bicycle lane.
2. If one or two new branches were added in Spokane Valley, with or without a new
Valley Library
Of the 24 branch location suggestions, 40% were from Evergreen east as far as
Barker, with the majority centered on the Sullivan area. 20% were in the south
Valley, primarily along Pines. There were a couple of preferences for the University
City area, as well as one for Dishman, Mirabeau, and not the Valley Mall.
As with the main library Location, three suggestions were factors for consideration:
in residential areas, at population centers, and using population density to equalize
customer base for each library.
3. Your own vision for Spokane Valley libraries and locations
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Strongly favor
66
39
21
6
10
Mildly favor
13
18
10
6
Neutral
7
6
13
5
2
Mildly oppose
1
2
10
8
Strongly oppose
3
20
11
28
Don't know
1
2
2
1
Spokane Malley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
21
The Option 5 comments strongly favored leaving things as they are, more or less repeating
Option 1.
Librarl locations
Respondents were asked to suggest library locations for each the three following scenarios.
Because of the open - ended nature of the question, responses can't be shown in a table format.
1. If a new main library was to replace the current Valley Library
About 35% of responses preferred a Pines and Sprague area location: a new site, an
expansion of the existing building, or replacing the existing building on the same
site. Another 15 % mentioned locations west of Pines, primarily to the University
intersection.
The next largest group, about 20%, suggested. a location east of Pines to as far as the
Sullivan area. This included use of the former Safeco building at Sprague and
Adams. The Mirabeau Park area had one mention.
Several responses (15 %) were stated in the negative —where not to locate. Areas
mentioned were University City, the Valley Mall, Mirabeau, and the former
Albertson's store at Pines and Sprague.
Finally, some people noted factors to be considered in choosing a location: on a bus
route, accessible to pedestrians, and on a bicycle lane.
2. If one or two new branches were added in Spokane Valley, with or without a new
Valley Library
Of the 24 branch location suggestions, 40% were from Evergreen east as far as
Barker, with the majority centered on the Sullivan area. 20% were in the south
Valley, primarily along Pines. There were a couple of preferences for the University
City area, as well as one for Dishman, Mirabeau, and not the Valley Mall.
As with the main library Location, three suggestions were factors for consideration:
in residential areas, at population centers, and using population density to equalize
customer base for each library.
3. Your own vision for Spokane Valley libraries and locations
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 22
The most common response was to leave the libraries as they are. 40% expressed
satisfaction with current facilities, with several responses suggesting that facility
expansion be considered in the future with more population growth.
Other multiple responses were to leave the Argonne branch alone (3) and to remain
part of Spokane County Library District (6). The remaining responses included
expanding Valley Library on the current site; building on or near the existing Valley
Library site; using the former I-Iome Base building on Sprague; including basements
in all libraries; and having an outstanding main library with attractive architecture
that's easy to find.
Willingness to pay for new libraries
Based on 20 -year bonds, the cost to build and equip new libraries would be:
• An average of about $1.7 per year in additional property taxes for a new main library to
replace the current Valley Library
• An average of about $4 per year in additional property taxes for each smaller branch
Other
Responses to this open -ended question were too varied to categorize, other than to say that the
majority expressed satisfaction with staff and services.
SPOKANE VALLEY LIBRARY FACILTTIFS ASSESSMENT
Valley Library
Positives
• Centrally located to service area population.
• Located within City of Spokane Valley (viewed positively by city).
• Located near one of the major area intersections, including an arterial that crosses
Interstate 90, which divides the city.
Strongly favor
Mildly favor
Neutral
Mildly oppose
Strongly
oppose
54%
Newmainlibrary
21%
4%
4%
16%
New main library & 1
added branch
4%
7%
11%
14%
64%
New main library & 2
added branches
9%
2%
7%
13%
69%
Retain current Valley
Library & add 1
branch
39%
23%
16%
6%
16%
Retain current Valley
Library &add2
branches
45%
12%
13%
10%
20%
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 22
The most common response was to leave the libraries as they are. 40% expressed
satisfaction with current facilities, with several responses suggesting that facility
expansion be considered in the future with more population growth.
Other multiple responses were to leave the Argonne branch alone (3) and to remain
part of Spokane County Library District (6). The remaining responses included
expanding Valley Library on the current site; building on or near the existing Valley
Library site; using the former I-Iome Base building on Sprague; including basements
in all libraries; and having an outstanding main library with attractive architecture
that's easy to find.
Willingness to pay for new libraries
Based on 20 -year bonds, the cost to build and equip new libraries would be:
• An average of about $1.7 per year in additional property taxes for a new main library to
replace the current Valley Library
• An average of about $4 per year in additional property taxes for each smaller branch
Other
Responses to this open -ended question were too varied to categorize, other than to say that the
majority expressed satisfaction with staff and services.
SPOKANE VALLEY LIBRARY FACILTTIFS ASSESSMENT
Valley Library
Positives
• Centrally located to service area population.
• Located within City of Spokane Valley (viewed positively by city).
• Located near one of the major area intersections, including an arterial that crosses
Interstate 90, which divides the city.
Spokane Valley Library Capital facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
• Been there for 50 years so most people know where it is.
• Well- maintained; no significant maintenance issues.
• On major data communications corridor, making adequate bandwidth available.
Negatives
• Building configuration (2 public levels, staff work area in basement) limits staffing
efficiency.
• Materials collection not large enough, but no additional space for shelving. Only option
to expand collection is to use higher shelving that's difficult for many customers to reach
or reduce space for seating and computer workstations.
• There's customer demand for more computer workstations, but no space to add them
without reducing either shelving or seating.
■ There's inadequate separation of "quiet" and "noisy" use areas, resulting in frequent
customer complaints.
• There's limited wheelchair access along the mezzanine's back wall stack area; the only
solution would be to remove shelving or move it closer to the study tables along the
railing
• The basement meeting room is inconvenient for children's programs and public use.
Although survey and open house customers generally viewed parking as adequate,
during busy lames and while the meeting room is used during library hours, the parking
lot is full and people park on the street and in the adjacent shopping center lot.
Argonne Library
Positives
• Located on 2 major arterials.
• Size, materials collection, computer access, and seating appropriate to its services area.
■ Adequate parking.
■ INeIl- maintained; no significant maintenance issues.
Negative
• Located on the north edge of its West Valley service area population.
• Located outside the City of Spokane Valley (viewed negatively by the city).
Otis Orchards Library
Positives
• Located on a major arterial and near a major East Valley intersection.
• Central to East Valley service area population.
• Size, materials collection, computer access, and seating appropriate to its services area.
• Well - maintained; no significant maintenance issues.
Negatives
• Located outside City of Spokane Valle' and inconvenient to all but its far northeastern
corner (viewed negatively by city).
73
Spokane Valley Library Capital. Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
24
RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
Spokane Valley demographics include several indicators of potential strong public library use
the number of families with children under 18 in the home; the high percentage of middle
income families, and a significant number of residents 61 and older. These, combined with
anticipated growth in the population of middle income families (Central Valley School District
report) and the fact that over 35,000 Spokane Valley residents have current library cards, attest
to current and future library service and facility needs.
The current city population and the future estimated GMA population allocation results in a
target population of 100,000. Available standards that can be used for space estimating project
the need for 41,000, 59,000, and 68,000 square feet of library facilities for that population. Using
the somewhat more detailed Wisconsin method adapted for. SCLD would appear to provide a
more accurate space estimate for a materials collection of 250,000 books and 10,000 audio-visual
items, 200 user seats, 60 computer workstations, 5 study /conference rooms, and a 200 -seat
meeting room. In a single building, this would require approximately 59,000 gross square feet
of space, almost three times what now exists. See Appendix A -1 for the detailed calculation.
The SRA random telephone survey confirmed that families with children are the heaviest
library users. It also brought out a very high overall library service satisfaction rate (98 percent
very or moderately satisfied), but in areas that relate to facilities—particularly among Valley
Library cardholders who had an opinion, there were lower numbers for library materials
availability in desired time frame (60 %), meeting room availability (38 %), Internet- access
computer availability (48 %), sufficiency of seating (60 %), and ease of parking (56 %). When
asked what would make members of their household more likely to use the library, Valley
Library users said more materials available (64 %), more seating (34%), improve parking
availability (33 %), and increased availability of Internet- access computers (24 %). Since
additional facility space would be required for additional materials shelving, computer
workstations, and seating, little can be done to improve satisfaction levels in these areas. The
same is true for meeting room space and parking.
In spite of several specific areas of dissatisfaction, respondents didn't show strong support for
replacement or new facilities that would alleviate the issues. This dichotomy points to the need
for a public education program to demonstrate the needs prior to initiating any capital facilities
program. It's clear from this survey, however, that the only option with any public support is
to build a new Valley Library and leave Argonne and Otis Orchards as they are.
The open house respondents provided input that was somewhat parallel to that of the
telephone survey, but with higher overall satisfaction levels. In terms of facilities, the strongest
support (79 %) was for leaving them as they are, with the next strongest replacing Valley Library
with a new main library and leaving Argonne and Otis as they are (57 %).
Comparisons of library facilities in other cities having a similar population are difficult for a
couple of reasons. First, what square footage and collection size should be used for Spokane
Valley? Just Valley Library and its collection? Valley Library and Argonne, since it's heavily
used by Spokane Valley residents? The entire District materials collection? Second, building
square footage statistics for several libraries (Everett, Yakima, Bellingham, Kennewick, and
Vancouver, for example) also include an unknown amount of administrative /support space.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 25
That said, it appears that Spokane Valley library facilities, even when a portion of Argonne's
space is considered, are on the low end in both building and collection size.
FACILITY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No facility changes
Pro
• Current Valley branch location is central, popular with its users.
• Both Valley and Argonne appear to meet expectations of large number of users.
• Argonne customers, both inside and outside the city, like the branch as it is and where it
is.
• No additional funding is required.
Con
• Valley Library facility issues noted above remain.
• Residents of the far eastern and western areas of the city have a longer distance to travel
to a library than those in the middle.
• Depending on the basis of calculation, Comprehensive Plan LOS requirement not met.
Leave Valley Library as is, add one or more branches
Pro
• Current Valley branch location is central., popular.with its users.
• Both Valley and Argonne appear to meet expectations of large number of users.
• Argonne customers, both inside and outside city, like the branch as it is and where it is.
• Lower one-time costs to add one or more branches than to replace Valley Library with a
much larger facility.
• New branch(es) would provide more convenient access for residents of the area(s)
where located.
• Addresses Comprehensive Plan LOS requirements.
Con
• Valley Library facility issues noted above remain, although some customer pressure on
facility would be removed.
• Due to basic materials collection, computer and data network needs, as well as
minimum staffing requirements, additional branches duplicate services rather than
increase their depth.
• Current regular funding is insufficient to operate additional branches without reducing
services in existing branches.
Enlarge current Valley branch, everything else as is
As previously stated, the circa 1955 Valley Library was expanded and virtually rebuilt in 1.986-
1987. A basement and two -floor addition was constructed on the east side of the old building
and a mezzanine added on its former roof. The basement was extensively remodeled for staff
work space.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 26
Pro
• Current Valley branch location is central, popular with its users.
• Both Valley and Argonne appear to meet expectations of large number of users.
• Argonne customers, both inside and outside city, like the branch as it is and where it is.
• Lower one -time capital costs for land acquisition and construction than with a
replacement facility.
• Lower operating costs for one larger facility than additional facilities.
• Addresses Comprehensive Plan LOS requirements.
Con
■ The building footprint is the maximum size for the site, given parking and onsite
stormwater handling requirements.
• The building can be expanded only with the purchase of adjacent property to the east to
replace lost parking and to create the additional parking required by the building code.
• Land to east is not for sale and even if it could be purchased, such a long and narrow site
would be problematic and a second addition would compound, not resolve, the design
and staffing issues inherent with the current building. •
• Off -site ]eased parking (such as at shopping center) would require a long -term formal
easement from owner and ongoing operational funding for lease payments.
• The already- expanded building doesn't lend itself to an effectively designed further
expansion.
• Residents of the far eastern and western areas of the city would continue to have a
longer distance to travel to a library than those in the middle.
Enlarge Valley branch, add one or more branches
Pro
• Current Valley branch location is central, popular with its users.
• Both Valley and Argonne appear to meet expectations of large number of users.
• Argonne customers, both inside and outside city, like the branch as it is and where it is.
• Lower one-time capital costs for land acquisition and construction than with a
replacement facility.
• New branches) would provide more convenient access for residents of the area(s)
where located.
• Addresses Comprehensive Plan LOS requirements.
Con
• The building footprint is the maximum size for the site, given parking and onsite
stormwater handling requirements.
■ The building can be expanded only with the purchase of adjacent property to the east to
replace lost parking and to create the additional parking required by the building code.
■ Land to east is not for sale and even if it could be purchased, such a long and narrow site
would be problematic and a second addition would compound, not resolve, the design
' and staffing issues inherent with the current building.
• Off -site leased parking (such as at shopping center) would require a long -term formal
easement from owner and ongoing operational funding for lease payments.
• The already- expanded building doesn't lend itself to an effectively designed further
expansion.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 27
• Due to basic materials collection, computer and data network needs, as well as
minimum staffing requirements, additional branches duplicate services rather than
increase their depth.
• Current regular funding is insufficient to operate a larger Valley Library and additional
branches without reducing services in existing branches.
Replace Malley branch with new main library, everything else as it is
Pro
• Would address all current facility issues: provide adequate space for materials, public
access computers, seating, conveniently accessible meeting and conference rooms;
design that maximizes staffing efficiency, thus providing more library space with same
staff operating costs.
• Current Argonne service levels would continue to be available to customers who prefer
that facility.
• Sale of current Valley Library building would offset some costs.
Con
• District doesn't own a building site; probable challenges in acquiring an appropriately -
located 5 -acre site.
• Approximate $13 million project cost (2008 $) plus land costs may be perceived as too
high.
• Because funding would depend on voter approval of bonds, extensive voter education
needed, as well as citizen- driven campaign.
• Sale of current Valley Library building not assured.
• Residents of the far eastern and western areas of the city would continue to have a
longer distance to travel to a library than those closer to the new library, which would
probably be centrally located.
Replace Valley branch with new main library, add one or more branches
Pro
Would address all current facility issues: provide adequate space for materials, public
access computers, seating, conveniently accessible meeting and conference rooms;
design that maximizes staffing efficiency, thus providing more library space with same
staff operating costs.
Current Argonne service levels would continue to be available to customers who prefer
that facility.
New branch(es) would provide more convenient access for residents of the area (s)
where located.
• Sale of current Valley Library building would offset some costs.
Con
• District doesn't own building sites; probable challenges in acquiring an appropriately -
locate 5 -acre site for main Library and 1.5 -acre branch site(s).
• Approximate $15 million project cost (2008 5) plus land costs may be perceived as too
high.
• Because funding would depend on voter approval of bonds, extensive voter education
needed, as well as citizen- driven campaign.
• Sale of current Valley-Library building not assured.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 28
• Due to basic materials collection, computer and data network needs, as well as
minimum staffing requirements, additional branches duplicate services rather than
increase their depth.
• Current regular funding is insufficient to operate a larger Valley Library and additional
branches without reducing services in existing branches.
GENERAL LIBRARY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Location
Public libraries are best located where people go in their everyday activities. Unlike museums,
which are usually visited only once or twice a year, people. use libraries frequently for a wide
variety of functions. For these reasons a library should be central to other daily activities such
as work, shopping, and school. People should be able to easily find them. They should be on or
adjacent to heavily traveled roads with easy access to public transportation. They should also
be pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
Site
Adjacent uses: Would neighboring uses attract library customers? Would neighboring
businesses operate during roughly the same schedule as the library, or would there be times
during the week when the library becomes the sole destination for people coming into the area?
Would adjacent uses contain any nuisance factors that would deter residents from visiting?
Parcel size: The site must accommodate the footprint of the building, onsite parking,
stormwater runoff, landscaping, easements, and setbacks. Depending on zoning requirements,
between 25 and 40 percent of the site's total area may be required for green space and
landscaping.
Library space planners often suggest that public libraries of 20,000 to 25,000 square feet be built
on a single level to reduce capital and operating costs. As buildings grow beyond 25,000 gross
square feet, the distances involved become too great, making it more efficient to build up rather
than out.
if future building expansion is contemplated, the site must accommodate the additional
building footprint as well as the parking and landscape area increase required due to the
expansion.
Availability: The larger the building, the larger the site required. The larger the site required,
the more di.fficult to find one, particularly in an already- developed area. As much as possible,
site acquisition should occur prior to area build -out.
Zoning: Public libraries are normally an allowed use in all but industrial zoning categories.
While they may be located almost anywhere, it's important that they be compatible with
adjacent uses and services. For example, a small neighborhood branch might be appropriate for
a low - density residential area, as with an elementary school. A large main library, however,
might be better situated elsewhere.
• Spokane Valle), Library Capital Facilities flan: Report and Recommendations 29
Orientation: A site's orientation may become an important factor, either for purposes of energy
conservation or views. Unshaded southern and western exposures increase heat gain in the
summer and ultraviolet light harmful to materials aU year round. They're also open to
prevailing winds.
Topography: Level sites are preferred for reasons of economy of design and constru.ction,
though parcels with distinct differences in grade can be interesting building sites. Topography
may also affect provision of access for disabled persons.
Shape: An irregularly shaped site may require the design of an irregular building that can foster
inefficient operation. In building design, simple shapes are the most efficient. A long, narrow
site, for example, will likely produce a long, narrow building which will likely create less than
ideal traffic patterns. The shape may also limit where the building can be located on the parcel.
Hidden obstacles & subsurface conditions: Sewer lines, abandoned drain fields, underground
utilities, improperly packed fill, underground water and streams, and bedrock are obstacles that
can be overcome, although at additional expense. _
Operational costs
The goal in any public library facility planning is to design them to achieve the lowest possible
operating costs for the services provided. Since the largest single cost of library operation is
personnel, the design shouldn't require "built -in" staffing: there should be good sightlines, as
few service desks as possible, and staff work areas should be adjacent to the public area they're
serving. Construction materials and finishes should be long - lasting and require minimal
maintenance.
Because each building has a built -in overhead cost for staffing, materials, utilities, and
maintenance, having fewer facilities means that the same number of square feet can be operated
at a lower cost. Many small branches are more expensive to run than fewer larger branches.
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are based on a target City of Spokane Valley population of 100,000. They
assume that Spokane Valley libraries are part of a system and don't require space for support
services functions, that residents continue to use the Argonne and Otis Orchards Libraries in the
Spokane Valley as well as other District and Spokane Public Library facilities, and that they
have easy access to materials beyond those located in Spokane Valley library facilities.
They are based upon an assessment of current facilities serving Spokane Valley residents, a
comparison with library space in other cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population, application of
standard formulas, and satisfaction levels determined in the telephone survey.
1. Spokane Malley library facility space should total approximately 59,000 square feet, if in a
single library building. However, in light of the area's geography, population. distribution,
and existing SCLD branch locations, it is more appropriate to use the model of a "main
library" and another future smaller library —which would increase total square footage
needs due to space duplication inherent in multiple facilities.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 30
2. The existing Valley Library should be replaced with the new "main library" facility of
approximately 49,000 square feet to serve a primary population target of 80,000. See
Appendix A -2 for space calculation details. Its location should be on a.n arterial street
within approximately a half mile of the Sprague corridor between Dartmouth and Sullivan
Roads. The rationale for a "main library" recommendation, as opposed to having several
smaller libraries, expanding the current building, or remodeling an existing building is that
Spokane Valley residents are better served with:
• A main library with more materials, more depth of resources, and more efficient use of
staffing — although with greater travel distances —than multiple branches with lower
service levels arid shorter travel distances.
• A new facility designed for the future rather than attempting to expand Valley Library
to a less than ideal size and design because of the location and lower overall costs.
• A new building designed as a library than a remodeled existing building.
3. A neighborhood branch of approximately 15,000 square feet to serve a population target of
20,000 should be added as the city's population increases. Its location would depend upon
the location of the main library, but should be separated by two to three miles. See
Appendix A -3 for space calculation details.
4. The following timeline should be adopted to address library capital facility needs.
Short term (1 -5 years)
a. Continue to make interior modifications that maximize the effectiveness of the current
Valley Library building.
b. Increase the building's collection capacity by using the basement storage area for less -
used materials that would remain on upstairs shelves if there was space.
c. Increase Spokane Valley residents' awareness and encourage their use of other Spokane
County Library District facilities and of services and materials on SCLD's Web site.
d. if funds are available, consider leasing off -site parking for staff to relieve parking issues
during peak use times.
e._ Determine preferred locations for future main library and neighborhood branch;
potentially purchasing building sites if funds are available.
f. Determine future location for SCLD 1T and outreach departments currently housed in
the Valley Library building.
g. Develop a library capital facilities funding plan; potentially secure funding.
h. Initiate public education program to demonstrate facility needs and vision to residents.
Mid -term (5 -10 years)
a. Secure funding for new main library.
b. Purchase building sites for new main library and future neighborhood branch.
c. Replace current Valley Library with an approximate 49,000 square foot facility. See
Appendix A for details on facility size. Project cost (2004 $) for new main library:
Approximately $11.4 million, plus site acquisition.
d. Relocate IT and outreach departments.
e. Sell old Valley Library building; potentially use sale proceeds to finance future branch
site acquisition and partial project costs.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 31
Long -term (10 -20 years)
a. Secure funding for neighborhood branch.
b. Add a neighborhood branch of approximately 15,000 square feet at a location separated
by at least two to three miles from the Valley branch.
c. Project cost (2004 $) for new branch: Approximately $3.6 million, plus site acquisition.
FINANCING
Capital
The usual source for capital funding of non revenue- producing public projects like public
libraries is the sale of bonds, either limited tax (councilmanic) or unlimited tax general
obligation (voter - approved). Since ongoing operating revenue is seldom sufficient for debt
service on large capital expenditures, voter - approved bonds have been the norm for public
library capital funding in Washington State.
Both cities and library districts have both options available, subject to the debt limits imposed
by state law. For cities not annexed to a library district, any library bond issue proposal and
debt service is the sole responsibility of the city. A library district cannot levy property taxes
outside its legal boundaries.
For cities annexed to a library district, the district may take the lead, including the project in a
larger district -wide capital improvement program or asking voters to form a Library Capital
Facility Area (LCFA) within the proposed facility's service area. Library Capital Facility Area
formation is limited by state law (RCW 27.12.15) to library districts. The LCFA may extend
beyond the city limits if the library's service area also extends beyond the city limits. Because
an LCFA has its own debt capacity, the bonded indebtedness doesn't reduce either the city's or
the library district's remaining capacity.
Library Capital Facility Area Overview
■ Quasi - municipal corporation and independent.taxing authority.
• Boundaries approximate a branch service area (e.g. City of Spokane Valley, Fire District #1,
or 3 Valley school districts).
• Formation initiated by library district board.
• Capital facilities include la.nd., buildings, site improvements, equipment, furnishings,
collections, and all necessary costs related to acquisition, financing, design, construction,
equipping, and remodeling.
• Requires two ballot issues, with approval of both:
- One to establish the LCFA (simple majority)
- One to authorize General Obligation Bonds to fund construction (60% approval with
40% validation)
■ Only LCFA residents vote and pay the debt service.
•
Three county commissioners become LCFA governing board.
• Governing board may contract with the library district or a city to manage the project.
• Facility title may be transferred to a city or to library district.
• LCFA may be dissolved when bonds and other contractual obligations are discharged.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 32
Debt service cost estimates
Debt service estimates use 2004 project costs, current interest rates, and 20 -year financing, using
a Year 1 assessed valuation of $4.2 million, 3% annual assessed valuation growth, and
100 %property tax levy collection. They are based on March 5, 2004 debt service estimates
prepared by Piper Jaffray & Co. Public Finance. Actual debt service costs will depend on the
project costs, assessed valuation, projected assessed valuation increase, and tax levy collection
rates at the time of financing. Project costs are expected to increase at least 3% per year from
2004 estimates. It's difficult to predict future interest rates.
New main library
• Project cost (2004 $): $11.4 million
• Debt service cost: Approximately 19e per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($19.00 per
$100,000) in the first year, decreasing annually with increase in total assessed valuation.
Neighborhood branch
• Project cost (2004 $): $3.6 million
• Debt service cost: Approximately 6a per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($6.00 per $100,000)
in the first year, decreasing annually with increase in total assessed valuation.
Operational
The assumption inherent in this facilities plan is that with an efficient building design and
continuing staff productivity improvements, a larger Valley Library and an eventual new
branch can be operated at normal District funding levels of 504 per $1,000 of assessed valuation,
as has been the case with previous facility expansions.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Appendix A -1
Preliminary space needs assessment: Single facility
Design population: 100,000
Notes for all estimates:
1. Assumes library is a public service outlet only; support services provided from another
location.
2. Based on Wisconsin Libranj Building Project Handbook with SCLD adaptations for use with
branch rather than independent library.
33
SPOKANE VALLEY LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS
Site size requirement
A 1998 architect's estimate of the site size required for a 30,000 square foot building was 3 to 4
acres, depending upon whether it was a single floor or two floors in height. The square footage
beyond 50,000 would push the site size toward 4.5 acres.
Standard
Total
Space
standard
Total space
required (s.f.)
Collection
Books
2.5 volumes /capita
250,000
i0 /si.
25,000
Periodicals
4 titles /1,000 pop
400
1.5 /s.f. (display)
270
Periodical backfiles
4 titles 1,000 .o
400
0.5 /s.f. (5 years)
1,000
Audio - visual
100/1,000
10,000
I 10 /s.f.
1,000
Seating
2 seats /1,000 pop
200
30 s.f. /seat
6,000
Computer workstations
None: base on current
60
60 s.f. /station
3,600
Meeting rooms
General
None: use 2 ®100 seats
200
10 s.f. /seat
2.000
Conference /study
None: use 5 Q 6 seats
30
25 s.f. /seat
750
Staff work space
None: use 20 stations
150 s.f. /sthtion
3,000
Subtotal
42,620
Special use space (10 %)
•
4,262
Subtotal
46,882
Nonassignable space (25 %)
25% of subtotal
11,721
Cross area required
58,603
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations
Appendix A -1
Preliminary space needs assessment: Single facility
Design population: 100,000
Notes for all estimates:
1. Assumes library is a public service outlet only; support services provided from another
location.
2. Based on Wisconsin Libranj Building Project Handbook with SCLD adaptations for use with
branch rather than independent library.
33
SPOKANE VALLEY LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS
Site size requirement
A 1998 architect's estimate of the site size required for a 30,000 square foot building was 3 to 4
acres, depending upon whether it was a single floor or two floors in height. The square footage
beyond 50,000 would push the site size toward 4.5 acres.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 34
Appendix A -2
Preliminary space needs assessment: New main library
Design population: 80,000
Site size requirement
A 1998 architect's estimate of the site size required for a 50,000 square foot building was 3 to 4
acres, depending upon whether it was a single floor or two floors in height.
Standard
Total
Space
standard
Total space
required (s.f.)
Collection
Books
2.5 volumes /capita
200,000
10 /s.f.
20,000
Periodicals
4 titles /1,000 pop
320
1.5/s.f. (display)
215
Periodical backfiles
4 titles /1,000 pop
320
0.5 /s.f. (5 years)
800
Audio-visual
100/1,000 .o.
8,000
10 s.f.
800
Seating
2 seats /1,000 pop
160
30 s.f. /seat
4,800
Computer workstations
None: base on current
60
60 s.f. /station
3,600
Meeting rooms
General
None: use 2 ®100 seats
200
10 s.f. /seat
2,000
Conference /study
None: use 5 (Al 6 seats
30
25 s.f. /seat
750
Staff work space
None: use 20 stations
150 s.f. /station
3,000
Subtotal
35,965
Special use space (10 %)
3,597
Subtotal
39,562
Nonassignable space (25 %)
25% of subtotal
9,891
Gross area required
49,453
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 34
Appendix A -2
Preliminary space needs assessment: New main library
Design population: 80,000
Site size requirement
A 1998 architect's estimate of the site size required for a 50,000 square foot building was 3 to 4
acres, depending upon whether it was a single floor or two floors in height.
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 35
Appendix A -3
Preliminary space needs assessment: New neighborhood branch
Design population: 20,000
Site size requirement
Based on previous experience with medium size library branch sites, a building of this size
would require approximately 2 acres of land
Standard
Total
Space
standard
Total space
required V.)
Collection
Books
2.5 volumes /cap
50,000
10 /s.f.
5,000
Periodicals
4 titles /1,000 pop
80
1.5 /s.f. (display)
55
Periodical backfiles
4 titles /1,000 pop
80
0.5 /s.f. (5 years)
200
Audio - visual
100/1,000 pop
2,000
10 /s.f.
200
Seating
4 seats /1,000 pop
80
30 s.f. /seat
2,400
Computer workstations
None; base on current
15
60 s.f. /stition
900
Meeting rooms
General
None: use 1 @ 75 seats
75
10 s.f. /seat
750
Conference /study
None: use 3 ® 6 seats
18
25 s.f. /seat
450
Staff work space
None: use 8 stations
150 s.f. /staation
1,200
Subtotal
11,055
Special use space (i0 %)
1,106
Subtotal
12,160
Nonassignable space (25 %)
25% of subtotal
3,040
Gross area required
15,200
Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Plan: Report and Recommendations 35
Appendix A -3
Preliminary space needs assessment: New neighborhood branch
Design population: 20,000
Site size requirement
Based on previous experience with medium size library branch sites, a building of this size
would require approximately 2 acres of land
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business 0 public hearing
❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First look at motorized foot scooter regulation options.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: none
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: none
BACKGROUND: Several citizens of Spokane Valley have registered complaints with the city
about the increasing popularity and use of motorized foot scooters in the city. Citizen
complaints have focused on two general areas of concern: (1) the noise these machines make;
and (2) the safety of operators of these machines, especially when the operators are youth. In
order to keep the Council informed on this issue and its relation to maintaining the health and
welfare of citizens of Spokane Valley, staff has conducted preliminary research into (1) types
and models of motorized foot scooters presently in use and for sale in Spokane Valley; (2)
provisions of state law that regulate motorized foot scooters; (3) the authority of a municipality to
enact additional regulations of motorized foot scooters; and (4) ideas for regulations that may
achieve a balance between the rights of motorized foot scooter owners and operators and other
citizens of Spokane Valley. Given that this is a first touch, staff has provided the Council with
some policy points in the form of a Memorandum.
OPTIONS: Instruct staff to move ahead with drafting an ordinance instruct staff to provide
additional information, or instruct staff to do nothing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None recommended at this time.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Joshua J. Leonard, Legal Intern
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum on policy points for discussion by the Council.
j �alley
Memorandum
To: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Dave Mercier, City Manager
From: Joshua Leonard, Leeal Intern
CC:
Date: July 29, 2004
Re: Regulation of Motorized Scooters
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 0 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509.921.1000 0 Fax: 509.921.1008 0 cityhall@spokanevalley.org
pokanevalley.org
INTRODUCTION
Effective August 1, 2003, the Washington State Legislature amended RCW 46.04 to
define motorized foot scooters and outline their legal use in Washington.' Motorized foot
scooters now have the same highway access as bicycles and can be operated on multi- purpose
trails or in bicycle lanes, but not those bicycle paths or trails built or maintained with federal
highway transportation funds. Subsection (5) of RCW 46.61.710 grants power to local
jurisdictions to limit or restrict access of motorized foot scooters, but cities may not override
state laws and prohibit use of the scooters in areas where the state specifically allows them.
Motorized foot scooters are promoted by their manufacturers and retailers as an
environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, inexpensive, portable, and fun transportation alternative
that can be used on existing city infrastructure. Opponents of motorized foot scooters cite noise
and safety as their major concerns.
NOISE CONCERNS
Although small in size, the gasoline- powered engines on motorized foot scooters are
capable of emitting a loud, piercing, high - pitched whine when not properly muffled. Many
motorized foot scooters, including the most popular, cheaper models, are powered by two - stroke
See Appendix D for applicable provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
1
Year
# of Injuries Treated at
Emergency Rooms
1999
1,330
2002
6,300
2003
8,000
engines that burn a mixture of gasoline and oil and generally emit unmuffled exhaust noise at a
higher pitch than their four- stroke cousins. Most citizen complaints focus on objections to the
noise of motorized foot scooters rather than concerns for safety, although both concerns are
common. Safety concerns generally center around the potential for automobile— scooter
accidents.
SAFETY CONCERNS
The Consumer Product Safety Commission offers the following data regarding injuries
suffered from stand -up platform motorized foot scooters (an inexpensive and popular form of
motorized foot scooter) treated at emergency rooms in the United States:
The marked increase in motorized foot scooter- related injuries treated by emergency
rooms over the past five years may be attributable to any combination of the following factors:
(1) an increase in the number of motorized foot scooters being sold and used; (2) the availability
of inexpensive, more powerful, faster models of motorized foot scooters; (3) a decrease in the
training and knowledge of operators of motorized foot scooters; and/or (4) less concern for
safety in the manufacture of motorized scooters, a symptom of the broader prioritization of cost
savings over increased safety in the manufacture and use of motorized foot scooters.
There are two broad categories of motorized foot scooters: those propelled by a battery -
powered electric motor, and those propelled by a gasoline- powered internal combustion engine.
Both types of motorized foot scooters can be dangerous. When operated by a young or
untrained rider, not only is the operator at risk of injury, but other motorists, pedestrians, and
2 The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) website is located at http: /lwww.cpsc.gov.
S See Appendix A, Pictorial Examples of Several Types of Motorized Foot Scooters, attached.
2
especially those riding the devices as passengers are endangered. Within these two broad
categories of motorized foot scooters are several sub - classifications, including stand -up platform
models, models with two- stroke engines (the engines used on weed- whackers), models with
four- stroke engines (the engines used on lawn mowers), motorized skateboard models, and
models designed to look like smaller versions of "chopper" -style motorcycles.
Many of the smaller motorized foot scooters are miniaturized working replicas of racing
motorcycles. These "pocket rockets" mimic the appearance of full -sized racing motorcycles, but
at as little as eighteen inches tall, these tiny, fully- operable machines lack the safety devices built
into their much - larger counterparts. Most "pocket rockets" do not include headlights, brake
lights, mufflers, side view mirrors, or horns, and serious questions exist as to the safety of their
braking mechanisms. "Pocket rockets" also have an "incredible power to weight ratio," meaning
that they "will wheelie quite easily if provoked.` Some "pocket rockets" are capable of speeds
in excess of 50 mph. The miniature bikes also have miniature handlebars, providing much less
turning radius and steering ability than the larger street -legal motorcycles.
Because of the small size of the gasoline - powered engines (under 5Occ) or electric motors
often used to propel them, these machines generally evade federal governmental regulations
regarding manufacturing standards, mandatory safety equipment, and training required to safely
operate them.
"Pocket rockets" are not the only type of motorized scooters that lack basic safety
features. In fact, very few motorized foot scooters include even the most basic safety features.
In most cases the "deluxe" models (those outfitted with nidimentary safety features) are far more
° Quotes from http : / /www.pocket- bikes.us /49cc- pocket- bikes.html.
$ One 14.8 horsepower model `pocket rocket" (advertised at http:// www. thetoybrokers .comlpocketbikes/blata.html
at a price just under $1000) claims a maximum speed of 70 mph. The retailer also sells aftennarket parts for the
device to increase the power and top speed beyond the 70 mph indicated. The dimensions of this particular bike are:
39 "Lx24" Wx23 "
3
expensive than the more common models. In addition to the lack of important safety features,
many motorized foot scooters are operated in an upright, standing position. This presents
problems with steering, balance, and stability. Further, some models of motorized foot scooters
are designed to steer without handlebars, similar to a skateboard with a motor. Operators of
these models can rely solely upon leaning in the direction they wish to go in order to steer.
Brakes on handlebar -less types of motorized scooters generally consist of a small lever on a
finger clip connected to a single braking caliper on the rear wheel.
REGULATION OF MOTORIZED FOOT SCOOTERS
Several Washington municipalities have adopted regulations regulating or limiting the
operation of motorized foot scooters and other motorized recreational devices. Ideas for
maximizing safety and minimizing the intrusion of noise on an area's quality of life vary from
city to city, with the emergence of several common regulatory threads. Examples of approaches
adopted by other municipalities in Washington are presented in Appendix B. Additional ideas
for potential regulations are presented in Appendix C. Each regulatory idea includes a brief
discussion of issues that might arise should that particular option be. enacted. For purposes of
these potential solutions, all types of motorized foot scooters (electric and gasoline- powered),
and all contemplated models of motorized foot scooters, are covered. Combining one or more of
these ideas is possible to address the particular needs of an area or jurisdiction with more
specificity.
CONCLUSION
Washington statutes authorize local jurisdictions to enact additional, non- contradictory
regulations concerning motorized foot scooter operation and use. Examples of permissible
6 See Appendix B, Examples of Motorized Foot Scooter Regulations in Selected Washington Municipalities,
attached.
4
additional regulations include: specifying allowable hours of operation of motorized foot
scooters, requiring the use of safety equipment (including safety equipment mounted on the
device and safety equipment worn by the operator), designating areas where use of motorized
foot scooters is allowed and establishing areas where use of motorized scooters is prohibited
(e.g., city parks, sidewalks, etc.), adopting minimum operator age requirements, and enacting
rider /operator only restrictions (no passengers allowed on motorized foot scooters).
Drafting an ordinance with appropriate coverage that applies to all current and potential
future types and models of motorized scooters may prove a difficult task. Manufacturers of these
machines continually update their designs to incorporate features designed to circumvent
regulation.' The solution may be the enactment of a broad definition of "motorized foot scooter"
(encompassing each type of motorized foot scooters for sale and currently i.n use in the city) in
concert with a combination of particularized regulations designed to balance the specific needs
of the citizens of Spokane Valley with the rights of motorized foot scooter users to operate their
devices in a safe and conscientious manner, at appropriate times, and in suitable places.
T See Appendix A, picture 5. gas powered skateboard for an example of a motorized device not covered by
Washington's stanrtory definition of a "motorized foot scooter."
5
1.
gasoline- powered
motorized foot
scooter with seat
APPENDIX A
PICTORIAL EXAMPLES OF SEVERAL TYPES
OF MOTORIZED FOOT SCOOTERS
features:
• muffler
• front (disc) and rear (drum) braking system
• proper lighting (headlamp, turn signals, brake light)
• seat
• pull start gasoline powered (4- cycle) internal combustion engine
• inflated tires
lacks:
• drive disengage feature
• horn
• sidcview mirrors
notes:
This is one of the more safe models of motorized foot scooters. Consequently. this is also one of the more expensive
models, costing upwards of S500. This model of motorized foot scooter is capable of speeds in excess of 35 mph.
Notice the vertical steering bar and the lack of steering control.
6
2.
gasoline- powered
motorized foot
scooter without
seat
features:
• front (disc) and rear (drum) braking system
• pull start gasoline powered 2 -cycle internal combustion engine
• inflated tires
• steering bar folds down near engine for maximum portability
Jacks:
• drive disengage feature
• horn
• muffler
• seat
• proper lighting (headlamp. turn signals. brake light) or reflectors
• sideview mirrors
notes:
This is an example of the most popular model of motorized foot scooter in Spokane Valley (according to local
retailers). This style of motorized foot scooter costs between S150 and S500, depending on safety features included
in the particular model. This model is capable of speeds in excess of 25 mph_ Notice the post mounted steering bar
and the lack of steering control.
7
3.
electric motor -
driven motorized
foot scooter
without seat
features:
• front (disc) and rear (drum) braking system
• battery powered electric motor
• inflated tires
• steering bar folds down near engine for maximum portability
tack:
• drive disengage feature
• horn
• seat
• proper lighting (headlamp. turn signals. brake Tight) or reflectors
• sidevicw mirrors
notes:
This style of motorized foot scooter costs between $75 and 5300, depending on the battery capacity, run time. the
time required to charge thc banery, and thc safety features included in the particular model. This model is capable
of speeds in excess of 15 mph. Notice the post mounted steering bar and thc lack of steering control.
8
4.
gas- powered
miniature
"chopper"
features:
• front (disc) and rear (drum) braking system
• key start gasoline powered (2- stroke) internal combustion engine
• inflated tires
• side -view mirrors
• scat
• proper lighting (headlamp, turn signals, brake light)
Tacks:
• drive disengage feature
• horn
notes:
This style of motorized foot scooter costs between $200 and $ 1000, depending on the quality of manufacture and the
safety features included in the particular model. This model is capable of speeds in excess of 30 mph.
5.
gas - powered
skateboard
features:
• caliper braking system (1 rear wheel only)
• pull start gasoline powered (2- stroke) internal combustion engine
• inflated tires
lacks:
• steering apparatus
• side -view mirrors
• scat
• proper lighting (headlamp, turn signals. brake Tight) or reflectors
• drive disengage feature
• horn
notes:
This model is capable of speeds in excess of 30 mph_ Note the glanng lack of any steering mechanism (other than
the rider's leaning motion) and the use of a "wand" accelerator and brake activation system. This particular type of
motorized device is not covered by the definition of "motorized foot scooter" in the state statute. This style of
motorized foot scooter costs between 5150 and 5500, depending on the quality of manufacture and the safety
features included in the particular model.
10
6.
gas - powered
"pocket rocket"
features:
• rear wheel drum brake mechanism
• pull start gasoline powered (4- stroke) internal combustion engine
• inflated ores
• muffler
Tacks:
• side -view mirrors
• proper lighting (headlamp, tum signals, brake light) or reflectors
• drive disengage feature
• horn
notes:
This model (the "pocket rocket") is generally capable of speeds in excess of 40 mph, although some models of
"pocket rocket" are advertised with maximum speeds of 70• mph. This style of motorized foot scooter costs
between 5200 and 55000, depending on the quality of manufacture and the performance options the safety features
included in the particular model. See Picture 7 (next) for a proportional size comparison.
11
%.
gas- powered
"pocket rocket"
(pictured with 6'0
210 Ibs. male
rider)
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF MOTORIZED FOOT SCOOTER REGULATION
IN SELECTED WASHINGTON MUNICIPALITIES
ply
Stanwood
Lake Stevens
(effective
1/2004)
Mount
Vernon
(effective
4/2004)
Sedro-
Wooley
{effective
4,2004)
Age/Licensing
Requirements
16 years old to nde
upon a public roadway
none
16 years or older to
operate on a public wa
16 years or older to
operate on a public way
Where to Ride
cannot be ridden on
public roadways with a
speed limit greater than
25 miles per how
none
• cannot be operated
on any sidewalk or
public trail In the city
• cannot be ndden on
public roadways with
a speed limit greater
than 25 miles per
hour, unless
operated within a
bicycle lane
cannot be ridden on
public roadways with a
speed limit greater than
25 miles per hour,
unless operated within
a bicycle lane
Time of Day
shall not be operated
anytime during 4 hour
after sunset to V: before
sunrise without state
patrol•approved
reflectors
must be equipped with
white Tight lamp (visible
from 500 ft.) and red
reflector (visible from
600 ft & approved by
the state highway
patrol) to be operated
dunng the hours of
darkness
must be equipped with
white Tight lamp (visible
from 500 ft) and red
reflector (visible from
600 ft & approved by
the stale highway
patrol) to be operated
during the hours of
darkness
must be equipped with
white light lamp (visible
from 500 ft,) and red
reflector (visible from
600 ft. & approved by
the state highway
patrol) to be operated
during the hours of
darkness
Other Regulations
• operators shall adhere to an rules at
the road applicable to motorized
vehicles
• no passengers
• shalt not be operated on city owned
property, city parks, designated
walkways. sidewalks, or any other
place where motorized vehicles are
expressly prohibited
• shall not be operated in a 'negligent
manner
• device must be equipped so that the
drive motor is engaged through a
switch, lever, or other mechanism that .
when released, will cause the drive
motor to disengage or cease operation
• parent, guardian, or other responsible
person is culpable for violation by child
•
•
•
•
unsafe or reckless operation
prohibited
voluntary bicycle, skate, & motorized
foot scooter registration with city
removal of factory braking equipment
prohibited
helmet required
provides alternative penalty for minor
children
• muffling device in good working order
is required
• helmet required
• operators of motorized foot scooters
are granted all rights and subject to all
duties applicable to dnvers of vehicles
• helmet required
• traffic laws appty to persons operating
motorized foot scooters
13
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL REGULATORY POSSIBILITIES
Potential Regulation
Pro /Con Considerations
enactment of ordinance making it "unlawful for any
person to operate any motorized vehicle within the City
which cannot be licensed by the state Department of
Motor Vehicles (D.M.V.)"
enactment of ordinance making it "unlawful to operate
any motorized scooter on any public road with a posted
speed limit over ( ?J m.p.h."
prohibit operation of motorized scooters after dark
• very broadly drafted
• as written, could include motorized wheelchairs and other
devices enabling disabled individuals to be mobile (would
require an "exceptions" or °exemptions" section)
• allows the D.M.V. to determine those vehicles subject to the
provision, rather than tailoring the ordinance to meet local
needs
• may contradict state law; RCW 46.20.500(5) reads, in pertinent
parts: no driver's license is required to operate a motorized
foot scooter' and "motorized foot scooters may have the same
highway access as bicycles" — but the same RCW provision
allows local jurisdictions to enact additional (non-contradictory)
regulations
• a commonly found regulation, motorized scooters are
prohibited on public roads on which the speed limit is between
25 -35 m.p.h.
• does not prohibit use of motorized scooters altogether; rather,
this option confines motorized scooter operation to (1) private
property, and (2) public roads with lower speed limits
• because public roads with low speed limits are often located in
neighborhoods, this option does nothing to address the noise
concerns associated with motorized scooters; in fact, by
concentrating motorized scooter use in neighborhood
communities, this idea may actually increase the noise problem
• in addition, because public roads with lower speed limits are
often located in neighborhoods, the potential for injury to non -
operator children is greater if motorized scooter use is
concentrated in these areas
• may contradict state law; RCW 46.20.500(5) reads, in pertinent
part: ''motorized foot scooters may have the same highway
access as bicycles" — but the same RCW provision allows local
jurisdictions to enact additional (non contradictory) regulations
• a recently introduced state bill included an amendment to
existing motorized foot scooter regulations that would have
effected this idea and limited motorized foot scooter access to
streets with speed limits under 25 m.p.h. (this bill is now
technically dead, having never made it out of the House)
• Wenatchee WA, has ado'ted an ordinance that •rohibits
• may partially address the concerns of those who complain
about the noise of motorized scooters
• many motorized scooters lack proper lights (head light, turn
signal lights, brake lights), making this a logical way to prevent
accidents at night
• somewhat duplicative of state law; RCW 46.20.500(5) reads, in
pertinent part "motorized foot scooters may not be operated at
any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before
sunrise without reflectors of a type approved by the state
atrol"
14
prohibit use of motorized scooters on public sidewalks
• this option has been enacted in several municipalities outside
of Washington where heavy pedestrian traffic is regularly
present, particularly where the use of motorized scooters on
sidewalks affects the ability of merchants to draw customers
• Is the threat posed by motorized scooters to pedestrians
greater than the threat posed by automobiles to motorized
scooters? If so, banning use of motorized scooters on
sidewalks is wise. If not, banning use of motorized scooters on
sidewalks is unwise.
• apparently, Washington law treats motorized scooters as
bicycles, so all laws, statutes, and ordinances that apply to
bicycles may also apply to motorized scooters
• RCW 46.61.710(5) indicates that while motorized foot scooters
are allowed under state law to operate on multipurpose trails or
bicycle lanes, cities can restrict or limit their access to these
facilities; so, for example, it may be possible to restrict the
access of motorized foot scooters to trails or bicycle lanes in
city parks (by analogy, can this relate to a prohibition on motor
scooters usin • sidewalks?
prohibit use of motorized scooters in city parks, on city
trails and bike paths, and playgrounds
• prevents noise in areas where people congregate outdoors
• prevents noise and congestion in "nature areas" like bike trails
and hiking paths
• RCW 46.61.710(5) indicates that while motorized foot scooters
are allowed under state law to operate on multipurpose trails or
bicycle lanes, cities can restrict or limit their access to these
facilities; so, for example, it may be possible to restrict the
access of motorized foot scooters to trails or bicycle lanes in
city parks
• under the RCW, motorized foot scooters may not have access
to bicycle paths, trails, or bikeways built with federal funding
(Centennial Trail ?)
• additionally, under RCW 46.61.710 (6), any new trail or bicycle
path or readily identifiable existing trail or bicycle path not built
or maintained with federal highway transportation funds may be
used by persons operating motorized foot scooters only when
appropriately signed." [def. of "appropriately signed " ?]
helmet required
• similar concerns to requiring helmet for riders of traditional
pedal bikes (enforcement, penalties, etc. ?)
• appears to be clear of any state regulations, but would
helmet/safety laws have to apply to bicycles as well as
motorized scooters
• a recently introduced state bill included an amendment to
require motorized foot scooter operators to wear approved
helmets (this bill is now technically dead, having never made it
out of the Rouse
no passengers, rider /operator only
• most motorized scooters are designed for only 1 rider (in fact,
in researching this issue, I failed to find even one multiple -rider
model motorized scooter)
• no safety handles, etc., for additional riders
• enforcement issues?
age limit (16 ?, 18 ?, valid driver's license ?)
• a driver's license requirement contradicts state law; RCW
46.20.500(5) reads, in pertinent parts: no driver's license is
required to operate a motorized toot scooter' and 'motorized
foot scooters ma have the same hi.hwa access as bic cies"
15
O
16
• a couple of WA cities have enacted a drivers license provision,
thus far without judicial challenge; should a challenge arise,
they would likely argue that no conflict vith state law exists,
and that the city regulation merely sets a higher standard that
the state law and so is valid; note that Auburn, WA recently
amended its ordinance for the express reason that the driver's
license requirement may be contrary to state law
• the authority given to cities to restrict the access of motorized
foot scooters (found in RCW 46.61.710) has to do with
physical /geographic location — where the scooters can be
ridden — while the age restrictions limit who may operate a
motorized foot scooter •erhaps contradicting state law)
licensing motorized foot scooter with city required
• paperwork, bureaucracy, red tape
• enforcement issues?
• fees?
• appears to comply with state law, as some cities offer
re•uire ?) bike licensin•
require safety devices for operation on public roads/
property (side view mirrors, lights, etc.)
• this would eliminate most of the "problem" motorized scooters
• somewhat duplicative of state law; somewhat duplicative of
state law, which stops short of an outright requirement of safety
devices, and instead requires reflectors for operation roughly
after dark; RCW 46.20.500(5) reads, in pertinent part:
"motorized foot scooters may not be operated at any time from
a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise without
reflectors of a type approved by the state patrol"
• at least one Washington city requires that the drive be able to
disengage
• at least one Washington dty requires that the factory original
brakin• s stem remain installed
muffler requirement
• may alleviate noise - related concerns
• clearly contradicts state law; RCW 46.61.710(5) expressly
exempts motorized foot scooters from the prohibition against
removing muffling devices (a bill introduced during the current /
recent legislative session would have eliminated the
exemption, but this bill is now dead)
O
16
RCW 46.04.330
Motorcycle.
RCW 46.04.332
Motor - driven cycle.
APPENDIX D
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF
THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW)
"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle designed to travel on not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground, on which the driver rides astride the motor unit or power train and is
designed to be steered with a handle bar, but excluding a farm tractor, a power wheelchair, an
electric personal assistive mobility device, and a moped.
The Washington state patrol may approve of and define as a "motorcycle" a motor vehicle
that fails to meet these specific criteria, but that is essentially similar in performance and
application to motor vehicles that do meet these specific criteria.
"Motor- driven cycle" means every motorcycle, including every motor scooter, with a motor
that produces not to exceed five brake horsepower (developed by a prime mover, as measured by
a brake applied to the driving shaft). A motor- driven cycle does not include a moped, a power
wheelchair, a motorized foot scooter, or an electric personal assistive mobility device.
RCW 46.04.336
Motorized foot scooter.
"Motorized foot scooter" means a device with no more than two ten -inch or smaller diameter
wheels that has handlebars, is designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, and is powered
by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with
or without human propulsion.
For purposes of this section, a motor driven cycle, a moped, an electric- assisted bicycle, or a
motorcycle is not a motorized foot scooter.
RCW 46.20.500
Special endorsement -- Exceptions.
(1) No person may drive either a two- wheeled or a three - wheeled motorcycle, or a motor -
driven cycle unless such person has a valid driver's license specially endorsed by the director to
enable the holder to drive such vehicles.
17
(2) However, a person sixteen years of age or older, holding a valid driver's license of any
class issued by the state of the person's residence, may operate a moped without taking any
special examination for the operation of a moped.
(3) No driver's license is required for operation of an electric- assisted bicycle if the operator is
at least sixteen years of age. Persons under sixteen years of age may not operate an electric -
assisted bicycle.
(4) No driver's license is required to operate an electric personal assistive mobility device or a
power wheelchair.
(5) No driver's license is required to operate a motorized foot scooter. Motorized foot scooters
may not be operated at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise
without reflectors of a type approved by the state patrol.
RCW 46.61
Mopeds, EPAMDs, electric- assisted bicycles, motorized foot scooters -- General
requirements and operation.
(1) No person shall operate a moped upon the highways of this state unless the moped has
been assigned a moped registration number and displays a moped permit in accordance with the
provisions of RCW 46.16.630.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a moped may not be operated on a bicycle
path or trail, bikeway, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.
(3) Operation of a moped, electric personal assistive mobility device, or an electric- assisted
bicycle on a fully controlled limited access highway is unlawful. Operation of a moped or an
electric - assisted bicycle on a sidewalk is unlawful.
(4) Removal of any muffling device or pollution control device from a moped is unlawful.
(5) Subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section do not apply to electric - assisted bicycles.
Electric- assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters may have access to highways of the state
to the sane extent as bicycles. Subject to subsection (6) of this section, electric- assisted bicycles
and motorized Foot scooters may be operated on a multipurpose trail or bicycle lane, but local
jurisdictions may restrict or otherwise limit the access of electric- assisted bicycles and motorized
foot scooters, and state agencies may regulate the use of motorized foot scooters on facilities and
properties under their jurisdiction and control.
(6) Subsections (1) and (4) of this section do not apply to motorized foot scooters. Subsection
(2) of this section applies to motorized foot scooters when the bicycle path, trail, bikeway,
equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail was built or is maintained with federal highway
transportation funds. Additionally, any new trail or bicycle path or readily identifiable existing
18
trail or bicycle path not built or maintained with federal highway transportation funds may be
used by persons operating motorized foot scooters only when appropriately signed.
(7) A person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD) shall obey all
speed limits and shall yield the right - of-way to pedestrians and human- powered devices at all
times. An operator must also give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
Except for the limitations of this subsection, persons operating an EPAMD have all the rights
and duties of a pedestrian.
(8) The use of an EPAMD may be regulated in the following circumstances:
(a) A municipality and the department of transportation may prohibit the operation of an
EPAMD on public highways within their respective jurisdictions where the speed limit is greater
than twenty -five miles per hour;
(b) A municipality may restrict the speed of an EPAMD in locations with congested
pedestrian or nonmotorized traffic and where there is significant speed differential between
pedestrians or nonmotorized traffic and EPAMD operators. The areas in this subsection must be
designated by the city engineer or designee of the municipality. Municipalities shall not restrict
the speed of an EPAMD in the entire community or in areas in which there is infrequent
pedestrian traffic;
(c) A state agency or local government may regulate the operation of an EPAMD within
the boundaries of any area used for recreation, open space, habitat, trails, or conservation
purposes.
RCW 35.75.010
Authority to regulate and license bicycles -- Penalties.
Every city and town may by ordinance regulate and license the riding of bicycles and other
similar vehicles upon or along the streets, alleys, highways, or other public grounds within its
limits and may construct and maintain bicycle paths or roadways within or outside of and beyond
its limits leading to or from the city or town. The city or town may provide by ordinance for
reasonable fines and penalties for violation of the ordinance.
RCW 35.75.030
License fees authorized.
Every city and town by ordinance may establish and collect re- asonable license fees from all
persons riding a bicycle or other similar vehicle within its respective corporate limits, and may
enforce the payment thereof by reasonable fines and penalties.
19
Motorized,- Foot Scooters
es,of Foot Scooters
:stand -up motor scooter
Gasoline.powered
internal combustion
engine. • .
• An example of the most
;popular type of
motorized foot scooter
in Spokane Valley.
• Capable of speeds in
excess of 25 mph.
• Lacks a muffler, a seat,
proper lighting, side
view mirrors, & a hom.
1
• Gasoline powered.
• Capable of speeds .
excels of 30
MO,
• Includes proper
fighting, side view
mirrors, & a seat.
• Tires are between
8-12 inches in
diameter.
mini: "chopper"
Gasdine powered
internal combustion
engine.
Does not fit under RCW
definition of "motorized
foot scooter (lacks
handlebars).
Accelerator & brake lever
are located on 'wand."
Steering is done by
rider's leaning in the
desired direction.
"pocket rocket"
• Gasoline powered
internal combustion
engine
• Some high -
performance models
capable of 70+ mph.
• Dimensions:
39" L. x 24" W x 23" H
2
--Motorized-foot-Scooters-
Applicable State Statutes
Washington State Regulations
RCW 46.04.336 — Motorized foot scooter.
6; RCW 46.61.710 — Mopeds, EPAMDs,
electric - assisted bicycles, motorized foot
scooters — General requirements and
operation.
tz.RCW 46.20.500 — Special endorsements —
Exceptions.
3
RCW 46.04.336
Motorized foot' scooter.
`Motorized foot scooter" means a device with no
more than two ten -inch or smaller diameter
wheels that has handlebars, is designed to be
stood or sat upon by the operator, and is
powered by an internal combustion engine or
electric motor that is capable of propelling the
device with or without human propulsion.
For purposes of this section, a motor -driven cyde,
a moped, an electric- assisted bicycle, or a
motorcycle is not a motorized fool scooter.
RCW 46.6
Mopeds, EPAMDs, electric- assisted
bicycles, motorized foot scooters — General
requirements of operation.
1) No. person shall o a moped upon
the highways of this state unless the
moped has been assigned a moped
registration number and displays a
moped permit in accordance with the
provisions of RCW 46.16.630.
RCW 46.61.710
(contd)
) •Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a moped may not be operated on a
bicycle path or trail, bikeway, equestrian
trail, or hiking or recreational trail.
4
RCV11.4661,7�10
- (cont ci .
a) Operation of a moped, electric personal
assistive mobility device, or an electric-
- assisted bicycle on a fully controlled
limited.access highway is unlawful.
Operation of a moped or arr electric-
assisted'bicycle on a sidewalk is
unlawful.
RCW 46',61.710
(confd)
A): Removal of Muffling device o r
pollution control device from a
moped is unlawful.
• RCV 46.6,1:710
(cont'd)
G) Electricassiated btcyctes and motorized foot scooters
may have amass to highways of the state to tho sans
curtest as bicycles: SubJect to subsection (8) of this
section, eladdc assIstcd.bbcyetes and motorized fool
scooters may be operated on a multipurpose trail or
- bicyde tone, but local Jurisdictions may
restrict or otherwise limit the access of
electric-assisted bicycles and motorized,
foot scooters and stale agencies may regulate the
use of motorized fool scooters on fadrrties and
proparties under their iurisdidion and control.
5
RCW46.6171,0
(cont'd)
f.) Subsections (1) and (4) of this section do not apply
to motorized foot scooters. Subsection (2) of this
section applies to motorized foot scooters when
the bicycle path, trail, bikeway, equestrian trail, or
hiking or recreational trail was built or maintained
with federal highway transportation funds.
Additionally, any new trail or bicycle path or readily
identifiable existing trail or bicycle path not built or
maintained with federal highway transportation
funds may be used by persons operating
motorized foot scooters only when appropriately
signed.
RCW 46.20.500
Special endorsements — exceptions.
5). No driver's license is required to operate
a motorized - foot scooter. Motorized foot
scooters may not be operated at any
time from a half hour after sunset to a
half hour before sunrise without
reflectors of a type approved by the state
patrol.
Motorized Foot Scooters
REGULATION OPTIONS
6
. 0 _ .,;,!.11 .11.0„0
G 6 .% -6 •(-- 6I-vt -
--- -7 ,-- speedintover [ mph
• Avoids corni3lete ban – instead confines use
of motor foot scooters to (1) private
property, or (2) public roads with lower
speed limits.
r.loppies•nothing to alleviatetnoise %
',--4because4piiiblibLroads speed limits ,
l- -- ' .'
– are often in neighborhood areas.
Prohibit or limit operation of
1 1416 . r •
.•
SS
ii motorized foot scooters lack
proper lighting (head lamp, brake lights, tum
signals), this addresses safety concerns. •
• RCW 46.20.500(5) reads, in pertinent part:
motorized foot scooters may not be
[,:'operated atsaity.time•froritalbainioulafter
tt�aiiIE hou'r before sunrise without
reflectors of a type approved by the state
patrol."
e re nt
iliVetycomrrion
,.,_, juradictioris that have enacted Motorized'
– foot scooter regulations.
• There has been no legal challenge to a
minimum age requirement for operating
motorized foot scooters.
•-Atminimum operator age requirement is, I
! municipality to
--jenact additional motorized foot scooter
regulations.
7
require operators of motorized foot
rooters to possess a valid Washington
drivers license is likely outside the express
language of the state statute:
"fio { driver's license is required to_
C operat a itotorizedifoot scoote'
46 20.500)
fe vac
- . fima sucta.safetj4
devicas `side view.mirmrs, a proper he
'°lamp; rear brake lights (or WHP approved
reflectors), tum signal lights.
• This regulation would likely eliminate most of
the `problem' motorized foot scooters.
• At least one Washington city requires that the
factory installed braking system remain intact._
Another Wrst i igton - city.- requires that the driire
l � be able to di§ engage (clutch)
_Yr
• Most Washington cities with motorized scooter
regulations require rider(s) to wear a helmet.
:Ot
Muffler; Requirement-= Contradicte ;state:lev ><(ftCW "
46.61.710) which expressly exempts motorized
foot scooters from the prohibition against removing
muffling devices.
• Motorized Foot Scooter Licensing Requirement -
Although likely in compliance with state law, it
raises issues of increased bureaucracy,
. paperwork, and enforcement_
•- Prohibit <Passengers -Most motorized foot
scooters are designed for only 1 rider (in fact, in
researching this issue, I failed to find even one
multiple -rider model of motorized foot scooter).
8
• ' State statute authority to local
jurisdictions to enact °additional non-
contradictory" regulations of motorized foot
scooters.
• What, if any regulations are necessary in
Spokane-Valley to preseive.the.healkancl
9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 8/10/04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
xx information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Use Agreement City of Spokane Valley and Radio Control Car
Club Of Spokane
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: The Radio Control Car Club of Spokane (RCCCS) has operated a radio
car race track in Sullivan Park for a number of years under verbal understanding with
Spokane County. Sullivan Park is now part of the City of Spokane Valley park system. A
Use Agreement is being developed that will allow RCCCS to continue to operate through
December 31, 2004 (June 30, 2005 including one 6 month renewal period). This will allow
the City of Spokane Valley time to develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
formulate policies governing such use in the City park system.
OPTIONS: For information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENTS Draft Use Agreement, City of Spokane Valley and Radio Control Car Club of
Spokane
DRAFT
USE AGREEMENT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND
RADIO CONTROL CAR CLUB OF SPOKANE
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, as "City" acting through the City Manager and/or
Parks and Recreation Director and Radio Control Car Club of Spokane (RCCCS) whose address is
RCCCS in care of Les Ulrick W. 1223 Dalke, Spokane, Washington, 99205 as "Licensee."
In consideration of the following terms, conditions and covenants, the parties agree:
1. Purpose. This Use Agreement licenses and grants permission to use public property or
facilities that are owned or controlled by the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter, "Premises." The
Premises are described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto.
2. Event. Any event with 15 or more people will require Licensee to comply with the
requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code 6.05.050.
3. Dates and Schedule. This agreement is in effect from the date of execution through
December 31, 2004. This agreement will automatically renew for one six -month term unless terminated
by either party. Future renewals shall be subject to future plans for the usc of Sullivan Park in the best
interest of the community as to be determined by the City of Spokane Valley.
4. fees. Licensee agrees to pay or reimburse the City for all electrical charges and for
support services as may be agreed upon in writing and provided by the City at the request of RCCCS.
5. IndemnificationAVaiver. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
and all claims and expenses for loss or liability made against the City by any person or entity for
personal injury or property damage that results directly or indirectly from any act, incident or accident
occurring in, upon or about the Premises as a result of the acts, errors, or omissions of the Licensee, its
agents or event patrons, or arising in connection with the operations, usc and occupancy of the
Premises by Licensee, its agents or event patrons.
Licensee further waives all claims against the City on the account of any loss, damage, and
injury from whatever cause which may occur to it or its property in the use and occupancy of the
premises, the delivery of this waiver being one of the considerations upon which this agreement is
accepted.
6. Damage. Licensee shall reimburse the City for all damages to City property and
improvements as a result of the acts, errors, or omissions of Licensee, its agents or event patrons.
7. Posting of Signs. Licensee shall not post, exhibit or allow to be posted any signs,
advertisements, show bills or other items of any description, including any existing signs, on the
Premises or any other area of the City except upon the written approval of the City Manager or Parks
and Recreation Director.
8. Minimum Support Personnel. Licensee agrees to employ at its sole cost, expense and
liability, such minimum security, admission and support personnel as deemed necessary by the City
Manager or Parks and Recreation Director to assure the safety of the event patrons and the Premises.
Use Agreement, Radio Control Car Club Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
9. Copyright/Trademark. Licensee warrants on its own behalf and on the behalf of any
performer or any other person permitted by Licensee upon the Premises, that all material presented,
heard or shown has been duly licensed or authorized by the owners of any copyright or trademark.
Licensee acknowledges sole responsibility for payment of any royalty fees and agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees for all claims and attorney fees that arise through a
trademark or copyright dispute.
10. Concessions. All concession rights are reserved to the City. Licensee shall not sell or
give away food or merchandise without the written consent of the City Manager or Parks and
Recreation Director.
11. Insurance. Unless waived by the City in writing, Licensee shall provide a Certificate of
Insurance to the City with the following minimum coverages /limits:
(a) Employer's Liability or Washington Employer's Stop Gap liability with a limit
of no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence (including disease).
(b) Commercial or Comprehensive General Liability with a limit of no less than
51,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 in the annual aggregate for bodily injury, property
damage and personal injury including premises and operations, products and completed operations and
contractual liability. The City of Spokane Valley shall be named as an additional insured.
12. Special Conditions. In connection with the use and occupancy of the Premises,
Licensee agrees to the following special conditions which are incorporated into this agreement as if
fully set forth. The special conditions are set forth in Exhibit "A."
Attest:
This Agreement is made this day of 2004.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell
City Manager, David Mercier
Licensee
By:
Its:
Use Agreement, Radio Control Car Club Page 2 of 3
DRAFT
Exhibit A
Property Description
The existing Radio Car facility known as the Hank Perry Radio Car Track which is located in Sullivan
Park with boundaries as follows: on the North by the property line of City of Spokane Valley Sullivan
Park, on the South by the North edge of the paved parking lot, on the west by the City of Spokane
Valley Sullivan Park boundary and on the East by Sullivan Road.
Special Conditions
The property described is currently involved in a Parks and Recreation planning process and the
RCCCS acknowledges that no expansion or improvements, including the replacement of existing
facilities or fixtures shall be made to the facility during the term of this agreement. General
maintenance and repairs are the responsibility of RCCCS.
RCCCS is required to pay power bills and other costs as might be directly associated with their
operation. Such bills are due and payable within 30 days of presentation by the City.
The facility shall be open to the general public. Membership in the RCCCS or other organization shall
not be a requirement for public utilization.
No fees may be charged to enter and use the facility except for entry fees as provided by special event
permit.
The City of Spokane Valley will continue to maintain the landscaped area adjacent to the track and will
provide routine garbage service. All garbage generated in excess of regularly scheduled pickups shall
be the responsibility of RCCCS.
The Western Dance Ball shall have first right of paved parking lot use. Use of the paved parking must
be specifically requested in advance by RCCCS.
Electrical power shall be provided only through outlets as specified in writing by the City of Spokane
Valley. The Western Dance Hall is under private lease and therefore electrical power from that facility
is not allowed.
No overnight camping shall be allowed. However, a limited number of vehicles for the purpose of
overnight security may be permitted. Such use must be approved in writing by the City of Spokane
Valley.
Usc Agreement, Radio Control Car Club Page 3 of 3
Spokane
• Ualley
Memorandum
To: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
From: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
CC: Members of the Salary Commission
Date: August 2, 2004
Re: Final Report of the 2004 Salary Commission
11707E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
The Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission was formed pursuant to Ordinance
04 -018. The purpose of the Commission was to review and establish the salaries of the
Mayor and Council.
According to the Ordinance, the Commission was to begin meeting no later than June 23,
2004, and was to file its schedule of salaries with the City Clerk no later than August 2,
2004. The Conunnission met on June 16, June 30, July 8, and July 20, 2004.
Attached is the final report of the City of Spokane Valley Independent Salary
Commission. The Commission was very thoughtful in its deliberations. The report
includes the salary schedule along with their rationale.
The monthly salary schedule is as follows:
Please let me know if you have questions.
Nina Regor,
Staff Liaison to the Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission
Current
New
Mayor
$500
$1,200
Deputy Mayor
$400
$1,000
Councilor
$400
$900
Spokane
• Ualley
Memorandum
To: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
From: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
CC: Members of the Salary Commission
Date: August 2, 2004
Re: Final Report of the 2004 Salary Commission
11707E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
The Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission was formed pursuant to Ordinance
04 -018. The purpose of the Commission was to review and establish the salaries of the
Mayor and Council.
According to the Ordinance, the Commission was to begin meeting no later than June 23,
2004, and was to file its schedule of salaries with the City Clerk no later than August 2,
2004. The Conunnission met on June 16, June 30, July 8, and July 20, 2004.
Attached is the final report of the City of Spokane Valley Independent Salary
Commission. The Commission was very thoughtful in its deliberations. The report
includes the salary schedule along with their rationale.
The monthly salary schedule is as follows:
Please let me know if you have questions.
Nina Regor,
Staff Liaison to the Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission
INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Members:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Final Report: August 2, 2004
• Dave Gregory, Chair
• Rod Grondel, Vice Chair
• Diane Brown
• Frankie DeWitt
• Michele Lickerman
• Jim Huttenmeier, Alternate
• Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager, Staff Liaison
Introduction
The City of Spokane Valley was incorporated effective March 31, 2003. It was the
largest incorporation in Washington State, and the second largest incorporation in the
country. With a population of 83,950, it is the eighth largest city in Washington.
Spokane Valley operates under a Council - Manager form of government. The legislative
branch is made up of a seven member Council, with the Mayor chosen by his or her
fellow Councilors. The City Council hires a professional City Manager as the City's
Chief Executive Officer. He or she is responsible for the administration of the city, and
carrying out the policy directives of Council.
According to the state laws on incorporation, The Mayor receives $500 per month, and
the Council members receive $400 per month. The Spokane Valley City Council adopted
this salary schedule until they could form an independent salary commission to provide a
more in -depth analysis.
Description of Commission
On May 25, 2004, the City of Spokane Valley City Council approved Ordinance 04 -018,
creating a five- member Independent Salary Commission. The purpose of the
Conunission was to review and establish the salaries of the Mayor and Council.
The City advertised the Conunission openings, received applications, and on June 8
appointed five members and one alternate. The term of the Commission is one year, and
the commissioners serve without compensation.
According to Ordinance 04 -018, the Independent Salary Commission was to begin
meeting no later than June 23, 2004, and was to file its schedule of salaries with the City
Clerk no later than August 2, 2004. Appendix III contains a summary of each meeting.
The Commission met on June 16, June 30, July 8, and July 20, 2004, and submitted its
report on August 2, 2004.
The Proccss
The Salary Commission looked at Mayor and Council salary information compiled by the
Association of Washington Cities of over 250 cities throughout the state. They narrowed
their comparison to the ten cities closest in size to Spokane Valley who also operated
under the Council - Manager form of government. See Appendix I for more information
on comparables.
The Commission members focused on two priorities in their deliberation: thorough
understanding of the work of Spokane Valley Council members; and public opinion of a
fair salary to pay the Mayor and Council.
Page 2 of 13
The Conunission sent a questionnaire to City Council, soliciting information about the
work they did as elected officials. Appendix N provides a copy of the questionnaire.
All seven Council members responded. See below for a description of Council roles and
responsibilities.
The Commission held public meetings, and the City posted the meeting agendas and
meeting summaries on its web site. Commission members also conducted interviews
with the media, who agreed to run articles requesting public input. In addition, some of
the members distributed a mini - survey, and randomly asked general citizens their opinion
on a fair salary for the Mayor and Council. See Appendix II for a summary of public
input results.
Each Commission member crafted a preliminary proposal. The Commission as a whole
discussed the five proposals and reached consensus on a final salary schedule.
Council Roles and Responsibilities
The Salary Commission was surprised to discover how much time the Mayor and
Council spend on City business. They were not alone. As they spoke with members of
the community, the Commission found that in general, citizens are unaware of the
amount of time involved in being a City of Spokane Valley elected official.
On average, the Mayor of Spokane Valley devotes 30 — 32 hours per week for Council
commitments, plus an additional 10 — 20 hours per month for community commitments.
The Deputy Mayor devotes 20 — 25 hours per week for Council commitments, and 12 —
32 hours per month for additional community commitments. The remaining five
Councilors devote 18 — 45 hours per week for Council commitments, along with 5 — 80
hours per month for additional community commitments.
There are typically two regular Council meetings and two study sessions per month.
These meetings last two to three hours each. In addition to the meeting attendance, the
Mayor and Council prepare for each meeting by reading the material and sometimes
following up in advance with questions they may have.
In their role as policy makers for the City, they need to stay informed on issues such as
provision of public services; land use and zoning; level of taxation and spending; and
regional, state and federal legislative proposals.
In addition to these regular commitments, Council members represent the City's interests
on 'various regional Boards and Conunissions. For instance, Councilors are currently
Board members of the Spokane Transit Authority, the Regional Health District, the
Convention & Visitors Bureau and the International Trade Alliance. They also represent
the City at the state and national level, with a Councilor serving on the Board of the
Association of Washington Cities, and on the National League of Cities information &
Technology Committee.
Page 3 of 13
They interact both formally and informally with other elected officials in the region,
representing Spokane Valley's interests on a broader level. Examples of current issues
include the future of wastewater treatment, regional emergency management, and a
regional approach to animal control.
The responsibilities of the Mayor and Council also include maintaining contact with the
community. They are active in community organizations and events such as the Spokane
Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council, the Spokane Valley
Business Association and ValleyFest.
On a periodic basis, they hold Conversations with the Community, at various locations
around the city. During the school year, they also visit area high schools to discuss issues
of importance to Spokane Valley's youth. They regularly receive and respond to letters,
e -mails and telephone calls.
The Mayor and Council develop and deliver presentations to community organizations,
such as the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. They write articles and guest
editorials, and conduct press conferences and on -air interviews. They attend ribbon
cuttings, ground breakings, grand openings, open houses and graduations. At some of
these events they are simply in attendance, and at others they are writing and delivering
speeches or acting as master of ceremonies.
In addition to the above responsibilities, the Mayor manages the agenda and presides at
Council meetings. The Deputy Mayor assumes the responsibilities of the Mayor in his or
her absence.
Rationale for the Proposal
The City of Spokane Valley adopted the state - declared $500 per month for the Mayor and
$400 per month for Council until an independent salary commission could be appointed
to review the amounts. .I.n many cases, this meant that Council members were paid in
effect less than half the minimum wage. The Commission members uniformly agreed
that the amount was too low for the amount of time elected officials were obliged to
devote to the City.
The Salary Commission believes that the City should compensate its elected officials in
the form of a stipend — not a full salary reflecting the full value of the time and effort put
in by the Mayor and Council.
Every Commission member expressed appreciation for the work of each member of the
City Council. However, they want the basis for the Spokane Valley City Council to be
grounded in a sense of volunteerism, and a desire to serve the community.
The Commission recognized that a City Council member is never "off - duty." He or she
is approached by citizens not only at official events, but also in his or her every day life,
Page 4 of 13
such as at work, at the grocery store and at church. The Commission members feel this
accessibility is important to the community, and want it to continue.
While the Commission didn't feel it was appropriate to propose a full salary, they did feel
the City should compensate its elected officials at a higher stipend than they currently
receive, for the significant impact to their personal lives and that of their families.
The Commission looked at other benefits offered to the Mayor and Council, and the fact
that the City does not offer then a retirement benefit. They weighed this information as
they developed the proposal; however, they recognized that the scope of their work was
limited to the salary.
Looking at the ten comparable cities, the proposed salary schedule is less than the
average monthly salary for the Mayor and the Council members, and slightly above
average for the Deputy Mayor. It should be noted that only three of the seven cities paid
a different amount to the Deputy Mayor, than to their Council members. However, in
Spokane Valley's case, the Deputy Mayor does carry responsibilities in addition to that of
the Council members.
Salary Schedule Proposal
The Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission proposes the following salary
schedule for the City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council:
Position
urrent Monthly
Salary
_Proposed - Monthly
Salary
Ma or
$500
$1,200
Deputy Ma or
$400
$1,
Councilor
$400
$900
The Commission recommends no automatic annual cost of living increase.
Pursuant to state law (RCW 35.21.015), this salary schedule shall become effective and
incorporated into the city budget without further action of the City Council or Salary
Commission, subject to a referendum of the people.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dave Gregory,
Chair of the Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission
Page 5 of 13
City
Population
Average time committed
Compensation
Per month
Vancouver
145,300
90 hours per month is reported
for retirement service credits
Mayor $1,885.00
Council $1,260.00
Bellevue
111,500
Mayor $1,950.00
Council $1,650.00
Federal Way
83,890
Considered part time
employees
Mayor $1,375.00
Council $1,075.00
Yakima
73,040
Council 15 -20 hours per week
Mayor 30 — 40 hours per week
Mayor $1,043.95
Deputy $800.37
Council $695.97
Lakewood
58,190
Mayor $900.00
Council $700.00
Kennewick
55,780
Mayor $1,191.00
Deputy $1,091.00
Council $992.00
Shoreline
53,421
# of hours reported to L &I per
month: Mayor 95; Deputy 78;
Council 60
Mayor $875.00
Council $700.00
Kirkland
45,770
Mayor $950.00
Council $650.00
Olympia
42,530
25 hours per week
Mayor $933.40
Deputy $738.66
Council $656.08
Richland
Average
39,350
._t_..._,1 __'
Estimate 160 hours per month
for pay checks
Mayor $1,125.00
Council $875.00
Mayor $1,223.00
Deputy $954.00
Council $925.00
-', "` 4; r `
; . rr
APPENDIX I:: Comparables
The Salary Commission selected as its comparables the ten cities closest in size to
Spokane Valley who also operated under the Council - Manager form of government
Spokane Valley
83,950
See below
Mayor $500.00
Council $400.00
In comparison, the following estimates apply for Spokane Valley Council members:
• Mayor: 30 — 32 hours per week for Council commitments, plus 10 — 20 hours per
month for additional conununity commitments;
• Deputy Mayor: 20 — 25 hours per week for Council commitments, plus 12 — 32
hours per month for additional community conunitments;
• Councilors (5): 18 — 45 hours per week for Council commitments, plus 5 — 80
hours per month for additional community commitments.
Page 6 of 13
APPENDIX II: Summary of Public Input Results
The Salary Commission took both a proactive and reactive approach to seeking
public input. Among the reactive approaches were the following:
• The meeting agendas and minutes were published on the City web site.
• The Commission meetings were held in a public setting, with public input
allowed at the beginning and the end of each meeting. A total of four
people attended the meetings.
In order to proactively seek public input, the Commission took the following
additional steps:
• Conducted interviews with the media to encourage citizens to call, e-mail
or write letters to the City to voice their opinions. As a result of the media
coverage, the City received thirteen e- mails, one mailed letter and eleven
telephone calls. Seven people spoke in favor of an increase, and eighteen .
opposed an increase, at least at this time.
• Developed and handed out a brief written survey. About 35 responded,
and all respondents favored a salary increase for the Mayor and Council.
• Asked individuals with whom they came in contact. Almost 100
individuals offered their opinion. The general feeling was surprise that so
much time and work was involved in the completion of their jobs. Every
person supported the idea of an increase in the payment of the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor and the Council to a level that would retain people of
integrity and quality for the positions.
The Salary Commission members observed that people were more likely to support a
salary increase using one of the two direct communication approaches. The direct
approaches gave the Commission members the opportunity to describe the Mayor and
Council's responsibilities, and to tell them what the Council was currently being paid.
Virtually all of the citizens using these approaches supported some form of salary
increase. By contrast, about 28% of those who offered their opinions by telephone, e-
mail or letter supported an increase.
Page 7 of 1.3
SPOKAiNE VALLEY :INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Spokane Valley City Hall
Opportunity Conference Room, 4:30 p.m.
June 16, 2004 — Meeting Summary
Commission Members Present: Diane Brown; Frankie DeWitt; Michele Cickerman;
Rod Grondel
Commission Members Absent: Dave Gregory
Staff Present: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Summary of Meeting:
APPENDIX III: Meeting Summaries
The meeting began at 4:30 p.m.
The Commission decided to defer election of a Chair and Vice Chair until the next
meeting, when all members would be present. They reviewed Ordinance 04 -018, which
established the Commission.
After reviewing the 2003 Mayor and Council salary data compiled by the Association of
Washington Cities, the Commission decided to seek comparable information from the
following cities: Vancouver; Bellevue; Federal Way; Yakima; Lakewood; Kennewick;
Shoreline; Kirkland; Olympia; and Richland.
These cities are the ten cities closest in size to Spokane Valley. Like Spokane Valley,
they operate under a Council - Manager form of government. The cities range in
population from 150,700 to 41,650.
The Commission also identified information they will seek from the Spokane Valley City
Council, to help compare their responsibilities to those of the other ten cities. Per
Ordinance 04 -018, that request will be made in writing.
The Commission decided to schedule public comment at the beginning and the end of
each meeting. There was no general public present at the June 16 meeting.
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for June 30 at 4:30 p.m. in the Opportunity
Conference Room of Spokane Valley City Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Page 8 of 13
Meeting Summaries, continued
SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 4:30 p.m.
June 30, 2004 — Meeting Summary
Commission Members Present: Diane Brown; Frankie DeWitt; Michele Eickerman;
Dave Gregory; Rod Grondel
Staff Present: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Summary of Meeting:
The meeting began at 4 :30 p.m. The Commission chose Dave Gregory as Chair, and Rod
Grondel as Vice Chair.
During the first public comment period, Bob Blum provided some general background
comments.
The Commission reviewed and made no changes to the summary of the June 16 meeting.
The Commission reviewed and discussed various background documents, including
RCW 35A; a table of information on comparable cities (chosen at the last meeting using
population as a guide); information on the City of Vancouver's Salary; Commission; and
survey responses from Spokane Valley Council members. They requested information
on retirement and other benefits available to the Spokane Valley City Council.
Given the short timefranne of the task force, they agreed to each craft a proposal and
submit it by Wednesday morning, July 7. The proposal would address salary for the
Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilors, and provide input on an escalator clause. Along
with the proposal, Commission members will describe how they came to their proposal,
i.e., what factors were most important to them in drawing a conclusion. Staff will
compile the information and provide it at the next meeting.
During the second public comment period, Bob Blum expressed how important it would
be for the Commission to describe the rationale behind its recommendations.
The next meeting was scheduled for July 8 at 7:00 p.m. in the 2' Floor Conference
Room at the Spokane Valley City Hall site (11707 E. Sprague Ave.).
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Page 9 of 13
Meeting Summaries, continued
SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Spokane Valley City Hall
Conference Room 204, 7:00 p.m.
July 8, 2004 — Meeting Summary
Commission Members Present: Diane Brown; Frankie DeWitt; Michele Eickerman;
Dave Gregory; Rod Grondel
Staff Present: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Summary of Meeting:
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. During the. first public comment period, Tony Lazanis
stated that Council should get paid, because they spend a lot of time for the City.
However, the Mayor is not the administrative head of the City.
Glenn Kivet said that the time being spent by the Council members is enormous, and they
are vastly underpaid, but any compensation increase should go into effect at the next
term, and should be placed before the people for a vote.
The Commission reviewed and made no changes to the summary of the June 30 meeting.
The Commission reviewed the written comments provided by the public via e -mail and
letter; then each Commission member summarized his or her draft salary proposal.
During the second public comment period, Don Flock said that the current salary level
was a little low, and they were probably deserving of a little raise. Mr. Kivet said it was
most important to hold the cost down to the absolute minimum. Mr. Lazanis said he
supported an increase, but that it should go into effect at the next election.
The Commission as a whole reached the following consensus: The Mayor to receive a
monthly salary of $1,200; the Deputy Mayor to receive a monthly salary of $1,000; and
the Council members to receive a monthly salary of $900. The proposal does not include
an annual cost of living adjustment.
The Commission discussed the rationale for the proposal, including the amount of time
and effort the Mayor and Council devote to the City. The proposal is slightly below the
average of the ten comparable cities for the Mayor and Councilor positions, and slightly
above the average for the Deputy Mayor position.
The Commission discussed its report, and what components should be included. The
members felt it was particularly important to describe the process, and to articulate the
roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and Council, to educate the public on the
complexity of the jobs, and how time consuming they are.
Page 10 of 13
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday July 20 at 4:30 p.m. in the r Floor
Conference Room at Spokane Valley City Hall (11707 E. Sprague Ave.).
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Page 11 of 13
Meeting Summaries, continued
SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Spokane Valley City Hall
Conference Room 204, 4:30 p.m.
July 20, 2004 — Meeting Summary
Commission Members Present: Diane Brown; Frankie DeWitt; Dave Gregory; R.od
Grondel
Commission Member Absent: Michele Eickerman
Staff Present: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Summary of Meeting:
The meeting began at 4:40 p.m. There was no public in attendance.
The Commission reviewed and made no changes to the summary of the July 8 meeting.
The Commission reviewed and revised the draft report, but made no substantive changes
to content.
The Commission decided that no additional meetings were necessary — the report could
be finalized via e-mail correspondence.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Page 12 of 13
Marne:
APPENDIX IV: Council Questionnaire
Spokane Valley Mayor & Council Survey of
Roles and Responsibilities
Please summarize your role and responsibilities as Mayor/Deputy
Mayor /Councilor of Spokane Valley.
Are there written guidelines for your role and responsibilities and, if so, do you
feel you're doing anything outside of those guidelines?
About how many hours per week would you say you spend fulfilling the
commitments of the Mayor /Deputy Mayor. /Councilor?
Are there other community expectations you feel you do or should meet (for
example, participation at community events; membership in community
organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce; volunteer work outside of
Council)?
If so, what is the time commitment for that participation?
Are there any other comments you feel the Commission should take into
consideration as it compares the work of Spokane Valley's elected officials with
those of other cities?
Page 13 of 13
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
July 8, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Planning Conunission Chair Gothmann called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. The Commissioners welcomed Debi Alley back from extended leave.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Fred Beaulac — Present
Bob Blum — Present
David Crosby — Present
Gail Kogle — Excused Absence
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Robertson moved that the July 8, 2009 agenda be approved as
presented. Commissioner Gothmann seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF iVUINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Gothmann and seconded by Commissioner
Beaulac that the minutes of the June 10 and June 24, 2004 Planning
Commission meetings he approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Bill Gothmann — Present
Tan Robertson — Present
John G. Carroll — Present
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
As Chair of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee, Commissioner Crosby reported on
yesterday's meeting activities. The Committee continues to work on the
Definitions section of the Code, and will continue to do so at their next meeting
on July 22 ". Commissioner Crosby will provide the Planning Commission with
copies of Committee meeting minutes at the next meeting.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Ms. Sukup explained to the Commissioners that three out of four items brought
forward for discussion at the last meeting will go to public hearing on July 22".
The Clearview Triangle has been dropped from the hearing roster at this time.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. NEW BUSINESS:
Briefing: Light Rail Project, K.C. Travers.
Mr. K.C. Travers, Light Rail Project Manager, was introduced to the
Planning Commission. IIe provided the Commission with an update on
the regional Light Rail planning effort, focusing specifically on plans for
the Spokane Valley. Valley citizens' preferences for development of a
Light Rail system were to increase economic development /employment
and to enhance transportation/growth management. Commissioners asked
Mr. Travers questions regarding the proposed Light Rail system's service
radius, and its economic impact on the City and its citizens.
Briefing: Spokane Transit Authority, Cordon Howell.
Mr. Gordon Howell, Planning and Grants Manager at Spokane Transit
Authority, was introduced to the Planning Commission. Molly Myers and
Ryan Stewart from Spokane Transit Authority were also introduced. Mr.
Howell presented a plan for improved public transportation in the Valley.
The proposed service plan includes enhanced routes that would provide
great connectivity between Valley locations, increase of route frequencies
to 30 minutes, use of smaller vehicles on feeder routes, addition of mid-
day trips to express routes serving primary Valley locations, and extension
of service hours to 9:20 p.m. Commissioners asked questions about
available funding and the new Park & Ride stations proposed to be located
in two southern Valley locations.
The Planning Commission thanked Spokane Transit Authority for their
presentations, and praised them for holding public meetings to assist in the
planning process.
Comprehensive Plan: Parks & Recreation Chapter Draft.
Mr. Scott Kuhta presented a draft of the City of Spokane Valley's
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9 — Parks & Recreation. This chapter is
similar to the Capital Facilities chapter in that there is building and
development involved. When the Ten -Year Parks Master Plan is
completed and approved, it will direct Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive
Plan. Commissioner Gothmann encouraged the City to take advantage of
the opportunity to integrate existing natural areas and historical sites (e.g.
Dishman Hills, Centennial Trail) to new Parks & Recreation areas.
The Commission held a break from 7:50 to 8:00 p.m. Pie was served in honor of
Ms. Alley's return.
2
13. OLD BUSINESS:
Continuation of Discussion: Administrative Variance /Administrative
Exception.
Ms. Sukup explained that a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on this subject is scheduled for the July 22' meeting. Staff
is proposing amendments to the existing Ordinance #03 -53, and Ms.
Sukup gave the Commission a brief overview of what is being proposed.
She and Mr. Kuhta clarified several definitions in the proposed ordinance
and Zoning Code. There were no further comments or questions.
Continuation of Discussion: Dimensional Standards.
Ms. Sukup briefed the Planning Commission on proposed amendments to
the Interim Development Regulations related to dimensional standards. A
public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled on this topic
at the July 22" meeting. There were no comments or questions regarding
these proposed amendments.
Continuation of Discussion: Interim Zoning (UR - 1).
Ms. Sukup explained that staff is recommending a proposal to amend
Ordinance #03 -53 to establish Chapter 14.615 Urban Residential Estate
(UR -1) Zone and applicable interim development regulations for the City.
The interim zoning status may last for up to twelve months, and could give
the City a reprieve until better design standards can be developed.
Commissioner Crosby and Ms. Sukup discussed some of the inherent
problems with this type of zone and its effect on neighbors. There were
no further comments or questions.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Carroll mentioned that three Commissioners have property
located in the Rotchford Acres and Ponderosa neighborhoods. He asked
Ms. Sukup how this would affect their participation in the public hearing
to be held on July 22 " and their ability to vote on the proposal. Mr.
Kuhta read #15: Conflict of Interest from the Planning Conunission's
Rules of Procedure: "Any Commission member having a direct or
indirect interest in, or would benefit from any matter, shall disclose this
interest and shall, if deemed appropriate by that commissioner or
required by law, refrain from participating or voting on the matter."
Chairman Gothmann handed out copies of the citizen comments which
were attached to the Clearwater Research, Inc.'s Community Survey
posted on the City's website.
Ms. Sukup thanked the Conunissioners who attended the Comp Plan
Community meetings and participated as group facilitators. She
encouraged them to rest up this summer, because the meetings will begin
again in September.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Debi Alley, Administrative Assistant William H. Gothmann, Chairman
4
Sp�kaa�
jUalley
Memorandum
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, and Members of the Spokane Valley City Council
From: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: August 5, 2004
Re: Mr. Greg Werner
I met with Mr. Werner during the Council meeting on September 27, 2004 and again on August 3,
2004. His concern appears to be that by reducing the setback requirements, that the City would be
expanding the right -of -way. It was explained to him that the right -of -way includes the paved portion of
the roadway, the 206 swales and the sidewalk, except in those cases where there is a border
easement. The right -of -way may also include a planting strip, and that the utility poles are generally
1 -2 feet inside the public right -of -way. It was also explained to him that it is the practice to
compensate the property owner for additional right -of -way, if any is required. He feels that such a
taking is always below market rates, and that any change in ordinances should be put to a vote of the
people.