The URL can be used to link to this page

2009, 03-03 Study Session AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:00 n.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Flaor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LE 4DER SLJBJECTIACTIVITY GOAL l. Karen Kendall Airport Overlay Discussion/Information 2. Mike Stoae Valley Mission Park Project DiscussionlInformation 3. Steve Worley lndiana Avenue Extension Project, TIB Grant Discussion/Informgtion 4. Steve Worle}, Septic Tank Elimination Program (ST'EP) Discussion/information 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County 5. Rick VanLeuven False Alarm Discussion/Information 6. Scott Kuhta Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Discussion/Deliberation 7. %'Iavor R7unson Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 8. Iirformation Only: (these items titiIll not be discussed or reported) a. Community Development Montlrlv Report b. T~a,~`'rc Sr,gnals 9. Councilmembers Council Exrternal Committee Reports Discussion/Information 10. Mayor Munson Council Check in Discussian/Information 11. Dave Mercier Citv Manager Comments Discussion/Informaiion 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation; Land Acquisition ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted Above. there will be ao publir comments at Council Stady Sessians. Howevcr, Couacil always reservea the right to i-equest information trom the pvblic and atxff as appropris►tc. During meetings hcld by thc City of Spolcane Valley Council, thc Council mserves lhe right to tnke "nction" on any itcm listcd or subscqucntly added to the agenda. The term "action" means to delibtrate, discuss, review, considcr, evaluate, or muke a callective positive or negative dccisian. hOTiCE: Individuals planning tu attend the maiing who rcquire spotial assistance to accommodatt physical, heanng, or othet 'tmpairments, please contatt tlte City Clcrk at (SQU) 921-1000 ns smn as passiUlc so that arrangtntcnu mny bt madc. Study Session Agcnd.i, \darch 3, 2009 Page I of I _ i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑information Z admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session to discuss the code amendment to Section 19.110.030 Airport Overlay Zone (File No. CTA-04-08) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70., 14 CFR 77 and SVMC 19.110.030 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation the City adopted the Spokane County airport overlay regulations on an interim basis. The City adopted its own airport hazard overlay regulations by Ordinance 06-002 on February 28, 2006. The regulations were carried forward in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.110.030 with the adoption of the new zoning regulations effective October 28th, 2007. Concerns were voiced by citizens and agencies regarding the density limitations of Zone 6 within the airport hazard overlay zone. Staff was directed by the City Council to review this issue and propose alternatives to the density limitation. The staff presented four (4) options to the Planning Commission as alternatives within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay. A study session was held on October 9, 2008 in which an additional option was requested by the Planning Commission for staff to evaluate which is referenced as option 5 below. The progress of the code amendment is as follows; 1. October 9, 2008 Study Session with Planning Commission 2. October 23, 2008 Public Hearing with Planning Commission Summary of ineeting: a. Airport groups expressed concerns regarding increased density. In support of retaining existing regulations. b. Citizens/property owners concerned about limitations to develop their property. c. The public hearing was continued to allow time for the airport groups to review and meet with City staff. 3. Greg McCormick and Karen Kendall met with Ryan Sheehan and Neal Sealock from Spokane International Airport (SIA) on October 31, 2008. The SIA representatives indicated that they would have no further written comment on the issue. Discussion centered on noise mitigation measures. Staff revised their recommended option for the December 11, 2008 continued public hearing. The additional requirements included dedication language on the face of plats to serve as a notice of potential increased noise and require additional sound proofing on new construction within plats. The other finro (2) mitigation measures (avigation easement and zoning restrictions) are currently required in the airport hazard overlay (Section 19.110.030). 4. December 11, 2008 Continued Public Hearing with Planning Commission Summary of ineeting: March 3, 2009 Request for Crty Commission Action on CTA-0408 a. Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Aviation Division spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation and in support of retaining existing regulations. b. No additional comments were received by the airport groups. c. Several citizens voiced concerns about limitations to develop their property. d. The motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council failed 4 to 3. e. Concern was raised by Planning Commission members regarding the two (2) new commission members being introduced in the middle of the proposed code amendment. f. A motion 6 to 1 passed to direct staff to create an advisory committee with a member from the Home Builders (suggested Edie Streicher who testified), Realtor, staff from WSDOT Aviation Division and project planner to conduct research. Staff would present findings at a re- advertised public hearing in no more than three (3) months. The information requested was not clearly defined but perimeter was set to research traffic patterns, risk assessment and coming up with additional alternatives. On January 20, 2009 the City Council was presented the Planning Commission's motion and directed staff to carry the proposed code amendment forward for review and decision. The City Council requested the following information be discussed; 1. Is staffs proposal consistent with the growth management act (GMA)? Staff Comment: Staff recognizes GMA directs jurrsdictions to plan for incompatibility of uses around airports. Section 36.70.547 states "...shall...discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport". The language provides guidance by using "...discourage..." instead of providing directive "shall deny" Additionally, compliance with GMA is not defined by adherence to one specific goal. Staff has determined compliance with al/ relevant planning goa/s established in RCW 36.70A.020 is as follows; a. Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; b. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; c. Housing; Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock; d. Public Facilities and Services: Ensure fhat those public facilities and services necessary fo support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time fhe development is available for occupancy and use withouf decreasing currenf service levels below locally established minimum sfandards. Staff concludes option 4 is consistent with the GMA goals and those goals and policies set forth in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 7 March 3, 2009 Request for City Commission Action on CTA-44-08 2. What is the accident data in the past 10 to 20 years for Felts Field? Staff Comment: There has been one (1) accident in the past forty (40) years which happened approximately three (3) nautical miles northeast of Felts Field. 3. What is the cost of soundproofing new construction? Staff Comment: In option 4 staff recommended soundproofing be required on new consfruction. If the City proceeded with this requirement, extensive research and analysis would need to be conducted to change our building code regulations in Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to accommodate such recommendation. If such regulations were in place the construction would not be allowed to deviafe and thorough inspections would be required. There are no specific costs estimates available for soundproofing new construction. With this information, staff has removed the requiremenf of soundproofing from recommended option 4. 4. What regulations do the surrounding jurisdictions have concerning airport mitigation? Staff Comment: An administrative report was prepared and presented on March 4, 2008 City Council meeting conceming the requested information. Please reference exhibit 8. ANALYSIS: The following are four (4) options staff presented to the Planning Commission within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay. Each option is being reviewed to determine if the approval criteria established in Section 17.80.150(F) of the SVMC can be met. At the study session on October 9, 2008 an additional option was requested by the Planning Commission for staff to evaluate which is referenced as option 5. Staff continues to recommend Option 4. 1. Option 1: No change to current density limitation in Table 19-110-1 a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The current regulafions are in direct conformance wifh Goal TG-13 (Encourage land use and development compatible with airport uses and regulated airspace) and policies TP-13.1 (Enforce regulations protecting airspace from encraachment) and TP-13.2 (Discourage incompatible land uses and residential densities adjacent to the airport) of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment.- The current regulations provide the highest level of profection from incompafible and inconsistent densities in relation to Felts Field. 2. Option 2: Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. Page 3 of 7 March 3, 2009 Request for City Commission Action on CTA-04-08 a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment; Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan stafes "discourage density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. There are a handful of parcels that are at least double in size that could be developed under the R-2 zone that are directly adjacent fo fhe designated airport boundary and runway that would be in direct conflict with policy TP-13.2. The majority of the land area within Zone 6 is fully built out with residential uses. The number of potential parcels thaf could be developed between the R-2 and R-4 zones is 388 parcels located throughout the 6,000 foot radius of Zone 6. This option conflicts by allowing density wifhin an area fhat should be profecfed from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new Iots would be located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. There are approximately 1,154 existing parcels in the R-2 zone with 152 parcels that could potenfially be furfher developed. The R-4 zone has 155 existing parcels and 76 have the potential being further divided. The fofa/ number between fhe R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potential to be further divided is 388. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not comp/efed. There may be other factors that limif development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locafions of housing within the City of Spokane Val/ey. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concem is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. The increase in density is so small in relation to fhe existing of man-made hazards and encroachments that could pose a safety hazard for aircraft or create an increase in exposure to noise from aircraft. 3. Option 3: Allow density to be limited to the R-2 ioning regulations within Zone 6. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP- 13. 2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage density adjacent to the airporf" wifhin fhe airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potenfial new lots are located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. The R-2 zone has 152 parcels that could potentia!!y be furfher developed. The R-4 zone has 23 parcels 20,000 square feef or greater with the potential of being further divided under the R-2 development standards. The total number between fhe R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potenfial to be further divided is 175. The analysis was done only to evaluafe lot size for further developmenf. Page 4 of 7 March 3, 2009 Request for Ciry Commission Action on CTA-04-08 A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even fhough the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, weffare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concem is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. 4. Option 4: Allow density of underlying zoning within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) property sizes for proposed development; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. In addition, language shall be placed upon the face of the final plat to serve as notification of possible increase in noise. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the,Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan sfates "discourage density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. The proposed option of allowing developmenf with exceptions would provide those properties that have had the intent of further land division to proceed. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safefy hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are /ocated more than 3,000 feet from the runway. The insfallation of water and sewer stubs is consistent with Goal CFP-9. The data collected from the Spokane County Division of Utilities shows approximately 224 lots within Zone 6 have been stubbed for sewer. There are 79 lots fhat received hnio or more sewer stubs. Orchard Avenue lrrigation District dafa shows approximately 35 lots received extra water stubs within Zone 6. There are a total of 12 lots that received water and sewer stubs within Zone 6. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The densify increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locafions of housing within the Cify of Spokane Valley. If has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services fo additional residences however this concem is not significantly Page 5 of 7 March 3, 2009 Request for City Commission Action on CTA-04-08 detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. 5. Option 5: Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. This option was proposed by the Planning Commission at the study session held on October 9, 2008. This option, if considered would need to be further defined to determine which amount of density is allowed in each section (north and south). a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage density adjacent fo the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards. If determined to be divided at current zoning standards the proposed north section of Zone 6(north of Trent Avenue) then R-2 has 148 parcels and R-4 has 71 parcels with the potential to be divided. The proposed south section of zone 6(south of Trenf Avenue) has 4 parcels in R-2 and 5 parcels in R-4 that have the potential of being divided at with current zoning standards. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be ofher factors that limit developmenf of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services fo additional residences however this concem is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. OPTIONS: Proceed as proposed, or as modified; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to bring this forward for an ordinance first reading at the April 12, 2009 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner EXHIBITS: (1) Minutes of the 10-9-08 Planning Commission study session (2) Staff report and exhibits to Planning Commission for 10-23-08 pubic hearing (3) Staff, agency and citizen comments from 10-23-08 public hearing (4) Minutes of the 10-23-08 Planning Commission public hearing (5) Staff report and exhibits to Planning Commission for 12-11-08 pubic hearing (6) Agency comment from 12-11-08 continued public hearing Page6of7 January 20, 2009 Request for Councd Action on CTA-04-08 (7) Minutes of the 12-11-08 Planning Commission continued public hearing (8) Request for Council Action dated March 4, 2008 Page 7 of 7 Departmenx o~' Commut~ity Devel+~pm+~~nt ' S~~~kan~e Planni~g Dzvision Counci*1 Study Sessi'on CI*ty March 3,2009 • • ~ I J J . ' ~ ' ~a--~ yk'- ~1 ' ~ lV, ~ _ i yor Y. .~rv "0' ~ . . . . . ~n ^,i/ ~?il~ ~ 's. ..1:::!~/ 6 . . . , ~ _ - . p t~-i s - ~ y • ~,,,y,~,. _ r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~•~',f 1~ 1~ ♦ ~1' A ~ a . . . ~ I r , r'ii.' P~ ~fP ~y{ ~ Y a• r,F ' • . ~ - . ,~>1 ~ ' 4.i~ F1o.7~'•'►~'~`°.;~i~.~+ a .~.a `.~1~ i.. 9 ~~t ~ . • V~ p,~". " `d r _,yi~*'~ 1 40,. . ~ ~~r *~''~~fti~ ~ r~~.~ ' tr.,•' ~ !~'I.l~~ i, ' ,y ,,r ~ ~ y, ~'1Y~,~ l~ r'~ r ~ ~G `t . , - r ~ i,,. ~a„'~~~ • ~ ~ _ °i~lr , ~ Art- , ; ~w 004 ~ x . • Y ~ i CTA-04-08 ~ . ~ f Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municip I al Code Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) ~ _ m,.• r',Y"A'„',sP"`AN`~' Department of Community Development ~ . j'~all L Planning DivisYOn ~ . . . Vicinity Map ' ~ a, -5 ''r n'• :t 1'! w : yt ' ~i f l N •f;~';.~ '•~;~~;~r~{~#1~ T -I. M~ „ h r~'~ • t,1~ ~ t ' ~ ! ~ : ~ }Tt ;.~.n.•1... i ~ I w , !i , ti ~T};f,!r~_,,_~, ~ _ ~t,t ~ 16r ,..Z•f " r.... . • ~~'+.f ~ ~ r' ~ ~ ~ffll~h3 C20 ~ , Legend Zone 6 within City of ~ . ~ ~ , ,~~m• . ~ !j ',~-rt~' ' ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Inner Turrhp Zone 2096 - 3 ~ Spokane Valley .I• ' ._ki11~i~~ t ~~1~~. .'7~ li i=u ~ re Smkty Zam - :7 SkW ` ' E~ ` ~ ~.J ~.+:~4~*' ~.t~ r~• Airport Overlay Zone ~ L ~ Rmway Ptatedio, Zone . I i ~.+F~~ t I f I I ~ urrwW i Ea 1 R s." Zor,. • z a 4 '~..`..a..~..+..,a~C Treitic Patie#n Zom {q ~ . 10n• Department of Community Development ~ Planning Division Section 19.110.030 (Airport azard Overlay) Table 19=1 10-1 Airport Land Use Compatibility Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones 1 2 3 4 5 6 Single-family Residential • • ~ ~ ~ ~ , nl n/ 1 du/ 5 1 du/ 1 du/ 2.5 Maximum Density a a acres 2.5 acre n/a acre • Prohibited Uses C Density limited ~n•~. `~"Y"A"°""""~'~{ Department of Community Development . jI Planning Divis~on BACKGROUND 1. October 23, 2008 - Public Hear•ing with Planning Commission l. Airport Groups expressed concerns regarding increased density. 1n support of retaining existing regulations. 2. Property Owners concerned about limitations to develop their property. 3. The Public hearing was continued to allow time for the airport groups to review and meet with City staff. 2. December 11, 2008 - Continued Public Hearing l. No new comments from the Airport groups. 2. Motion to forward Staff s t•ecommendation failed 4 to 3. 3. Motion passed 6 to 1 to direct staff to create an advisory committee and conduct research and return in no more than 3 months for public hearing. 3. January b, 2008 - Informational Report to City Council 4. January 20, 2008 - Study Session with City Council 1. Directed sta.ff to proceed forward with review of proposed amendment. Il~t~~l~ L v ' TR ~ ~ o 0000000 ent CT Dlvisi+~~ ;000 M~a-11 - . . 's tiolis _ . , ~ . ~ t~►. ~ _ uF . ~ ( ~ ' ; °4„~r,.'r'. ~ 1..sf . _ _ • • ~ • , . . w ~ ~ ~ ~ . , , 4~~ . ~ . - I~ f` F^` ♦ r~~ r. ' ~ .er_~4 ~ 1 ~ . . ~ L ~ '-~R.. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . r '.~y . g'', ` ~ ~ p . ~ ~ r ~ .AYF~ ~ ~ • , , ~ ' . ~ . . . ~ 1 ~ J . ,n ~1' _ ` 1• ~ ~ ii ~ ` ' ~ ~ Y ` ~ ~ 9 ~ ~~4 • • ' . 4, ~i` t• ~ a~,~ ~ i } , . ' ~ ~ • n r1 ~ - ! +y _ ~ ,~i t p~. i' E .I ~ ' e « ~ ~A. .,k . • ~,'9.~. i. . , . . ~ ~ ia4'_ _ . . M'. "y ~ . . . . ` , . ~r. : F~`~• r~~► yYy~. ;„r*_ •a _ t " - . . . _.4' rt _ - t 1+ . t 4 ~ . r ~ ' . 1 + ~ _ • . w_ y.V 'f, < , • . y , ' ~ ` . ~ ~ . „ e,~ • , ~ ~ . , ~ ~ . ~ ~ • _ , , , A~ ' ~ ~ _ ~ ► • ~'T,~~` ~ T f.1~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ _ .y:', a r, s ` . , q . . . ) .:'C ~ ~ 4~ , ` . . f^ , - l 4'" ( ~ F M-' .+1 t ~ ♦ h .~t . ~ . . ~ i. ~r.M r , . / ' f • . - ~ ~ ~ ttl* ~ ' ~ . • .,y . i r~M ~ r _ _ ~ ' ' . . e ^ ~ +1,., ~ '~M4~.' `a . r° • ~ ' . : .'M+ i!, ~s w ..,i..+ . . • i . . . ~ „ ,~~yy + , ~ , • - J- . i , ~ ~ _ ~ Spokane Valley Pianning Commission Appraved Minutes Council Chambers - City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 9, 2008 I.CALL TO ORDER The Vice-Chair Beaulac called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of ailegiance III.ROLL CALL Commissioners Beaulac, Eggleston, Kogle, Sands and Sharpe were present. Commiss(oners Carroil and Robertson were absent and excused. Staff attending the meeting: Greg McCormlck, Planning Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Pianner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. . IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Kogle, seconded by Commissioner Sharpe, and unanimously agreed to accept the September 25, 2008 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no Pubiic Comments, VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Sharpe reported that he attended the Collaborative Grant luncheon, which Commissioner Sands also attended. Commissioner Sharpe shared the discusslon regarding the joint planning information that was reviewed. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS P(anning Manager McCormick stated the City had received from FEMA our updated maps package which has revised the Chester Creek flood plain and the northern most boundary starts at 8th Ave. now. There wili be a community meeting held in the next month to discuss the maps and the process. Mr. McCormick also explained the upcoming process for the maps as they work through approvai. Mr. McCormick also stated the Council considering that there maybe enough changes in the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan to warrant another public hearing. xX.COMMI55ION BUSINESS New Business - Study Session -Title 19, 19,110.030 Airport Hazard Overlay Assistant Planner Kendall began with a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Airport Overiay Zone. Ms. Kendall stated that the reason that this subject was coming back before the Commissioners was the City Council had directed staff to review this part of the Uniform Development Code to revisit the density lssues. Ms. Kendall explained that the guidelines for density that came from the Washington Department of Transportation, Aviation Division, however they are not requir.ments, just guidelines not requirments. The guidelines in the airport overlay zone 6 are 1 dwelling unit per 2,5 acres. Ms. Kendail stated that staff had several options for the Commission to consider. 09/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page i of 3 Option 1 No Change and leave the density where it currently is Option 2 Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay zone. Option 3 Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning district regulations within zone 6 Option 4 Allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following criteria; a. The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; b. Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or greater to underlying zone. c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. For options 2 through 4 Ms. Kendall showed maps with the parcels that had the ability to be divided. The Commissioners had several questions and comments regarding the proposed change to the overlay zone, and are as follows: • Wasn't the ordinance written for safety issues, so that more density would not creep into zone 6? • Previously lead to believe that the neighborhoods were very mature and that there would not be any development in this area, Ms. Kendall explained that there are sorne parcels that could be divided Into R-2 or R-4 • Was the City of Millwood on board with this proposed change, staff - they have been informed but staff had not received any comments. Commissioners - what regulations are Millwood using now? Staff- Millwood • has no regulations. • Do remember that Felts Field is a reliever airport and does increasing the density risk that rating? • What do the adjacent jurisdictions allow now? Staff - Spokane County only regulates height. Is Northwoods development in Zone 6, yes. • The Commission choose to adopt the ordinance based on recommendations, from the FAA, there was a presentation by Washington Department of Transportation, they were discussed pretty thoroughfy, and there could be place that could be developed we made these choices based on safety. • What does the FAA recommend? Would like to hear from the FAA. • What is the safety record of Felts Field? • Could the density of north of Trent be lower than the density south of Trent? • Would like to have staff extend a stronger invitation to the agencies to comment, speak fn front of the Planning Commission regarding the guidelines and FAA regulations. • Has the airport had any significant growth in the last 10 years? Staff will research this items and return the information to the Commission by the public hearing on October 23, 2008. 09/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER . There was noth(ng for the good of the order. XI. AD30URNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m, SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Fred Beaulac, V1ce-Chairperson 09/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 1 , . . ~ . 1 ~ 4 ~ ~ . , CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 23, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business Zpubiic hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Pubiic hearing to amend the density. , limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Munic'ipal Code (SVMC). Reference file number CTA-04-08. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70., 14 CFR.77 and SVMC 19.110.030 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation the City adopted the Spokane County airport overlay regulations on an interim basis. The City adopted their own airport hazard overlay regulations to protect Felts Field by Ordinance 06-002 on February 28, 2006. The regulations. were carried forward in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.110.030 with the adoption of the new zoning regulations (unifordeveloprnent code) adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28U1, 2007. Concerns have been voiced by citizens and agencies regarding the density limitations of Zone 6 within the airport hazard overlay zone. Staff was directed by the City Council to review this issue and propose possible alternatives to change the density limitation. The Planning Commission held a study session on this item on October 9, 2008. Felts Field was originally a park with a portion set aside in 1920 as an airport. In 1926 the Civil Aeronautics Board recognized Felts Field as an airport. 1940 Spokane County Commissioners purchased Sunset Field, now know as Spokarie International Airport (SIA) for development of an air carrier as a replacement to Felts Field. In 1980 the operations were 122,720 compared to 75,399 in 2000. In 1997 operations hit a low of 62,883 and have been rising since then. Between 1997 and 1998 operations increased by approximately 9,000. Since 1999 airport operations have consistently increased approximately one (1) percent per year. The airport is currently operating with 80,000 to 85,000 aircrafts per year. Operations are defined as takeoffs and landings preformed by an aircraft. See attached exhibit with a graph showing historical operations and existing forecasts, SEPA: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Vafley Municipal Code (SVMC), the Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on October 3, 2008. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. i October 23, 2008 Request for Planning Commission Actfon on CTA-04-08 NOTlCING: Following the issuance of the notice of public hearing mailed and published on October 3, 2007, the City has not received any public comment. Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted In accordance with adopted public noticing . procedures of Title 17 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), ANALYSIS: The four (4) options below have been formulated by staff as alternatives to change density limitation of one (1) dwelling unit per two and one half (2'/) acres within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay. Each option is being reviewed to determine if the approval criteria established in Section 17.80.150(F) of the SVMC can be met. At the study session on October 9, 2008 an additional option was requested by staff to be evaluated and referenced as option 5. 1. Option 1: No change to current density-limitation in table 19•110-1 a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisfons of the Comprehensive Plan. . Staff Comment: The currenf regulations are in direct conformance with Goal TG-13 and policies TP-13. 1 and TP-13.2 of the City's adopted , Cornprehensive Plan. . b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Statf Comment: The current regulations provide the highest level of protection from incompafible and inconsistenf densities in relafion to Felfs Field. 2. Option 2: Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Commenf: Policy TP-93.2 within the Comprehensive Plan sfates "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. There are a handful of parcels that are at least double in size that could be developed under the R-2 zone that are directly adjacent to the designated airport boundary and runway that would be in direcf conflict wifh policy TP-13.2. The majority of the land. area within Zone 6 is fully builf out with residenfial uses, The ncimber of potential parcefs that could be developed between the R-2 and R-4 zones is 388 parcels located fhroughout the 6,000 foot radius of Zone 6. This option conflicts by allowing density wifhin an area that should be profected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots would be located more fhan 3,000 feet from the runway. There are approximately 1,154 existing parcels fn the R-2 zone with 152 parcels that could potenfially be futther developed. The R-4 zone has 155 existing parcels and 76 have the pofential being further divided. The total number between the R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potential fo be furfher divided is 388. The analysis was done only to evaluate lof size for furfher development. A lot specific Page 2 of 6 I • ~ : . October 23, 2008 . Request for Planning Commisslon Action on CTA-04-08 analysis was not completed. There may be other factors fhat limit development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public heaith, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow'for additional growth and provide more opfions for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not slgnificantly detrimenfa/ to the public health, safefy, welfare and environmenfal protection. The increase in density does not bear a substantial relafion to the protection of Felts Field with the creation of man-made hazards and encroachmenfs that cou/d pose a safety hazard for aircraft or create an increase in exposure to noise from aircraft. 3. Option 3: Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. a. Criteria; The proposed amendment f s consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 wifhin the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allotrving density inrithin an area that should be profected from encroachments that may creafe safety hazards and exposure fo noise, however the majority of potentia/ new lots are located more fhan 3,000 feef from the runway. The R-2 zone has 152 parcels that could potentially be further developed. The R-4 zone has 23 parcels 20,000 square feet or greater wifh the potenfial of being futther divided under the R-2 development standards. The total number between fhe R-2 and R-4 zones thaf have fhe potential to be furfher divided is 175. The analysls was done only fo evaluate lot size for furfher development. A!ot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limif development of a properfy even though -the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase wou/d al/ow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. !t has nof been determined if capacity exisfs to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not signlficanf/y detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmenfal protection. 4. Option 4: Allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one ('I) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior "to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) property Page 3 of 6 ~ ' . . October 23, 2008 . Request for Planning Commisslon Action on CTA-04-08 sizes for proposed development; and (c) More than one residence 1s located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Cornprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan sfafes "discourage...density adjacent fo the airport" within fhe alrport hazard overlay. The proposed option of allowing development with exceptions would provide those properties that have had the intent of further land divlsion to proceed. This option conflicts by allowing density wifhin an area fhaf should be protected from encroachmenfs that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are located more than 3, 000 feet from the runway. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the . public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff 'Comment: The density increase would allow for addifional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacify exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern Is not significanfly defrimental to the public health, safefy, welfare and environmental protection. 5. Option 5: Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. This option was proposed by the Planning Commission at the study session held on October 9, 2008. This option, if considered would need to be further defined to determine which amount of density is aflowed in each section (north and south). a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Sfaff Comment: Policy TP-93.2 within the Comprehensive Plan sfates "discourage...density adjacent to the airport" wifhin the airport hazard overlay. This option conflicts by allowing density wifhin an area that should be protected from ericroachments thaf may creafe safety hazards. If determined to be divided at current zoning standards the proposed norfh secfion of Zone 6(north of Trent Avenue) then R-2 has 148 parcels and R-4 has 79 parcels with the potential to be divided. The proposed south section of zone 6(south of Trent Avenue) has 4 parcels in R-2 and 5 parcels in R-4 that have the potenfial of being divided at with curmnt zoning standards. The analysis was done only fo evaluafe lof size for further development. A lof specific analysis was nof completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a properfy even though the lof size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Commenf: The density increase would allow for additional growfh and provr'de more options for locations of housing wifhin the City of Page 4 of 5 . October 23, 2008 Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA•04-08 Spokane Valley. It has not been defermined if capaclty exlsfs to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significantly detrimental fo the public health, safety, welfare and environmental profection. • OPTIONS: 1. No change to current density limitation in table 19.110-1 2. Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. ~ 3. Ailow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. 4. Allow development within Zone 6 with exception to density and number of parcels; a. The site had water and sewer stubs instal(ed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Va11ey initial Afrport Hazard Overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or b. Contiguous parcel wlth a minimum lot size less than or equal 'to underlying zone; or c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. 5. Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Option 4 as previously described which amends Zone 6 density limitations to allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following criteria; (a) The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28- 06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size (ess than or equal to underlying zone; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time fior a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. Staff recommends.this proposed change be forwarded on to the City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Vicinity map of Zone 6 within City of Spokane Valley limits (2) Graph of historica( operations and existing forecasts from Felts Field Airport Master Plan (3) Map(s) of analysis for Options 2-5 above. (4) Amended Table 19-11 U-1 Page 6 of 5 5 'i! F ~ . 1 , I . I ~ ~ I ' j ~ ► EA:K ~ ~ ~ . i i E ~ Vicinity Map CTA-04-48 . 'J f.j af r,.,)(, f Miilwood / ~ ~ r/ ~ ~ ~ r i l~ / i'J ~~8• : r'~i~.,~ ° ;I f ' " , ,f• r ~ l' ~ ~ , , ~ / , ~ - r , , i.' r ! Ci{~r of `7 p r ~ 5pokane c'ry city of Spokane Valiey , ~J~l ~ f{~ j f'>;:,~;,.• r, .•~.!•!Y!'7r"~''~ li~~~ i;, r , ~ i f.~.l . i f 'f/~ ~i ~ ✓•r /r ~J i~r `.`rl: j l.r /~j; / q; . ' ' y , ~ ; , , Zone 6 within City of Spokane Valley X. I ~ t ~✓1 it~~~ A~~Q~ ~erlay Z011~ ~ +J ~y} !'f 'F.. ifjr Al~f~ ~ ' f ~ ,r t i~ / t.' .f:i. ~;!..•~,h,~ft./%"/,''~! .,~•/~l ~ ~f'r. f• r' i i; '`j~;,-~•~el^f ~:,~l~i,•~:~. ' i ~ ~ Historical Operations and Ecisting Forecasts 140,000 120,000 1994 MP , + • m . • WSASP M ~ r~ 100,000 , * c ~ o FAA TAF i 80,000 i d O ~ 60,000 ~ ~ a 40,000 20,000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ---Actual Operations 1994 Master Plan ---WSASP -a-- FAA TAF Felts Field Airport Master Plan Update - May 2005 pg. 3-1 1 I ~ ~ ~RYN+Ill4~OG`tF! ~ r•~ (.n , r ~e - ]Depard~ment of Commumty Developmeni Spo~kane Planning Division . Lege nd • . F - : r { '~`~'r ' ~ Option 2 r 1 p l.7.~ i . I ~ ~'.i r ~ r.. . ~ ~f I • ac r :If y f r. V . ~ ~ ..~i.'~ r.l ~ ~ ♦ ' t f ~ ~1 i~ or .ke • - . ;i~d' . f .e. ~ J ~ .r ii ~1'd ! ''i, ~ lZ • , - e~~ . .~d . . C, ~ . . ~ rl , ~r r'~r'~'~ ~k~4~ ~ j • ',+.,m)I;::~ ~r 1 ti 5 ti.1r'I r V L~ , ~f~ -4: r• 4 t . :tiV ' r~ T!~• ~ , I 1 , ~ . ~~'1 ~r . _ ~~jj • ~ r ~ ~ ~ ti~~ ~ ` , , '~(1 ~l ~ • . . ~ l ~•~"~.'~.P ~ , .L, , ir• ~ ~ii.i 1 w- ~ _ I ly.t.» l ~.n~Y1V ~ . a" ~~1. .~y''r' ~~1'.ui~L':::~ lT*- fT t ~ ~.1~[;'+i ~~~i • ~ _.b rJ/J, ~ Y li~l~~ W ~ r_~~ [~.VV . . , L i~~~ ~ • -J~ ( . r ~N:w. {S~r~A~ ~ ~ , , '1, n a •'~'.~I ~ ' , . . . . 1~1 h~ a. . ("rp~~•J~r„r+~.w . ' ' ' /iJ +u . ,i". ; ~ . ~ ,1r I ~ n . , rY ~ •f'~~~ . . j~. ~ ~L,,~~:.~.u. . . - _ 1P ~ pV,~!DR rc 117 r.~ ~s:.j.~~..~....~. „ ' . . - L.~S~~f•'I~M.y'~i . ti i *~~j,~>Y~. - . ~ - r(~Tii . ~ ~~.I:~'~q ' P ~ i er~, `Y1r?: W~. ~ ~eU~ r~~~~'iL ~i~~:~~ ~ ' I ~ ~~+3 ~ ~ . ~ ~~~y~rY.irr~.~~ ~1~+.!.V.+~n , ~ , , _ Vr'!.~' ~ ' yl~~ ~ Av . . ~ . 4~ i'u Y r ~ ~ hl 4 • • _ _ ~ _ , , i' li ':G i C r•~ ~i.r•, _ iC •,~,~.4' . '~1ik'~r .~.J._. . 1.nli~ r~1 • . '!•'1' iilYlY~' ~~iil► Of:,.~,.,.,~ ~ ' ~p r~ r 1~0.;,~ ~~i F' 'f '~ir~ r ~ r ' ,w , ~ ' . R-i ~ ~ . Department of Communuity Development Spo`kane ,;.0,xVku . .:.,ey,;,-' Plann~~ng Divis~on 3. 3 ~ ~ . . - ~'u: Option 3 1 I-~ [ i ~ r~J . - . - . . t , . . . ~ . _ ~ y , . ~ . I ~ TJ .~\1; ,^V~~~~ ~ ' . ~ nr • f ►.w ~ . ) Y i ,'r t t I ~ ~ . ~i' ~ , r~1.yr~, ` t~i . t,`r • y~'` .•(.i~1~• ~'T 1~ ~ 1 . i -.I. . ~ . ~ ~ yy' k 1 10r'~.. , , r I i~(n n`u'i U ~ k~"~' ' , l.~ ~9 1 ~i',~•,, ~ ~ ~ . t . ~.Vy~ 'I•' f~ y~ f ~ ~.4~. • . ~ - . ~•Ar'1 ~ -j ~~Jti w ~ ~ ~ ' ~ rl~ ~ ~~f " f.. u.~.t~4+~,~~ •~41 ~ ~ . - w 4 '.7~'Yt'' . ,~,ti )a • . ~1:~i ~ ~ ~ - . .M+~n~ .n ~ ~5:~' ~}ll~~ ~Hx~ ~ i ~ • ve: . . ,~k~ ' ' ~c r~,~r±~c . ~ a _ f5s r, wr . yr. ' S r~~~~•~ I i ~i ~ ~ ~r ~ . . ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~n;41 i~ .<!f~ ? . . *1P~~.I,~l~ii_ _ ~ . ~ . , Parcels highlighted in pink are 20k or greater in the R-2 zone. . _ ~ `~"~-Dep~artmemt of Community Development SpOl~ane . jVailPlann'mg Division . ~ '3 ~ ; 4 , ~ } ~ f~ ~ , ; ~ •,~f..., . ~~z a . . yISr~: Option 3 . . . y .'~.J' ~r~. . . ~'~y . . ~ ..tr'1 ' r•~ . . . ~ . . l . ~-r ' ~r'!~{ ~ ~ ~ :~i~ ~r%ia r - + • r' ~ . ~ . r~ . I~ . < ~ ~ A~ ~,T. ~ i 7 . ,,'y~~ t} .~i, ~ i ~ ~ ~''I I,'. ~''~DI~~ ,?.i ' t 1i.J1r.. . f~ •I 1'~1: j _ ~ , .r . , r • 9 t ' . . ; . ~ . ` 1 il ~ '4 ~ • ~ ~ - '~w F .~I~ `r ~ 1.'~ ' f~. 1~ n~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ 1. ~'f~ . ~ r 'r~./+r . . . . . . • fr' , ~1 dr ~ I' t ~ li ~ , , _ . , ~ ; r i F~~;t r ;~~`t r*t ir.~#. . ry~~~~y...,._ . y ~ ~~1 t • - . ~:p, + ~ I .,,%+'~J, :'r~i' . -.~,,'r~~~k~ ~'~.,hw"' .f.. , . ~ .'J . j +~MIY~t.}r~ r YI s . .•M~. . ~ (~A~i~~ ~ .T,. rt ~ , '~'t ~ n,~(y, r ~ y~'~ _ a,r,_, • . - ~ J' ` f .l Y'^JH f1I~~1'~ ' . . ^ , • _ ~ 71~~N~ r / . . ;'S`•f..... t , • ~f: .r ~ I y ~r►~}~''~ r~ ~ Iql~~ll~ L\ • ~ I~' ~ r~(~ . . y~ r wnr I re'~; ~~t~t ',m~: ~ " ~ • ~ , r+:- ..,t„ . , r ~ ~ `d `,rl' ~~,j .r~ f "'w . ~p ~ . ^ • ' ~ ~•!~y;~ r ' ~ i 1,~ . _ ~ - . ~L ~ . . . / , . ~ " y l+K~ V' . ■ 1Y 1`~ i ,,~I~w~u;"f~.• ~ • ~ . J` . _ . _ . _ ~.i ~.o. ~C., cl ' ~J.=' r t~ ~J~~ .'~y~ ,1'~.. 1 in~.. . ry M~• F i.. . . N , , ~,,.,r,,,'' ' ~ Ir•.:.., r ~ '6 { T ~ ~ ~ ■ Parcels highlighted in pink axe 20k or greater in the R-4 zone. i I , rIlN l~^N~ Department of Community Developmcnt e, ~ S~)0 • Q j~~all t PlannYnb Division ~ ffilft~ - . ..J, I Ato . /~~.t - .73,(: ~',I~ . ,`1 ~ . ~ I,•~; :.1~~ . O ~On w .ii~ ^.I .1~~ v .r. . . ••a , ` _ f.;*;¢ 1 IK r 1. ; > ~ Zft I 11'' t; ~.J:J r : ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' , ' y ' ~ • ~t rr li~ J iN ~.i d f~•, ~ r r~ ~ i . 1' 4,,, i~. . ' ' - p '•n ~ ~ , f ~ , ~ ' i. t . . f ~ ..I { . . . . ~ ~ ~ r~._ ,~..'a: . ' . , • . _ s }y ~ ~~r K-~ ~ 1n4;} ' i - ~ . . J ia ~ - i ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ r ' if ; I '.i~r 1 , ~~I 1 ~ ~j 5 f ~ . , ' f! ~ 1 f r . c . J nl.' , ~i d. w.. r , ~ 1 r. i. r ~ , . ~ . u ~ J•~' ~ ~f 1 ? f'~~~ ~ 4l1 ' . . . . . . ' . l . ' •.,r~ ~ r ay. , . 4 ~;1' tJt kd .t. ' - . . , „ . , s,: ° e i i:. ~ ~ ~ , ~ . .C7rfi I~ w S ~ ~S;'- . ~ r:,~~ *:E-ri n ~ ~ . ~J:Y~ . ~~~1~ , , ~~...5 C` ~ i SF: . r , r i ~~~.•~a'c ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ r r . . ~ ~ • i ~ ~ J ✓ J c7. i. ; ~ ~ln•~, ~ . ~ w / , ~ t t ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 i ~ , ~ ~ ~ t ' ;r 3 ; ~,r~`?~'•~- : _ :i f~ ~ ~,7'~(`~~ti ~~f ~ . i{, k~~`~r ~ i' Y. ~ N M ~ , ~ i'• J ~ * ~ ` ~f y ~ ~ r~ t . ~1 'tLl~rPY{'~'I j~;~ .J Lj'4{~~4 .'f9~ ~'~I,1~~ A ~ .r5t' ~ ~ ~ , ~ , , ~ .._y ~ ~~1~ ~ N)~~ti'1~1, ~ ~ 1r "IkrF~iJ~.. ~+~dti(Li•`~ i ~~~y t ]r 1?I..~~~il~r[.. ~ ~`~1 1~ tir' .r t ~'I;~u'I,.''.t~./.j vµtled-R~~ w~';,.'.1•.~~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ i Pi ~ r.~ 1 ~ .yr ~ ' r ~ 1t . ' ~'Y ~ t ~ ~ 1' ~ i ~ I ~i.+~1~M~ ' . 1 ' ~tT~, i ~ ` , ~ w ~,i'~' ~ ' - 4il, ~-~.«r rt^f777~►^T`,-•.rc`~~~~..~~1`l'"~ _F ' ~ - .•"`J 4~:~"~ t4'},"r _ 1 ~ } , y , . r ~ ~M~ } ~i ~~y.• ~ ~ i r 7 ~.al i~ r ~ r ~'.1.~.~~• ~..~I~ I~l~~' If "1 . > , N ~ , y • tY DeveioPment . i un „ ~ ~ 0 o m ~ . • ~ Department f C ;v ~ . ; . . ` Spokane Planning: Dmsxon %u F~e ' ~ !1 ~Y o p ^ . ~~~u. . . , ~ . ~ . , Y, • . ~ ~ ~ ~ YrY~ W G0 l+W ~0 ~ ~ • ~..f ~ -f--,~~`~~ ~_i ~ ~,;,~LJ ,r : ~ f t ;_..;~rt + L^ x''~~ ~ i ' ~ . ' '--b'f + • • e ~ / •S W,: _ r~, i~~ \,r, ~ ~ i- ,.~~~ry~,,, ~?'l i~, l• t i,;,!-.+ - •!,'r' „~,w , r t ~ ~ ~I . _s..1_~ • , r • Z i n+ ~~i•. . . . ,.~~.1~l1'1, i.~ . 1~0~ ~ r ~ , s ..MI? ^ ,1 '1'' 'rr i v , ' h~.l~+/~~ ~ r /r~I1►"'~~If % ~ vr• ~ »ti . ; r°~h,.~w~ . , r~-. , ~ l°l'~'AJ'~/rr j r'~'t~i'~;~ r.1 ~r; ' ~ _~Lt('~ tJ,r'~ ~ ~~w ~ ' /,di, • i~:~: ~ 4 ~nd~' ~'r, ~~,~~'+1~u~i' ~~i' . .•,n ~ . . _ . " ~ ~ AC. _ J . ~~/j~~I" ~ " ~~;1i/i~:.~/~~jJ~ ~ 'R.d ~4`hp,r~l ~ '~r ~;~fr •r- e~.'•' r_ ~ y ~11 r „ ~s , . a.l• w.r ~ ~`~ti~ ~ Y~'~' ' i"~,'C• ~~i~.r*~ ~~7.t~':+~~~~,~. i; - , ~ . v ~ S ~ ~ ~ I 1 Amended Table 9-110-1 of the Spokane Valley Municlpal Code Table 19-110-1 Airport Land Use Compatibtlity Prohibited Uses _ . Airport Land U$e Com at~bllit Zones FProhiblted Uses 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ( 46 ~ 6 , Single-famlly Residentlal I• I• I o I o I • I f _ 4--du4U , asFe ; 1 dul6 1 du/ 2.5 Underlying N Maximum Densitv " nla n/a acres scre Na zone ('i Manutactured Housing Parks • • • • • • Multi-famlly Residential M• I• I • I • I • I • ~ Schools I• • I • I •I• I • ~arks & Playgrounds I • • ( + ( • I • • ospitals I• I• I • I • I• • Nursing Homes I• I• I • I • I• I • I • • ~ Davcare I • I • • I • ~ ` Churches I~ I• • I • I• • I Hazardous Materiai Storage I• I• I • I • I • I , , Flammeble Materials • • • • • Storage ~ Incinerators I• I• I • I • I • I • Overhead uUllties I• I• I • I • I • I • ' High Intensiiy Uses ~ • ~ • . I _ • _ ~ • • ~ ~ • Prohlblted Uses I i " 6) Density limited i Pllust compiy with a minlmum of one (9) of the foilowing criteria; i a. The site had water and sewer stubs Installed for future development prior to the ~ adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overiay regulations on Z- 28•06 by Ordinance 06-002; or ~ b. Contiguous parcei with e minimum loi size tess than or equai to underlyfng zone; or c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property conststent with underlining zone to make conforming. , i ` , i ~ ~ , , . r- - 904 N. Columbus Spokane, WA 99242 Qwest. Splrlt of Servlce' RECEIVEO SEP 2 2 2008 September 18, 2008 SPUKANe1%dLLEY DEPAFiTMENT OF C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Spokane Valley Department of Building and Planning 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, TnTA 99206 Attn: Karen Kendall Re: Airport Overlay Zone Dear Karen: Qwest has no comment regarding the above mentioned zoning code text amendment. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me on (509) 455-2713. Sincerely, 44, L'~Owdvw Tyrone Taitch Sr. Design Engineer . . , . . . . , _ . - RECEIY ED r•u,+,~ .'sT'Sr izi -r -~•eu~ 1u"-.r+ m' I'i~. .ES{ _u~S : <~0, 1145063.2139 1 1 ~ SEP 17 2000 2145063.2140 1 1 Y\O, ~mo-; 3 45063.2606 s VACl.EY . D PA E 4 4 NT ~F 5063.2802 1 C~rI6AUN~TV Ev£GOPa~EN'' ~ ~ 5 45063.2123 N 1 e c~ 6 45063.2121 f 1 7 45063,2117 1 8145063.2116 1 9145063.2133 ~ 10 45063.2210 ~ 2 1145063.2109 ~ 1 12145063.2218 ~ 2 13145063.2142 ~ 1 14;45063.2102 ~ 2 15145063.2101 1 2 16145063.2512 1 2 _ 17E45063.2406 N 3 18145063.4605 1_ _ 2 18445063.2607 I 1 20145063.2505 1 2 21 145063.4301 1 22135014.0201 1 23145063.2549 1 3 24R45063.2506 ~ 2 25145063.3004 ~ 1 26145063.3026 ~ 1 27i45063.3110 4 261 45063.3202 2 29,145063.3014 { 2 301,45063.3017 ~ 2 31145063.3016 1 2 32145063.3095 1 2 33145063,3907 1 2 34445063.3207 ~2 35145063.3031 ~ 2 36145063.3206 1 2 37E38014.0102 ~ 2 38145063.3313 ~ 2 39145063.3421 I 2 40145063.4022 ~ 1 41145063.4206 1 1 42145063.3718 0 43145072.1705 1 44135121.6404 2 45145063.4313 ~ 2 46 45063.4011 ( 2 47 45063.4111 2 48145063.4415 2 49f35014.0172 M _1 ~ 50 35014.0158 1 ~ 51 45072.0101 1 ~ 52145072.1904 ~ 2 53135121.6402 1 2 54135121.6401 1 2 55135129.0902 N 1 56145072.2702 1 1 57135121.6403 2 58135121.1703 2 59( 35121.1503 1 2 60145072.3402 1 2 61135121.6901 N 1 62145072.3604 1 63135121.2305 1 64145072.3703 65135121.2402 ( 1 66135121.2404 1 1 6713512'[ .9013 1 68135121.6602 2 6913512'[ .6601 2 70135125.2905 ~ 2 71135121.9004 ~ 2 721 35121.8057 ~ 1 73135121.3302 1 1 74135121.4104 1, 1 76135121.3909 ~ 2 76135121.3802 ~ 1 77{ 35121.3701 1 'f 78 35121.3602 ~ 2 79 35121.3206 ~ 2 80 35121.4901 ~ 2 ~ 8145072.1112 ~ 1 82135121.4105 ~ 2 83135121.3404 ~ 2 84E45072.5704 ~ 2 85~45072.5702 1 86145072.1213 1 2 87135121.6314 1 88E 3512'( .6310 1 89135121.6322 90135121.6323 91 135121.9056 2 92145072.6804 1 93145072.1608 1 94'45072.1207 'I . 85135121.5101 ~ 2 96 45072.1206 ( 1 97 45072.1208 N 1 s ` ~ ~ l + t 98135129.4608 ~ p . 99135121,5001 ~ 2 100145072,1209 1 1 101145072,6401 ~ 2 102145072,1720 ~ 1 103145072.6608 2 104145072.1210 1 105135921.6210 - ~ 1 106}35'121.6211 ~ 1 107145072.1503 1 108135121.9015 1 109135121.9047 ~ 1 110145072.1702 1 1 111 l35121.9048 ~ 1 112135121.620'I ~ 2 113 45472.1725 ~ 2 114 45072. 1709 ~ 1 115145072.1606 ~ 1 116135121.6265 ~ q 1171,45072.1710 ~ 1 918~35121.5501 ~ 1 119145072.1505 ~ 1 120145072.9712 1 1 121 145072.1507 1 1 122145072.1791 1 1 123145072.6801 1 2 124145072.6802 1 2 125145072.1607 ~ 1 126145072,1602 1 1 927135729.5601 1 - - - - 1 128145072.1714 1 1 129135121.6238 ~ Q 130135121.6232 ~ 2 131145072.1603 ~ 1 932145072.1718 133145072.1716 ( 1 134~35121.6223 135145072.9601 1 1 136( 35'( 21.5642 1 1 137135121.9021 1 1 138135121,6242 ~ 2 139146072.6803 ~ 3 140145072.1727 1 1 141145072.1717 1 1 142145072.1606 1 1 943135121.5901 1 1 144145073.0110 N 1 145145072.1605 i 2 _ 146135121.6001 1 1 i-- - ~ - } 147135121.6101 1; 148145073.1903 2 149445073.2001 2 ~ 150145074.9085 2 151135124.0113 2 152145073.2109 153145073.2002 154135124.0801 155135124.0802 1 1 156145073.2106 N 1 167 35124.3203 158 45073.9066 159135124.0116 1 2 160E45073.2112 1 1 161135124.3101 1 1 162135124.3201 163135124.0815 ~ 'i • N 1 164135124.3202 165135124,2705 166135124.0807 167 35124.3204 168 35124.0808 169 35124.3205 170135124.0813 1 1 171135124.3206 172145073.0302 173145072.0804 1 1 174145072.2209 1 2 175145072.2204 1, 1 176135'[ 21.0217 1 1 177145072.2203 f 1 1781,45072.2506 179145072.2304 180135121.0218 1 181145072,0801 N 1 182135121.0218 1 1 183145072.2501 184145072.2401 185145072.0802 186145072.2402 1 'I 187145072.3301 1 1 188145072.3105 1 189 45072.7303 1 190 45072.3003 191145072.3906 ( 1 192145072.7302 1 193145072.0805 194145072.7304 195145072.7301 1 • 196E45072.0803 ~ 2 197145072.3306 1 198145072.3205 1 199145072.3203 ~ 1 200145072.0702 1 _ 2 201145072.0806 ' 1 202145072.3802 1 1 203145072.3801 1 1 204145072.3803 1 1 " 205145072.0704 1 1 206145072.0807 1 207145072.4703 1 208146072.0901 ~ 1 209 45072.4106 1 210 45072.0904 1 211145072.4004 ~ 'I 212145072.0912 ~ 2 213145072.0907 1 2 ° 214145072.5403 1 2 215145072.4643 1 2 216145072.4602 ( 1 217i 45072.0911 ~ 3 218 45072.4904 1 219 45072.4901 1 220145072.4803 ~ 1 221145072.4802 2 2221145072.1007 1 223~45072.1008 1 224,45072.9019 ~ 2 225145072.4809 226145072,1409 1 1 227145072.1012 1 1 228145072.1011 1 1 229145072,1010 r 1 230145072.5801 ~ 1 231145072.5902 ~ 1 232145072.1310 1 233145072.9302 ~ 1 234145072.6103 1 235145072.6001 1 236, 45072.6002 ~ 1 237J45072.6003 1 238145072.1311 -M• 2 239145072.1312 1 - - 2 240145072.6102 1 241145074.2307 ~ 1 242;45074,2302 ~ 1 243 45073,2113 ~ 2 244 35124.0105 ~ ~ 1. 245E45073.0392 2 246135124.3207 9 247145073.0227 1 248~45073.0228 ~ , . . o , REQEIY ED . ' . ~ ~ • ' , . : ' . . . • . . . - . . • ~ ~ P~ ~T _ S, -M ,,,~`~~p~ C9'S~".~ !`d~- 1 `x~ , ~ . ' . • SEP I ~ 1 ~QO~ ~ ti } L ' 81at-E. Buckeye A~e-Spokane WA99212 - • SPOKANE VALLEY ' . ' • • DEPARTMEM OF ' • • vE',.1]n~ nro IT . PH: 926-4M FAX: 922-8170 ' • c4MMtaPJrrv r)F ~'i . • an,x~ , . ~ . ' , . . , ' , • 1 ' , J .tuty 31, 2007 , . • ; . . . . ` , . . , . . . . Mayor - Council • - ' • . . ~ ~ ' . ~ ' City of Spokane Valley : : ' , - . • ~ , • , Spokane;WA 99206 • . . ~ , ' . ~ • • ' , • . . ~ SUBJECT: Ctty of Spokane Valley Ordinance'No. 06-002 • - . . ~ ' Airport Overlay Zone ~ : . • . . ~ • • ~ . • . ~ ~ . ' - . ~ . To:Whom' lt May Concern: ~ , ' • ~ ' . . _ The Board of Directors of Orchard Avenue irrigation recentiy tearned of tihe City of Spokane Vatley Ordinance No; 06-002 having to 'do With an Airport Over(ay Znr(e. ' . . ~ ' • . . , : . . ' . . ~ The concern of the Board revolves around the controt the Ordinance has over the District's projected internal growth and the stibsfanfiiat imp4ct orl loss of revenue. 'Growth and"revenue are speczficatly addressed in the District's ten and six-year Compreherisjve W'ater Plan. The exist4ng patrons will be forced to carry the flnancial burdCn of future planried.devetopmerit. ' , _ _ , . . . . In the best interest of the District and the patrons of the Distirict,:the Board requests that you . , consider rescinding the Ordinance and* leave the zoning•for the area at3.5 per acre, in line ' • ' with the'surroundin~ political entities. The Board would have responded 4n this same manner ' • at an earlier opportunity it the City of the Valley had given the Board its iptentions of the . - zoning change prior to passfng the 'Ordinance. ~ . , . . • - - ' • . ~ Sincerely, ' . • • ' . - , ° . . • ~ ' Orchard Avenue lrrigation District . „ - • . • • ~ . . . , . . ~ • ' _ Z~~ ~ • ~ : , , . : • • . , . • . • • , Jack Bennett ~ . ' ~ • ~ ~ - ° Presicient , . ' ~ ~ ~ - _ . ' , • ~ . . - . . • , ; , • . , . ~ r'~ . . ' " • • . r ti' ~ . • ~ , i ~ . , ~ . , ~ . • . ^ ~ i , 7V. ~~5~ry11r, r i"~~.1.1~ R`CEIVEV I N44 ! ~..'1.~uti~~~„i.~'~r✓:yz}~. 8101 E. BuckeyeAve-6pokaneWA9921Z PH: 926-4563 FAX: M8I70 SEP 112008 SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 9, 2008 Attn Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley City Hall Spokane Valley WA 99206 Dear Karen Kendall, Here is the information you requested. We added a list of parcels that would have been stubbed for futare service. The District did not have the funds at the time of sewer construction or the parcels would have been stubbed. The new zoning ordinance will stop all futme service activities. As you can see by the list, there are only 5 parcels left with 2,5 acres or more. This has a firemendous impact on the District's Comprehensive Water Plan, future planning, plant investrnent fees and assessment income. It will also put more of a burden on patrons of the District to totally fund operafiians in the future. Thank you for your request for information. If we can answer further questions that would alleviate tbis burden please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ORCHARD AVE IRRIGATION DISTRYCT N0. 6 K,~L )Q"J, & , Mi.ke K. Klein, Sr. Manager C , i FIEGEIVED ORCHARD AVENUE IRRIGATION SEP 1 g~QQ~ SPOKANE VALLEY - PARCELS STUBBED FOR SERVICE DF-PAR'TMENT OF COMMUNtN I)EVELOPM8NT Address Parcel Number Address Parcel Number Multiple WE; 2600 Blk of N Ellzabeth 35121.4901 Z 2917 N BRADLEY 35124.0813 , 7915 E GLASS AVE 45063.2715 2 2223 N BRADLEY 35924,0815 7500 Blk of E. Marietta Ave 45072.1113 6714 E MONTGOMERY 35124.0908 7500 Blk of E. S. Riverway 45063.2139 7321 E TRENT 35924.2708 7500 Blk of E. S. Riverway 45063.2140 2321 N COLEMAN RD 35124.2903 7500 B!k of E Kiernan Ave 45063.2210 7829 E S RIVERWAY 45063.2129 on Efla Rd at 7909 E Glass Ave 45063.2707 2 A~3907 N EDGERTON 45063.2233 on Glass Ave at 8004 E Glass Avi 45063.3110 .7904 E GLASS 45063.3202 on Elton Rd at 8004 E Gla ss Ave 45063.3110 2 3313 N ELLA RD 45063.4104 2906 N CENTER RD 45072.0702 8304 E BUCKEYE 45071.2409 2800 Bik of N Center Rd 45072.0704 ~ J 3023 N ELLA RD 45472.0801 7600 Blk of E Marietta Ave 45072.1306 ~ ~2418 N CENTER 45072.1714 7600 Blk of E Marietta Ave 45472.1310 a~`• 2810 N PARK RD 45072.1804 7700 Bik of E Marietta Ave ' 45072.4811 3005 N VISTA/FAERVIEW 45072.2801 8100 Blk of E Marietta Ave 45072.5704 7919 E GRACE 45072.3903 7500 8(k of E Buckeye Ave 45072.1904 East end of S Riverway-2" Unknown - 7917 E GRACE 45072.3908 W end of S Riverway-8" Main Ext x 4" Unknown Coleman & EucGd Ave-8" Unknown ,'r-8200 Blk of E Bucki~ye 45072.5101 ~ Stub: irrigation Service ~ 2705 N VISTA 45072.5203 3423 N PARK RD 35014.0102 ~ 7915 E TRENT 45073.1706 7442 E BRIDGPORT 35014.0182 7809 E TRENT 45073.9 802 7307 E CARLISI.E 35121.6262 7703 E TRENT 45073.9 904 2521 N PARK RD 35121.6319 ~ 6903 E CARUSLE 35121.9020 ~ . 6924 E CARLISLE 35121.9056 7103 E TRENT 35124.0601 7103 E TRENT 35124.0602 . R>kn a,6 -f6y- 5 PRE PARCEL# ACREAGE PRE PARCEL# ACREAGE 45073.1704 .50 45072.1602 .54 35124.0108 .50 RECEIVED 45072.6103 .54 45063.2121 .50 45072.1904 .54 45063.4415 .50 SEP 1 12008 45072.2702 .54 45063 .3015 .50 gppKANE VALLEY 35124 .3203 .54 45063 .3421 .50 OEPARTMENT OF 35124.3204 .54 45063.4206 .50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 35124 .3205 .54 45072.1209 .50 35124.3206 .54 45072.1210 .50 35121 .6210 .54 45072.1717 .50 35121.6238 .54 45072.1718 .50 45063.3206 .55 45072.0802 .50 45063.3004 .55 35124.3101 .50 45063.2241 .55 35124.0802 .50 350'14 .0172 .55 35124 .080'i .50 45073.2109 .55 35121.9046 .50 45072.1607 .55 45063.3017 .51 45073.2001 .55 45063.3313 .51 45072.1709 .55 45063.2506 .51 45072.6801 .55 45063.2512 .51 45073.1901 .57 45063.2606 .51 45072.1507 .57 45063.2607 .51 . 45072 ,1506 .57 45063.2505 .51 45073.2005 .57 45063.2406 .51 45072.0911 .57 45072 .160'1 .51 35'i 24 .0808 .57 45072.6804 .51 35124.0807 .57 45072.3703 .51 45072.7006 .58 45072.2304 .51 45063.4011 .58 45072.0907 .51 35121.1703 .58 45064.1913 .52 35121.2402 .58 45063 .229 8 .52 45073.2108 .58 45072.5702 .52 45073.2002 .58 35121.4104 .52 35'f 21 .6323 .58 45063.3207 .53 35'121 .5501 .58 45072.6803 .53 45063.4605 .59 45072.6802 .53 45072.0805 .59 45072.5403 .53 45072.0806 .59 45072.0804 .53 45063.3108 .60 45072.3003 .53 45063.4022 .60 45072.4603 .53 45072.0807 .60 35121.6602 .53 35121.6310 .60 35124.3201 .53 35121 .500'i .60 35124.3202 .53 45063.2142 .61 35124.3207 .53 45072.1712 .61 35121.9021 .53 45072.6401 .61 45063.4313 .54 45072.6608 .61 45063.4111 .54 45072.3604 .61 45063.2509 .54 35014.0158 .62 t r : . PRE PARCEL# ACREAGE PRE PARCEL# ACREAGE 45072.1213 .62 35121.6001 .94 45072.1208 .62 45072.0702 .95 45072.1505 .62 45073.1801 .96 35125.2905 .62 45072.1725 .96 45073.1902 .64 35121.6507 .99 35121.2305 .65 45072.1503 1.00 45072.1727 .65 45072.1311 1.00 45073.2008 .66 45072.1720 1.00 45072.1711 .66 35121.9047 1.00 45072.0101 .67 45072 ,1312 1.00 35'121 .3701 .67 35124.0310 1.01 45063.3016 .68 35124.0813 1.01 45063.3026 .68 45073.1802 1.04 35121 .6402 .68 35124.0815 1.05 35121 .6401 .68 45072.1206 1.06 35121 .0902 .68 45071.2408 1.11 35121 .9013 .68 45072.6902 1.14 35121 .6404 .69 45072.0803 1.17 45073 .1903 .69 35121 .5101 1.58 35121 .4105 .69 35121 .1002 1.78 35121 .3602 .69 45071 .0037 2.03 45073.1904 .70 45071 .0035 2.51 45072.1804 .70 35121 .2803 3.22 45063.2102 .70 35121 .6319 3.23 45063.2101 .70 35124.0907 3.24 45063.3014 .70 35124.0812 3.50 35121.6403 .70 45072.0912 .70 45063.2133 .72 35011.0101 .72 45072.0901 .73 45073.2112 .75 35121.6242 .75 45072.1603 .76 45072.7007 .77 45063.3031 .77 35'f 24 .0113 .77 35124.0410 .78 35121.6322 .78 35124.2808 .88 35921 .3901 .90 3512'i .3302 .90 35121.6223 .90 35121.6211 .90 45063.2117 .92 45063.2123 .92 _ 35121.5201 .94 35'( 21 .5901 .94 _ R 5~ o ~ At: P-4 ~ ~ p ~ r 31 UA CL _ TA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ; ! ~~~'J~T~ i ~ • ~ u E ~ 1 i k~ 4 L a IQ Y~il FE, ~ p~ t ~~,;i,,,~,~~~ +~i•~ ~9 4~~ ~ ~ +L h ~ 1 1•i~~ I , . • n i . ~h ~ D II.i r C u -a 8 ~ a ~ I~ ~ r ~ !"1 t-~~• i! e 6 Q.a 3m~ S ~ ~o j~ • w 1~4~( 37 w t ~1 ~i 00 ~e ~ ~ ly~;.~' • ~ Y,, ,,,1„ m,~;,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ni~ ~ ~~1 ~~t^~~ ' l~l r :'}t • s,- ~'i ~qM .'~~c 0 w O A' ` ~t~ ` t. ~ ~ ~.N 1`' ~i /~a{,.~({µ~ ' y~(~i'r~ 1 ` ~ ' ~ w' • ' r ~ ~ a ~ a..4' 'lj~ I . '.r~ i't P ~ ii~ a~•' U '~~~~n"r~ ~"•1~ ~ V C ~ ^r~~+}. ~~',1~~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ i~•;W~~ ! I ?i4 ~ . • ~ ~ ~y~1 ~ i rII~ , ~ w : a u II .~~y, ~~1i~ J 7~i~, p~•y 1.,! ~~'C~ Si:'~ p~ ~ ~ ~ .j.,• 1t') _.:c,'~T,~,.~~x~ 15- . ~ ~~l„", , ~ R1V ' 4~ ~ 1~ ~u.. ♦ I~~i~i~~ 1 ~ II '0`~` ti~~ d y N i 1, tf~ ~ f r 1{~ < < iy N` 9 rtJ ~ S' ~ }~4 Qti "f l ~ ...i~'~llf•ri'!Vi'~~~+' i ~ ~ ,l,;~'~I,~~; ~ ~ r.,~,~~, ';t=;~}~l~„•,~.} Il r 2 ~ ~ u. " ~N~' J,l~` ~ ~~iq4 ~ ~l i~ ,~p~; ti{;,i~~i {'~q'' ' , ft,~~~;,1 .'r'"~ k -S • ti i Y ~ ~ ,1 6~ ~ ~ t A ~ ~ r., # i 1 , , c . • p~', ~ K~.ra ~r~`~i{.~7~ ,~P#,~~~i~~ k ~FS ~oy.i o i~, ~1 r ~ rI~ 1 ~1 ~ ~ r•, i~ a ~ ti 'wt~ j.i~ ~ ,S;~r~t p k r I , ~ ~ ,04+ S ~ ` „"x. • i'` ~ ,i m 00 ~a C~ T,~ : ~ ~-t~t ~ ~ ~P ~ ~ < .'~~j~j~ '~..iRU~y Y~ ~'~~~~~"'~~~f •t~~~, 'k~~ ~~~'K~~f~ Y~ ~ ~ ~ Q i• ~r ~ F r ti~ i~~ ~ r7 r~'~,. ~ti~~~Lw3`a~~1~~1 tiSC.I ~~r-'~ 1'~ ~J~ ~ C w-4 i1+V ir r nh ~ ,J l ~^e (w MEMO To: City of Spokane Va1leyDepa.rtment of Community Development Attn: Karen Kendall RE: WRrI`TEN COMMENT Fi1e# CTA-04-08 Section 19.110.030 (Auport Hazard Overlay) My name is Kevin Galik, my wife and I own a home located at 2605 N Ella Rd. Our pxoperty is one acre in size. We bought the property 13 years ago vvith the intention to subdivide. Last year, alot adjacent to mine that had frontage on Murrieta Street came to the market. Z open an escrow to buy it as it would give me frontage on both Murrieta Street and Ella Road for additional access when I was ready to subdivide. I went to the planning dept and foun.d out about the A,irport Hazard 4verly that Y couldn't subdivide due to the possibility of an airplane disaster tliat wouYd kill add.itional people; I pulled out of the escrow. My property is not in the path of take offs or landing of aixplanes, although, it is a play ground above my praperty for bi-planes buzzing around in circles and small crafts that axe no xnore than a claair with a propeller attached to ir, due to this play ground above my rights have been taken away frozn me. My property is zoned for sub-division, therefore, I should be able to do so. I have contacted a land use attorn.ey who is currently researching fihe fact that ari ]LLEGAL TAIUNG has taken place. The City of Spokane Valley has i.llegally taken my right away to subdivide my property without just compensation. Furthermore, sewex lines where installed in this commututy durirng the Airport Mzard Overlay. Spokane County ixistalled additional3" sewer stub outs at my property line for future subdivision and many more properties in the area. I may also sue the City to reimburse the County for this work if the ,Aixport Hazard Overlay is not amended The reimbursement rnay lower my monthly utility bill, I petition the City of Spokane Valley to amend the Airport Hazard Overlay to allow one acre parcels to be subdivided that are not in the path of take offs and landing roufes to Felts Field. I Ke in Galik ~ 10 23-08 RECEIVEb ~ ~ 5aq, a-t ot - ~ g , 5" oCT 2 ~ ~00~ Sp EP RqTMENT O~ COMMUNITY DEVELCJPME4YT \ , t ACEBEDO 8 JOHNSON, LLC. ATTORNEYS , PIfiRRE E. ACEBEDO PUYALLUP EXECUTIVE PARK CIINDYA. JOHNSOTT* 1011 BAST MAIN *ALSO ADMITTBD IN CA SUTTB 456 pUYALLLTP, WA 98372 TEL (253) 445-4936 FAX (253) 445-9529 October 22, 2008 pacebedo@hotmAil.com- cindyaj ohns onQhotmail. com Ms. Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development RECE`VED 11202 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ~CT 2 3 2008 Re: CTA-04-08 • pEp4qRTIVtENT OF COAlIPAUhl1-VY DEVELOPK"sWr Dear Ms. Kendall: This offfce represents Mrs. Donna Simonson, owner of parcel number 45063.2140, a property affected by Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") § 19.110.030. This letter is in response to the proposed a.mendment to the density limitations under SVMC § 19.110.030(Airport Hazaxd Overlay), A. Due Process Violations. Under the Constitution, certain ba,sic fundarnental rights are guaranteed. One of those rights is due pxocess of 1aw. As this relates to property, there is a fiindamental right to receive notice if the government plans ta change regulations with respect to real property. It is surprising to me that it took over a year for anyone to even realize that the new regulations existed. As a result, it will be necessary to scrutinize the notice procedures followed by the City of Spokane Va11ey and those required by the Constitution. Conversely, the City of Spokane Valley has an opportunity to xevisit the zoning regulations and remedy the problems it has created. , B. Amendnient Possibilitv I - Consider Reasonable Heiaht Restrictions., The property owned by Mrs. Simonson is a beautiiful riverfront property that she has been waiting to develop for her futuxe retirement propei-ty. However, according to SVMC § 19.110.030, the half acre property is no longer developable. In order to properly amend the aforementioned regulation, it is necessary to allow pxoperti.es like Mrs. Simonson's to be developable. Instead of the current regulations, the City of Spokane Valley could ' consider height restrictions in order to accommodate the airport. This alternative would be beneficial to all parties, as it allows for a reasonable use of vacant property and will help the city avoid numerous eminent domain lawsuits. C. A.mendment Possibilitv 2-Eminent Domain. For the City of Spokane Valley to maice broad sweeping regulations restricting any pemiissible use of the property for the benefit of the airport is not only irrational but is clearly unconstitutional. In fact, the actions by the City of Spokane Valley restrict a11 permissible use of the properties, which constitutes a regulatory taking. Accoxding to the Washington State Constitution, ASkicle 1, § 16: "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public ox private use without just compensatzon having been made." Case law is very clear on this issue. • As a result, the second amendment option should provide a clear siatement that properties rendexed useless by SVMC § 19,110.030 will be purchased via eminent domain. This way the city will be able to keep the regulated properties vacant, as welt as ensuring that Ms. Sunonson wi11 reeeive fair marlcet value fox her property. If you chose not to institute an eminent domain case and fail to amend SVMC § 19.110.030 to a11ow for reasonable use of her property, my client has authorized me to file suit. This will to ensure that she is justly compensated for the property that the City . of Spakane Valley has literally "taken" via SVMC § 19.110.030. D. Conciusion. The City of Spolcane Valiey, Department of Community Development, has the opporfunity to reasonably amend SVMC § 19.110.030, to allow for reasonable use of vacant property in the Airport Overlay Zone, If the city chooses not to do so, it effectively invites litigation by Mxs. Simonsvn and other vacant land owners fox reasonable compensation for the taldng of their land. Sincerely, ACEBEDO & JOHNSON, LLC. 1 ~ Cindy . J son Attorney at La t (r. ChAMM, a a ' . , October 23, 2008 Planning Commission City of Spokane Va11ey 1 I 707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 Dear Planning Commission Members, The Spolcane Chapter of the Washington Pilots Association is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposal to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airpart Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Our cha,pter represents pilots tUroughout the Spokane area and is a component of a state-wide association that represents pilots throughaut fihe State of Washington. Our mission is to advance the interests of generai aviation in Washington State. Comzn.unity airports are community assefis and as such must be protected! The most recent Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division A.iiport Data and Facilities i.nformation from 2001 faund that 320 aircraft are based at Felts Field, including 281 single-engine, 22 multi-engine piston-powered, 4 turbojets, and 13 helicopters. 'I'heir data found that there were a tofial of 70,669 annual operati.ons. This represents 22% more annual operations tha.n t1a.e 57,362 annual operations that occur at Spokane Lnternational Auport. I would lilce to add that on a typical day both parallel runways at Felts Field are utilized extensively, vvhich enhances both efficiency and safety. In this same report, the WSDOT-Aviation Division economi.c analysis of Felts Field identified an economic benefit of 250 jobs resulting i.n ovex $4.5 million dollars in labor earnings and econonuc activity to the community approaching nearly $16.5 million on an anuual basi.s. Additionally, Felts Field is one of only fve "Reliever A.irports" in the State of Washington, and as such plays an important part in the transpoilation infirastiucture of the State. It is our understandi.ng that the Airport Hazard Overlay was orig2nally adopted by Spokane ,Valley's City Council to establish land use compatibility zones xestricting certain land uses in proximifiy to Felts Field. To a11ow an incxease in the allowabie residential density witUin the aiuport overlay zone is not a reasonable l.and use. The consequences of such a move would be to potentially increase the rislt af future noise, operahonal and liability issues which potentialiy puts the viability of Felts Field, a community asset approaching $16.5 million annually, at risk. Furthermore, with the volume of flight operations occurring aruiually at Felts Field, it seems incomprehensible to consider a move to a11ow an increase in population density under the airport overlay zone. Consequently, it is the position of the Spokane Chapter of the Washi.ngton Pilots Association tb.at stewardship principles appropriate for this unportant communifiy asset require that a comprehensive a.nalysis an.d input from a11 sources must be taken into consideration when making such a critical decision. ConsequentZy, the Washington Pilots Association - Spokane Chapter, respectfully requests that the Commission delay its decision on this matter to allow time for comprehensive and ~ collaborative research and input. ~ Thanlc you for tlie opportunity to comment. The Spokane Chaptex of the Wasbington Palots Association would welcome the opportunity to participate in future discussions on this topic. Sincerely, , c... I~nley, Jr. Gary White ~ I. Blake Mc• President Treasurer; President 2006 Washington Pilots Association - Spokane Chapter cc: SATA EAA Chapter 79 Spolcane Auport Board Washington Pilots Associ.ation ( October 23, 2008 Planning Commission Clty of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 Dear Planning Commisslon Members: The Spokane Airports Tenants Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Munlcipal Code. Our organization, forrned In 1994, represents 130 tenants at Fe(ts Fleld who lease land at the airport to support a business, operate aircraft or both. Our mission is to protect and promote the v(abllity of Felts Field as an important cornmunlty asset. As you may I<now, Felts Field Is one of only five "Reliever Alrports" in the State of Washington, and as such plays an important part in the transportation infrastructure of the State. The most recent Washington State economic analysis for the airport identifies an economic lrnpact of more than $16 million annually. We are aware that the Airport Hazard Overlay was originally adopted by Spokane Va(ley's City Council to establish land use compatibility zones restricting certain land uses in proximityto Felts Field. We believe that increasing residential density within the alrport overlay zone is not a reasonable land use . and potent(ally increases the risk of future noise, operational and liability issues which may put the airport at risk. We believe that stewardship principles appropriate for this important community asset require that a comprehensive ana(ysis and input frorn all sources must be considered when making such an important decision. Therefore, SATA respectfully requests that the Commfssion delay fts decision on this matter, and that the Commission a1low more cime for comprehensive and collaborative research and input. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We welcome the opportunity for SATA to participate in future discussions on this topic. Sincerely, JefE Harnllton President Spokane Airports Tenants Association t ~ I ~ i From: Josh Nerren [mailto:josh@uturnsm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:17 PM , ~ To: Greg McCormick , Cc: Lori Bariow; Mike Basinger; Micki Harnols; Christina .7anssen; Scott Kuhta; Martin Palaniuk; Tavis Schmidt Subject: regarding Thursdays meefiing - file# CTA-04-08 , Greg & associates, I am writing because 1 will be unable to attend the public hearing this Thursday night regarding the airport overlay zone. I wili try to make this brief so as not to take up too much of your time. I have been visiting the Spokane Vailey zoning and permitting office for years regarding this issue. I bought my house at 8204 E. Jackson Ave (99212) in the Spokane Valley over 7 years ago. My property extends through the block from Jackson to Carlisle Ave. I originally purchased the property for the investment of someday splitting the lot into two. I was told by the city at that time that I could not subdivide my back lot until the sewer was brought in to the area because the city did not want any more septic tanks insta[led. My wife and [ waited patiently until the sewer was put in. They put the sewer in and even instalfed a stub onto the back portion of my lot which is accessed on Carlisle Ave for future building. I then went down to the permit office to find out what my next step would be [n subdividing and selling fhat lot so that someone could build a house on that vacant piece of property. It was at that time explained to me that because of 9-1 1, there was an airport overlay restriction placed on that property. I was never notified of any meetings ~ or decisions about the ordinance. They told me that nothing could be done and that I could not divide the lot. So now I'm stuck with a huge usefess piece of land that does no one any good, and I'm unable to get a return on my investment. On Carlisle, it is the only empty piece of land along that block and it just grows weeds and gives teenagers a place to do donuts in their cars. I am very disappointed especially since 1 feel that we are so far from any landing or take off path of Felts Field. 1 hope that the city of Spokane Valley will consider lifting the ordinance, or at least moving the boundaries to reflect a more common sense area of possible impact in the evenf of an airplane crash. if an airplane crashes in my back yard, I would conclude that the pilot wasn't even aiming for the airstrip. Just look at the map, it doesn't make sense. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, I ------t ~ c Josh Nerren Spokane Valley resident 8204 E. Jackson Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99212 (509)939-9517 0 IV I t Spokane Valley Planning Commission Draft Minutes Council Chambers - City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 23, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairperson Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL , Commissioners Beaulac, Carroll, Eggleston, Robertson, Sands and Sharpe were present. Commissioners Kogle was absent and excused. Staff attending the meeting. Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. ' ~ • <<, IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ` It was moved by Commissioner Carroll, seconded by Commissioner Sands, to move SN-02- 08 to item one on the agenda. It was unanimously agreed to accept the October 23, 2008 agenda as amended. , . V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES sIt was decided to approve the minutes at the next !,neeting. v „ VI. PUBLIC COMMENT S There were no Public Comments. ' VI1. COMMISSION REPORTS • . i Commissioner Robertson stated that he attended a pan handling committee meeting and that the Mayor is, looking for the committee to make regional presentations. There were no other Commissioner reports 4 VII1. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung stated that the Council has changed the recommended location of City Hall from the original propos~d location. Mr. Kersten, Public Works Director has determined it would be better suited based on street design, for the City Hall to occupy a parcel to the east of the previous,location and negotiations would continue on the new site proposal Council is also going to be :discussing the traffic circulation issue relating to the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan, at the next Tuesday meeting, Oct. 28, 2008 The Director also stated that Council reviewed and emergency code amendment regarding surveying issues. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS New Business - Public Hearing, STV-02-08, street vacation of approx. 390 feet of 51' Ave between Newer and Progress Rd. Commissioner Robertson opened the public heanng at 6:04 p.m. Associate Planner Lon Barlow made a presentation to the Commission regarding the location, vicinity, the conditions on the ground and surrounding areas. There is a house located on the property that would have been 5th Ave at the end just west of Newer Rd. It was explained that 5'" Ave will probably never be able to go all the way through, based on the house being located at this intersection Ms. Barlow stated that a plat, Short-Plat-17-08, which has received preliminary approval to 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6 divide a parcel west of the proposed vacation which will require improvement to one half of 5'n Ave. abutting the new parcel. Ms. Barlow reviewed the criteria for approving #he street vacation. Staffs recommendation is that the vacation be denied because the street could be used to serve future development. Public Works has also recommended denial for connectivity issues in the future. Arnie Woodard, 2511 S. Best Rd, Mr. Woodard stated that he has represented Mr. Elfiott in the past, Mr Elliott is the property owner of the western two parcels in the proposed area. Mr. Woodard stated that it would make more sense to put a street through north and south instead of east and west, when there would be no possible way to complete 5ih Ave all the way through, with the house that sits right in the way. Mr. Woodard stated that Mr. Elliott is intending to put a street through north and south not east and west. Chair closed the public hearing at 6:18 pm. Ms Barlow stated that Development Engineering and Public Works were aware of Mr. Elliot's proposal for his.4'parcels due to a pre-app meeting he has alread~r had with the City. At that time they r~gcommended that St. Charles be put through from 4h to 6ih Ave., with 5th Ave. still providing a.GOnnection from Progress Rd. It is still the opinion of both departments that the right-of-way for 5th Ave:;"Is needed would still be beneficial to provide access to the back of the other two lots to the :east of Mr. Elliot's for redeveloR ment , Although a turn-around for the fire department would still - peed to be provided even if 5 Ave were extended. It is still both departments' opinions that the ;r,ight-of way for 5t' Ave needs to remain in place. Commissioner Beaulac wanted to know if they could make a condition on the street vacation if it was approved they would require St.Charles to be put through as a cross street Director McClung said the Commission can not place a condition on the street vacation that relates to future development. There was discussion regarding the turn.ar,ound required for the short plat to the west of the requested street vacation The short plat has;;preliminary approval, it is required to make half street improvements, and a fire turn-a-rQund is being planned on the property however if the street vacation were approved, a full cu(-de-sac would likely be a condition of the vacation for a turn around, per Public Works. Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend denial of the STV-02-08, street vacation of a portion of e Ave. Commissioner Eggleston seconded the motion. Discussion began, regarding the following conditions: there was mo reason to not vacate, there will be no way to continue 5t".Ave. aIl the way to Newer Rd , if we vacate, there is nothing to hold the developer to building anorth/south road, the road extension issue could be handled at the time of plat application and the tleveloper would be held to conditions made at that time, , 5th Ave. is going to dead end one way or,another, why not at the intersection of St Charles, and not against Mr. Elliot's properties. There was concern about the impact to other lots, more in favor of half of a vacation, without a vacation they can not develop the lots, the developer gains from the vacation, put a turn around at the intersection of St Charles with 5t", get half the vacation, give up half and get better connectivity all the way around. There would be an out to Progress, 4t' and 6th. And there would be a turn-around for the fire department. Vote is three in favor and three opposed. Motion fails. Planning commission will send it forward to City Council with no recommendation; • New Business - Public Hearing, Uniform Development Code Amendment, Title 19, 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay Commissioner Robertson opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Planning Manager Greg McCormick gave a presentation regarding the history of the airport overlay zone. Mr. McCormick also discussed issues with the zone overlay, zone 6 is basically suppose to relate to a noise reduction issue, and the basis for the discussion for the evening. Currently the zoning in zone 6 is one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. The options for changing the density in the overlay zone are: Option 1 No Change and leave the density where it currently is 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 Option 2 Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay (AOZ Airport Overlay Zone) zone. Option 3 Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning district regulations within zone 6 Option 4 Allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following criteria; ' a. The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; b Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or greater to underlying zone. c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. Option 5, which was requested by the Planning_Commission at the study session to leave the density north of Trent the way that it is and south of Trent at the under lying zoning. r Commissioner Sharpe had requested inforrrtation regarding`vacant parcels, he wanted to know how many vacant parcels there were in the AOZ.,,;The planning staff was able to provide the information, there are 80 parcels but staff can not tell:what condition those parcels are in. Staff was also able to tell that there were seven dividable lots,,once again not being able to tell who owns them or their condition. Staffs recommendation ,is, still option 4, allow the underlying density within zone 6, with the listed criteria , The Commissioners had several questions before they began the public testimony. How did staff come to the criteria listed? It is close to the critena used for rezonmg purposes. Why wasn't this research dong previously? Why isn't it water and sewer? Did we hear back from the FAA as requested? k Yes, they did respond and staff did meet with them. Did we do any noticing of the area regarding;the possibility of changing the density then or now? Commission began the public testimony. Ryan Sheehan, 2303 S,Tekoa, S,t.; , Mr. Sheehan stated he was representing the airport. Mr. Sheehan requested that the Commission post pone any action or choose Option 1. Mr Sheehan stated that the Airport Board would like more time to review the impacts of the changes. The director, Mr. Neil Seelock, is asking for more time to consider proposed changes based on more which should be-considered more on noise in the community as well as safety. Mr. Sheehan stated that the first the Airport Board heard about the proposed changes was mid last week, after receiving a call from Asst Planner Karen Kendall The Airport Director did not feel they had enough time to present what it would like to offer in the way of education regarding activity increases. Commissioner Eggleston asked how much time more time did they think they need? Mr. Sheehan stated they thoughf 30 days. A Commissroner asked if the airport received notice. A notice of public hearing was sent however there is no administrafive staff af felts field and all administratlve work gets passed out to Spokane Internationa! Airport. Jeff Hamilton, 3305 S High Drive: Mr. Hamilton stated he is the president of the Tenants Association for Felts Field, business or airport. It is the Tenant's Associabon to protect the airport. Mr. Hamilton stated that they have submitted a Ietter stating their position. The Tenant's Association is aware of airports closing more around the country. Mr. Hamilton wanted to commend the City for its standards, for the FAA and WADOT for being concerned about increasing density when it is not reasonable. Mr. Hamilton stated he is concemed about putting the airport at risk. Mr. Hamilton would like to ask for a comprehensive analysis, and respectfully ask to postpone this decision. Gary White, 10405 E Ferret Drive: Mr. White stated he was president of the Washington Pilot Association. Mr. White requested that the Commission adopt option 1 to postpone this 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 discussion in order to get more information regarding this regulation. Mr. White would like to encourage not to increase density around the airport. Mr. White has stated that he as seen other airports shut down because of density. Bill Faith, 7719 E Current Pt.: Mr. Faith stated that he owns a parcel which would be a little less than 3 lots which have sewer stub and water. Mr. Faith stated that he would understand if he wanted to build high rise in the flight path, but if you are concerned about the safety then worry about the houses across the river. Mr. Faith stated that there are trees and everything across the river, he does not see any reason for restrictions in this area. Carter Timmerman, Arlington, WA, WADOT: Mr. Timrnerman stated he was an airport sponsor and that he supports Mr. Sheehan's request for more tirne. Mr Timmerman also made an offer of assistance in the planning process. Mr. Timmerman said that most accidents occur within 5000 feet of the runway. Density in this zone does offer,4a `risk, but the noise is the larger concern. Commissioners asked if any noise surveys done o,n;that area, none that anyone was , aware of. . : 'tLarry Tobin, 8610 E Red Oak Dr.: Mr. Tobin stated that he felt thpt the airport very important. Mr. Tobin said he felt the airport carrot for the area and would not like to see the airport go away because people don't like the noise. Mr. Tobin stated that what the Commission was talking about zoning the around the airports, and asked that they give careful consideration to these regulations. , , Blake McKinnley, 4015 S Sunnerland: Mr. McKinnley stated he is an officer of the Chapter of WA State Pilots Assoc Mr. McKinnley shared the airport data for Felts Field 70,669 annual flight operations which represents 22% more fiight operations than Spokane International Airport Both runways are used extensively on a daily basis WADOT has stated that the economic benefit Felts Field provides5i6 the area is 250 jobs resu(ting in $16.5M dollars in labor and economic value to the community on a'-annual basis. Mr. McKinnley stated that the Associations understand for the adoption of the AOZ and restricting certain land uses and density was to protect the airport and airport4safety. By- allowing density increase in the area, is not reasonable land use. The potential adoption would allow increase in noise and liability issues which potentially puts the asset of the airport at risk The Association requests that the Commission delay its decision for more collaboration and a comprehensive approach for all parties to study this subject further. ,~I Mike Klein, Manager Orchard Ave Water District, 917 S Bowdish: Mr. Klein stated that it seems to me like the battle with the Water District and the patrons is with the airport not the City. Mr. Klein said this was new to him Mr Klein stated in the past the only restrictions have been height and radio frequency. Noise and density were a recommendations, this ordinance was acted on a recommendation Mr. Klein stated he was here to inform the Commission that this decision has a big irppact on the water district. With out an increase in density there will be no future growth. The,density along the airport was UR-3.5 in the county. The safety zone does not want schools,,parks, large gatherings of people and yet there are all of these things in the overlay zone already. Mr. Klein stated that on one is trying to destroy the airport, there has never been an incident there, but overkill hurts people. People are being hurt by the restrictions in this ordinance, hope the Commissioners can see this Jeff Howe, 7101 E. Rudder: Mr. Howe stated that the City of Spokane Valley has been losing revenue by not allowing these lots to be divided. Mr. Howe stated that around the airport in Deer Park you are required to sign off a statement recognizing you are in a an airport zone, you must sound insulate you home and giving certain rights to the airport because you live in and around the airport zone None of that has been implemented by the City of Spokane airport, the airport has a business to run, but the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Howe said he bought a property in 2006, he asked if it cauld divide it before he bought it, asked county if he could get extra sewer stubs, water stubs from Orchard Ave., he even got a building permit for a building on the property, which is much smaller than he would have built otherwise. Mr. Howe said he made several trips down to the City and he was never told he could not divide his property, paid more for the property than he would have, the City is missing the revenue. Mr. Howe stated he 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 thought that the change had been railroaded through the first time, when even the water district does not know about it six months after, he felt the Commissioners should side with the little people. James Bower: Pilots Association. Mr. Bower stated that he felt the Commission should choose option 1. Mr. Bower said he felt that the Commission should advise Council to protect the people living here. Talking about zone 6 is talking about noise, flying between 1000 - 800 feet is fairly noisy, the noise is less at 1000-1500. Mr. Bower suggested that the Commissioners consider the job is to protect from noise. If you look to the future, some new home buyers may not realize the airport not there, even though airplanes are there 24 hours a day. Mr Bower said even though we are talking about a housing only, this industry supports the schools, snow plows and other important activity in the City Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he didn't,understand agencies coming to ask for more time, this is not about increase density. Mr. Hgme stated he belived that Option 4 reasonable, without further analysis. Under regulations, extra`,insulation can be required for noise suppression, new permit holders should have to sign an ea'sement waving for noise Mr. Hume stated he felt that if the airport felt this was going to be damaging to them then they should have to come back with help and prove why the net increase is damaging, and could cause the closure of the airport. Joe Coleia, 8112 E Marietta: Mr. Coleia stated got letter from Marina (Marina°Sukup, former Director) stating he would be able to divide the property or he would not have bought it. Mr. Coleia stated he had a lot of money invested in a little house and a lot that he can not split. Mr. Coleia stated he was upset that he had a letter that said he could do something we later said he could not do. The lot has sewertand water. Mr. Coleia stated he did not think if he split his ~ lot, it would be any smaller than any ,o,....ther lot on the street. Sara Orrange, Spokane Realtor Association;:9124 N. Ash: Ms. Orrange stated she was the Government Affairs Director for the Spokane_RealtQrs,,which advocates housmg options and not restricting housing choices. Ms Orrangerstated that,option 4, while it allows for housing density with some restrictions, it does not allow for as much as many housing opportunities, as some of the other options do. Ms. Orrange also stated it did not allow for the opportunities as the underlying zoning or what is allowed in the,City of Spokane. Jeff Mclntire 3816 N Park Rd.: Mr. Mclntire-stated he lives at the end of the runway and has no problems with the airport. Mr. Mclntire purchased his property to divide, it has water and sewer, he is also a board member for Orchard Ave. Wa#er District. Mr. Mclntire stated that he is aware that planes make noise, he has lived in this area for 33 years and never had an issue with the noise. Mr. Mclntire did state he was concerned that there had been no proper notice to concerned parties. Pam Mclntire, 3816 N Park Rd.: Ms. Mclntire stated that the Airport was a great neighbor. She also said that they like the airport, but that some of our properties are dividable, we want to be to do that. Ms. Mclntire wondered why are we trying to change it now, when there have always been people there? • John Stipe, 2820 N Center Rd.: Mr. Stipe stated that the airport would never going to make rnuch noise He said they can't bring in 4 engine jets, there is not enough runway length. Mr. Stipe stated he used to fly fighters but they had practiced to land the fighters Felts Field for a while however the runway is too short and there is no room to expand it, after Northwood was built they never used it again. Mr. Stipe talked about the new gyrns at WVHS, and the people using the school Mr. Stipe stated that the airport does not fly multiple flights out of there after 10 p.m. at night. He stated that the most noise in the neighborhood comes from the railroad. Mr. Stipe stated he had enough land to divide, and believes he should be able to do so if he chooses. Sharon Panther, 8004 E Glass: Ms. Panther stated she had not received any information on this overlay. Ms. Panther stated she has sort of an acre. She stated that the county stated that the property could not be divided until sewer was in the area. Ms. Panther stated now she has 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 the utilities she was told now she can not divide the property now. Ms. Panther stated she asked the City is the change had been mandated by some other entity but could not get a satisfactory answer and would like the ability to divide her property . John Dikes, 7323 E Marietta: Mr. Dikes stated he likes the airplanes, but if you stop the growth the water district needs growth to keep the costs down. He also stated he felt that growth spawned improvement in existing development. Mr. Dikes does not feel the noise of the airplanes is bothersome, he finds the trains far noisier than the airport Mr Dikes also has a lot he could improve and divide if allowed. Commissioner Beau/ac asked Mr Dikes if he were to develop his extra lot would he be wi!ling fo sign a waiver for the airporf noise and provide the extra insulation for the noise suppression. Mr, Dikes responded that although he would be willing he was surprised thaf the airport noise was a problem for anyone, the railroad noise far out weighted the planes Raymond Gunning 6215 N Thierman: Mr. Gunning stated he has a full packet, got had a letter from Marina Sukup, had the engineering done, sewer, brought in to submit it, can't do it. Mr. Gunning stated that he was in agreement with the land owners, as far as the airport, he has grown up in Millwood, and sells real estate, with the.understanding that you have to enjoy the planes, trains and automobiles. Mr. Gunning stated~he would never want to harm the airport but he also does not want to harm the water district. Commissioner Beaulac asked Mr. Gunning if he would be willing to sign an agreement, and puf in the noise abatement features. Mr. Gunning stated he would sign it and believed.;that fhe;`(ast 10 houses he has sold, that one of his customers would have a problem signing it eifher. The Planning Commission took a break and on their return, Director. McClung clarified the surrounding some of the questions and issues of the airport overlay zone. The Director also explained how the amendment would proceed through the City Council process Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to continue the public hearing to Dec. 11, 2008, with a second by Commissioner Sands. Vote is unanimous in favor. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER, Commissioner Robertson stated that the Council would be discussing Water Quality at the next Council meeting. ' XI. AD]OURNMyENT . , . The being no other business, the meeting yvas adjourned at 8:07 p,m. < SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Ian Robertson, Vice-Chairperson 10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 I ~ ~ 1 ' ~ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: December 11, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business Zpublic hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued public hearing to amend the density limitations of Section 19.110.030 (Airport Hazard Overlay) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Reference file number CTA-04-08. GOVERN(NG LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70., 14 CFR 77 and SVMC 19.110.030 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSI4N ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation the City adopted the Spokane County airport overlay regulations on an interim basis. The City adopted their own airport hazard overlay regulations to protect Felts Field by Ordinance 06-002 on February 28, 2006. The regulations were carried forward in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.110.030 with the adoption of the new zoning regulations (uniform development code) adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 2gth, 2007. Concerns have been voiced by citizens and agencies regarding the density limitations of Zone 6 within the airport hazard overlay zone. Staff was directed by the City Council to review this issue and propose possible alternatives to change the density limitation. The Planning Commission held a study session on October 9, 2008. The public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on October 23, 2008 and was continued to December 11, 2008. ,Felts Field was originally a park with a portion set aside in 1920 as an airport. In 1926 the Civil Aeronautics Board recognized Felts Field as an airport. 1940 Spokane County Commissioners purchased Sunset Fie(d, now know as Spokane International Airport (SfA) for development of an air carrier as a replacement to Felts Field. In 1980 the operations were 122,720 compared to 75,399 in 2000. In 1997 operations hit a low of 62,883 and have been rising since then. Between 1997 and 1998 operations increased by approximately 9,000. Since 1999 airport operations have consistently increased approximately one (1) percent per year. The airport is currently operating with 80,000 to 85,000 aircrafts per year. Operations are defined as takeoffs and landings performed by an aircraft. See attached exhibit with a graph showing historical operations and existing forecasts. SEPA: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on October 3, 2008. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. ~ ° r" • ~ December 11, 2008 (Continued PubUc Hearing) Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 NOTiCING: Following the issuance of the notice of public hearing mailed and published on October 3, 2007, the City has not received any public comment. Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures of Title 17 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). ANALYSIS: The four (4) options below have been formulated by staff as alternatives to change density limitation of one (1) dwelling unit per two and one half (2%Z) acres within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay. Each option is being reviewed to determine if the approval criteria established in Section 17.80.150(F) of the SVMC can be met. At the study session on October 9, 2008 an additional option was requested by the Planning Commission for staff to evaluate which is referenced as option 5. Following the public hearing on October 23, 2008 staff reevaluated Option 4 and modified recommended requirements. 1. Option 1: No change to current density limitation in table 19-110-1 a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Sfaff Commenf: The current regulations are in direct conformance with Goal TG-13 and policies TP-13.1 and TP-13.2 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The current regulations provide the highest level of protecfion from incompatible and inconsistent densifies in relation to Felts Field. 2. Option 2: Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within fhe Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...densify adjacent fo the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. There are a handful of parcels that are at least double in size that could be developed under the R-2 zone that are directly adjacent to the designated airport boundary and runway fhat would be in direct conflict with policy TP-13.2. The majority of fhe land area within Zone 6 is fully bui/t out with residential uses. The number of potential parcels that could be developed between the R-2 and R-4 zones is 388 parcels located throughout the 6, 000 foof radius of Zone 6. This option conflicfs by allowrng density wifhin an area that should be protected from encroachmenfs that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots would be located more than 3,000 feet from fhe runway. There are approximately 1,154 exisfing parcels in the R-2 zone with 952 parcels thaf could potenfially be furfher developed. The R-4 zone has 155 existing parcels and 76 have the pofenfial being further divided. The tofal number between fhe R-2 and R-4 zones thaf have the pofential to be further divided is 388. The analysis Page 2 of 6 f./ ~December 11, 2008 (Continued Public Hearing) Request for Planning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limif development of a property even though the lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Sfaff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growfh and provide more options for locations of housing within fhe Cify of Spokane Valley. lt has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however fhis concern is not significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. The increase in density does not bear a substantial relation to the protection of Felts Field with the creation of man-made hazards and encroachments that could pose a safety hazard for aircraft or create an increase in exposure to noise from aircraft. 3. Option 3: Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive P/an states "discourage density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This opfion conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. The R-2 zone has 152 parcels fhat could potentially be further developed. The R-4 zone has 23 parcels 20,000 square feet or greater with the potential of being further divided under the R-2 developmenf standards. The total number between the R-2 and R-4 zones that have the potential to be further divided is 175. The analysis was done only to evaluate lot size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even though fhe lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would a/low for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the City of Spokane Valley. !t has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concem is not signifrcantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmenfal protecfion. 4. Option 4: Allow density of underlying zoning within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or Page 3 of 6 l ( December 11, 2008 (Contlnued Public Hearing) Request for Planning Commisslon Action on CTA-04-08 (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) properfy sizes for proposed development; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. In addition, language shall be pfaced upon the face of the final plat to serve as notification of possible increase in noise and require sound proofing on a11 new construction to be located - in Section 19.110.030.G. a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Sfaff Comment: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage density adjacent to the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. The proposed option of allowing development with exceptions would provide those properties fhat have had the intent of further land division to proceed. This option conflicts by allowing densify within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards and exposure to noise, however the majority of potential new lots are located more than 3,000 feet from the runway. The installation of water and sewer stubs is consistent with Goal CFP-9. The data collected from the Spokane Counfy Division of Utilities shows approximately 224 lots within Zone 6 have been stubbed for sewer. There are 79 lots that received two or more sewer stubs. Orchard Avenue Irrigation District data shows approximately 35 lots received exfra water stubs within Zone 6. There are a tota/ of 12 lots that received water and sewer stubs wifhin Zone 6. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Staff Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within fhe City of Spokane Valley. It has not been defermined if capacity exists to provide services to addifional residences however this concern is not significant/y detrimental fo the pub/ic hea/th, safety, welfare and environmental proteetion. 5. Option 5: Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. This option was proposed by the Planning Commission at the study session held on October 9, 2008. This option, if considered would need to be further defined to deterrnine which amount of density is allowed in each section (north and south). a. Criteria: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Commenf: Policy TP-13.2 within the Comprehensive Plan states "discourage...density adjacent fo the airport" within the airport hazard overlay. This opfion conflicts by allowing density within an area that should be protected from encroachments that may create safety hazards. If determined to be divided at current zoning standards fhe proposed north section of Zone 6(north of Trent Avenue) then R-2 has 148 parcels and R-4 has 71 parcels with fhe potential fo be divided. The proposed south Page 4 of 6 ~ ~December 11, 2008 (Contlnued Publlc Hearing) Request for Pianning Commission Action on CTA-04-08 section of zone 6(south of Trent Avenue) has 4 parcels in R-2 and 5 parcels in R-4 that have the potential of being divided at with current zoning standards. The ana/ysis was done only to evaluate lof size for further development. A lot specific analysis was not completed. There may be other factors that limit development of a property even though fhe lot size is large enough. b. Criteria: The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Sfati Comment: The density increase would allow for additional growth and provide more options for locations of housing within the Cify of Spokane Valley. It has not been determined if capacity exists to provide services to additional residences however this concern is not significanfly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. OPTIONS: 1. No change to current density limitation in table 19.110-1 2. Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the airport hazard overlay. 3. Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning regulations within Zone 6. 4. Allow density of underlying zoning within Zone 6, however development must comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) property sizes for proposed development; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. In addition, language shall be placed upon the face of the final plat to serve as notification of possible increase in noise and require sound proofing on all new construction to be located in Section 19.110.030G. 5. Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR-290) as a divider. 6. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Option 4 as previously described which amends Zone 6 density limitations to allow density of underlying zoning within Zone 6, however development rnust comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following exceptions; (a) The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or (b) Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights of way) property sizes for proposed development; or (c) More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. In addition, language shall be placed upon the face of the final plat to serve as notification of possible increase in noise and require sound proofing on all new construction to be located in Section 19.110.030G. Staff recommends this proposed change be forwarded on to the City Council. Page 5 of 6 r December 11, 2008 (Continued Public Hearing) . Request for Planning Commfssion Action on CTA-04-08 ~ STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Updated Amended Table 19-110-1 Page 6 of 6 i , Amended Table 9-110-1 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code L Table 19-170-1 Airport Land Use Compatibility Prohibited Uses ~ I Prohibited Uses Airport Land Use Compatiblli Zones , 1 ~ 2 f 3 ~ 4 5 ~ 6 ; Sin$le-family Residential I• I• I ~ I ~ I • I o ~W 2.5 asFe 1 dul5 1 du/ 2.5 Underlying ! Maximum Density n/a Na acres acre n/a zone L Manufactured Housing I! Parks • • • • • • , Multi-family Residential I• I• I • I • I • I • Schools I• I• i • I • I • I • : Parks & Play~rounds I• • I • I • I • I • Hospitals I• • I • I • I• I • Nursing Homes I• I• I • I • I • I • , Daycare I• I• I • l • I • I • , ' Churches I• I• I • I • I • • Hazardous Material Storage I' I• I • I • I • Flammable Materials • • • • • Storage Incinerators • I• I • • I • I • Overhead utilitles I• I• I • • I • • Hi h Intensity Uses _1_• I• ~ ~ • I _ • Prohibited Uses " O Density limited Must compiy with a minlmum of one (1) of the following criteria; a. The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prjor to the " adopton of the City of Spokane Valley fnitiai airport hazard overlay regu(ations on 2- 28-06 by Ordinance 06-002; or b. Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or equai to underlying zone; or c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlining zone to make conforming. 19.110.030.G.5 All final short plats and final subdivisions located within Zone 6 of the Airport Haiard Overlay shall contain the following dedication language on the face of the Mylar; a. Sound proofing measures shall be taken on any new residential dwelling located within Zone 6 of the City of Spokane Valley Airport Hazard Overlay Zone. b. These lots are located in an Airport Hazard Overlay that may be subject to increased noise levels. , i ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , d i / ~ Washington S$ate Aviatian 0lvlsion ~ Depar4me09$ Of 7'e'aD9spOr$a410n 3704 172nd Street, Suite K2 / P.O. Box 3387 p~~~a J. ~ammond, P.E. Arlington, Washington 98223 Secretary of Transportation 350-651-63¢0 l~ ~~W~'~g M: 1-800~g 89$ www.wsdotwa.gov December 10, 2008 P~~g Commissiot~ SPQt<AN~ ~'n1_L~l' uTZ.pARflV1EN-)~~ ~ Ci t3' of SPokane ValleY ~,~n~~ni~~•t4 CY 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Sgokane Va1ley, 'QVashington 99206 RB: CTA-04-08, propossd amendments to Spokane Valley's airport ovaxlay, municipal code section 19.110.030 Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed density alternabives fox zone 6 af the Eity of Spokaae fTalley's airport overlaty regulations. The Washington Sfate IIepazhnent of Transportation (RTSDOI) Aviation Division recognizes the Cily of Spokane Valley's past planning achievements, and encourages its continued diligence in discvuraging the encroachment of incompatible land uses adjacent #q Felts Fxeld.WSDOT Aviation is cancemed tlaat substantial increases in allowable residential densities in zone 6 of the airport overlay will affect the long- term operational viability of Felts Field and therefore would recommend that the Flanning Commission deny tha request or fable the proposat until a fcfll analysis of aD the issues set forth herein can be addressed. In 1996, Washington State passed land use legislation (RCW 36.70A.510, RCW 36.70.547). Under this provisian of #he Cirowth N38magem+ent Act (GM.A), aLl towns, cities and coun#ies are required to discowage encmachment of incompatible development adjacent tv public use airports, through adoptioII of comprehensive plan policies and development regalatians. GMA also identif'ies airports as essendal public facilities. WSDOT Aviaiion has c,oncluded that options 2 through 5 are in direct contradiction with the requirementsof GMA. Eaeh of the altematives prescnted, with the exception of option 1, allows for substantital encroaeliment of residential development on Felts Field. Add'xtionally, the review did not address or aualyze the operational characiteristias of the airpozt, future operations, or iumpacts whiah is a fundamentat requiremesrt o€ GIviA to "show your work". RTSDOT Aviation offers the following observations and comments. Options 2 through S would allow for substantial encroachment of residential development on Fel#s Field. This promotioa of increased smgle family residential vvfflrin the airport influence area will most likely result in canflict and diminished quality of life foz people living under the aircraft traffi.r. pattem. Resident.s within the airport influence area of Felts Field will tre exposed to naise, light, v'bratioa and fumes associated with normal airport operations. One should alsa expect that as the demand for air tramspvrtation increases, so wi,ll the intensity of use at Felts Field. As seen in the past adjacent residential devslopment increasss the operarionat costs of an airport by pioducing complaints, litigation aud changes in esltablished aMoacb, depathme and en route proeedures. 1 ~ r ` l WSDOT Aviation believes that adopt'con of any of these alternatives would constitute a failure of enforcittg RCW 36.74A.510 and the cifiy's own comprehensive plan that discourage encroachment of incompatt`ble land uses adjacent to Felts Fie1d Accordingly the Cifiy of Spokane Valley's comprehensive plan goal TG-13 states: "Encourage land use and development compatible wifh aixpart uses and regulated auspace" The ci#y's policy TP-13.2 is to discourage incompatible Iand uses and residential densities adjacent to the airport. Tlie city has not demonstrated in their analysis that the proposed change,s are needed to fuMll their forecast housing demaud or whether the optivns are consistent with the comprehensive plan policies to protect the airport f iom incompata€r'Ie Yand uses and ires~t~~Ia 6ensifies.7~ncreasing i ding requirements to mitigate noise is not an affective strategy to discourage incompatibl8 development. This strategy only serves to react to a situation that could have been avoidea witb proper plavni.ug. Additionally, noise is but only one of tb.e four issues that need to be addressed wheu developucg comprehensive solutions to discouraging incompatible developmeIIt. The other factoxs include land use, air space obstructions and safety. WSDOT Aviation recommends that the City of Spokane Valley revisit the mefihodology used to estabiish the cwrrent develogment regulations to assist in developing a proposal that more closely aligns with protection of the airport from incompatible land uses and city needs. We would also encourage the city to evalvate their overall housing objectives to deternrine i€there are more suitable areas m the czty to meet housing demand. As a part ofthzs examination, we would encourage the city to review the airport's operatzonal characteristics and needs to better address its land use needs aurrently and in the future. WSDOT stxongly recommends the city promote a more compatible mixed use enviromn.ent, prhmarily composed of commercial, industrial, aud residential uses that limit the citizenries' exposure to noise, light, vibration and fumes that are associated with aormal airport operations and industrial activities. Unfiil the staff completes its analysis, WSDaT Aviation recammeuds advption of aption 1, no change to eurrent residenfial density. Thank you again for the opportunity to aomment. Please do not hssitate to r,ontact me at 360.651.6312 or timmerc, cr,wsdot.wa2ov if you have any questions, or if x can be of assistance. Sincerely, Carter Timmerman Aviation Planner WSDOT Aviation CC: Karea Keadall Ryan Sheehan Neil Se$lock John Townsley John Sibold Jobn Shambaugh Dee Caputo 2 EXHIBIT 7 , Spokane Valley Planning Commission Draft Minutes Council Chambers - City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 11, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER Chalr Robertsort called the meeting to order at 6:01 prr . II. PLEDQE OF ALLEGiIANCE Commissioners, staff and audlence stood for the pledge of alleglance r' M. Rou. c.A.L GommissFoners were present 3ff attendtng the meeang: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • It was moved by Commissioner Kogle, seconded and unanfmously agreed to accept the December 11, 2008 agenda as presenbed. ` . V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Munson thanked Commissioners. Beaulac and Kogle for thelr serv(ce on the Planning Commission :on behalf of the Clty Coundl and presented them wlth certiflcates of appreclationJand pins with tfie city logo. Mayor Munson then announced that Tom Towey and 'loe Mann were approved 'by the council and appolnted to the Plann(ng Co rn m i s sl on. Cou n ci l me mb' er G o t h m a n n a l s o t h a n k e d t h e m f o r t h e( r h a r d wo r k. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS ,,Stk No Commission reports VIII. ADMINISTRATNE REPORTS , Planning Manager;:,;McCormick said the next meeting will be ]anuary 8, 2009 and a short course session January 22, 2009 wfth CTED, DG COMMISSION BUSINESS , A. Old Business - Continued Public Hearing, Titie 19, 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overtay Chalr Robertson opened the Pubiic Hearing at 6:13 p.m. Associate Pianner Kendail explalned the reason for the oontlnuatlon of the pub(ic hear(ng for the Airport Overlay Zone was to allow tlme for the airport groups t+o review and meet with city stafF to prov(de oomment She said staff inet w(th Spokane International Alrport and made some changes based on thelr recommendatlons. She said staff has recelved one additional public oommeni from Washington State Department of Aviatlon and she wlll dlstribute it to the commissioners. Ms. Kendal) sald the area being discussed Is resldentla) zoning district wlthin zone 6 of the overlay zone. She safd Option 1 is no change to the current denslty Ilmttatfons. Optfon 2 allows density of current zone distrlcts within zone 6. Option 12/11/2003 Planning Commission Mfnutes Page 1 of 7 3 I(mits the zoning (n zone 6 to the density Iimitations of current zone 2. She sald this would not be a re-zone of all the paroels, but would be an overiay of density restrictlons in R2 whlch ls a mtnfmum lot size of 10,040 square feet. Optlon 4 would allow density of zone 6 but dewelopment must comply with one of three following criteria: a.) The slte has water or sewer stubs installed; b.) Contiguous parcels with a m(nlmum lot size less than or equal to the underiying zone; or c.) More than one residenoe located on the property. She said staff also wants to have language on the face of mylat^s for flnal plats and subdlvls(ons located within zone 6 stating that sound proof ineasures wiil be taken and a note that the lot (s locabed within the airport hazard overlay zone and it Is subject to increased nolse levels. Optlon 5 is to split zone 6 on the north and south side of Trent. Ms. Kendall said staff recommends Optlon 4 to, alloW density limitatlons (n . the undertying zone but allow development that complies 'with one of the three criteria and language be placed on the flnal mylars serv(ng as notlfication of (ncreased noise levels and soundprooflng on all new construcdon. , . Comm(ssioner Beaulac asked if the soundproo'fing wouid be universal and how ft would be enforced. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the boiider to not(fy people and it would be based upon the federal reguladons for soundproofing. She said tfiere ls nothing In our building code and at this tlme there is no 'irrterest In add(ng it to our code. ; Ms. Kendall added that in response to 1(abllity questlons, the city attomey said that the City can adopt zoning regulaaohs that are reasonably deslgned to ensure the public heaith, safety, and weffare. To. protect agalnst later clalms for - nolse we can require a titl ' e;n- otice that the property !s within the airport hazard overlay zone and that nolse...or other disturbances : from traffic may occur. She sald the city attomey concluded thet in gener~l'he does not see any liability issues if the_orrdinanoe stays as Is:. ; Chair Robertson"invited public coMment: Carter Tirnmermar~; 3704 172"d; ~Sx., Atlington. WA - Representing the Washington State,bept. of Transportation Aviatlon Division (WSDOT-AD). He . said WSDOT-AD 'is concerned I that the Increases In allowable residenoes in this _ zone wil! affect`the (ong-term operatlonal vtabilfty of Felts Fleld and recommends the Planning Commission deny the request or table the proposal until a full analysis of all the Issues are addressed. He sald WSDOT AD has concluded that options 2, 3;`;6nd 4 are In contradicdon with the regulatlons of the GMA and that optlon 1 Is the only option that doesnt allow for the substantiai encroachment on Felts Fleld. l4e :'said the revfew did not address the characteristlcs of the alrport future operadons for impacts whkh is a requirement of the GMA. He sald nolse (s only;:otie.o(=four lssues to be addressed and others include: land use, airspace obstructions and safety. WSDOT-AD recommends optlon 1: no change to current residentlal densfty. Comm(ssioner Sands asked if WSDOT AD wouid be avallable to help staff if they recommend further analysis. Mr. Tirnmerman sald he wvrks for WSDOT-AD and looks forward to working with them In the future. Commiss(oner Eggelston asked how long an analysls would take. Mr. Timmerman said he has no answer to that question and that it depends on the c(ty's resources. Edie Strekher. 5813 E. 4th Ave - Ms, Strekher (s the Leg(slative Affairs Coordinator for the Spokane Homebuilders Assodatlon which supports the effort to increase residendal denslty In thls area. She sald they are In support of option 2 that aliows for the greatest development. She said she believes home buyers 12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 understand the oonditlons in that area of Increased noise, fumes, and light when they move thwe. pwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt Vlewv Lane - Mr. Hume sald he Is in support of options 4 or 2 because zone 6 Is a noise zone, not a crash zone so he doesnt think it Is an Issue of density; therefore because zone 6 Is zoned resldenUal they should al(ow the new constrvcdon of the 388 untts (to full build-out). Mfke King, 9300 E. Spraaue Ave. - Mr. King said he Is e pilot and does training at Felts Field and is speaking on behalf of ltfe Rlver Fellowsh(p Church located on the corner of Park and Buckeye. He said they think the overlay zone !s too far reach(ng. He sald the aIr traffk patbern of planes does not go over this area. He said the church Is concerned with the non-conforming `use and the potendai for the property to lase fts value or tts usage. He said wfth regard to nolse, railroads cause more noise than the alrcraft at Fe(ts Fleld; there Is no jet trafflc, onfy Ilght and small aircraft. He sald his major oonceM'is withfn the crash zone because there Is no air trafflc there; the pianes dont f1y over that area and if they lose control they still do not -come in from that`angle because it Is not pratkical. He recommends further study as we do not'have all the facts. Jeay Baur. 2410 N. Cherry St -;Mr, _ Baur satd ~he Is a private pilok and saki he thinks the problem will ah►vays be nolse and thkthe Cfty will st111 pe sued even if they are not liable. He sald if housing derisity 1s In6eased it Is likely people will move in who dont Ilke the notse and who Wll say they had no idea there was an a(rport there, despite the ,nodflcatlon on the~.;►plat. He supports opfion 1 and encourages the Clty staff to work with WSDOT-AD::;;, ~ aohn Townslev. 607 W. Moritqomery Ave. - He sa~d he Is a pllot and flies out of Felts Fleld frequentty and doesn't thfnk there Is.a great deal of r(sk ln exploring the issues further. He safd the.decislon the Plannfng Commission makes could have long-term cottsequences so. they need to make good dedsions. He urges caution 'and deliberatlon and said;there Is no reason to rush bo a determinatton; widi~ the recession .right now there ls no rush to build so we should take the tlme. He said the biggest~compiaint Is nolse and the nolse Is louder in warmer weather because it Is harder for :plane$ to climb In warm temperatures and people are Iikely ;outslde so they will hear it and they will feel the vibratlons. , ]on Gordon. .7105 E.1 Euclid - Mr. Gordon sald he Is out of the flight path but has lived in two'different homes In this neighborhood. He said he has called the FAA with concerns"`about pilots flying outside of the flight paths es they approach the runway and they have not been addressed. He sald there !s also a d(rt and gravel road in the area that doesnt meet EPA because it should have been paved as indicated on 'the alrport's original plan. He said Felts Fleld Is used for fllght (nstruction causing potentlal hazard, as well has home-built planes that are not constructed to strict standards. He said the proposal for language on the plat serving as notlflcatlon to homeowners !s typically not large enough once it Is reduced ln size for the tftle report so homeowners may not be aware of the notloe. He sald overall he thlnks the overlay zone Is relatively large and the area Is too big but it should be held to no growth to ei(minate hazards In the area. Ravmond Gunning, 6215 N. Thelrman - Mr. Gunning said he Ioves the planes at Felts Fleld but he doesnt want the airport to hinder development. He Is a proponent of optlon 4 or option 2 with some revislons. He said the area Is a nolsy nelghborhood wlth the tra1n, the mlll, and the airport and the longer thls declsion takes, the more resources and money Is going to be spent and wasted. 12/11/2008 Planning Cornmission M(nutes Page 3 of 7 Chafr Robertson invited further commetrts from staff; none offered. Publdc avmments were c/ase+d at 7.•05 p.m. Commissloner Carroll asked staff what the probabllity of an accident occurring In zone 6 fs Iikefy bo be. Ms. Kendall said that ltiformatlon probably comes from the state aviadon guldelines where the trafflc zones and flight pattems were developed; she said she can follow up to provide that informatlon to the commission. It was move+d by Comm/ssloner Beaular, and seconded, to propase eclopt/on of opt/on 4 tn tlre Clty Coundl. Mr. Beaulac sa(d he Is in favor af option 4 because there are 2000 other residents In the oommunfty that haven't complained, ft is a communtty tfiat has been allowed to develop and.' he doesn't think new development wfil make much of a difference. Commissioner Kogle asked staff If Spokane International Alrport (SIA) ofFered any (nput. Ms. Kendall said she spoke with Ryan Sheehan, the manager of Felts ~e d through SIA, who said he was unable to attend the meetlng today but d~'n~ further, comments to share. She sa(d theY had met wfth SIA previously, but~they did not offer an opinlon to staff. Commissioner Sharpe said he favors opUon}`2 because th(s area has been in existence for a{ong time and it.-1s. an areaythat has the potential for flli-In developrnent. He atso said that the reason people,. buy houses near an alrport Is r affordabiilty; the oost of land is less. Comm(ssiohe Carroll sald he thlnks they are recognizing growth that aiready exists and, could be developed along with the alrport and option 4 recognizes that co-deve opment. Commissloner Kogle said she agrees, but (s sensitive'to the airports and doesn't want to jeopardize them. Commissloner Sands said she .has seen airports shut -down and It has been due to residentlal (n-flll. She safd Feits Field is a unique'feature of this area and she wants it to thrfve. She said,,,originally she thoiight the overlay zone was a forward-thinking plan to help'save the airport.' She is In favor of opdon 4 but would ifk'e the city to take tlme and ailow WSDOT-AD to br(ng more Information to the ~planning commisslon. Commissioner Eggleston said he fs frustrated they did nofi receive more informatlon from WSDOT-AD and Felts Ffeld when they had been asked and had been .given more time. He sald he Is in favor of option 4 and he agrees we should give more' tlme to get more Informatlon. but he doesn't ' want to wait forever. t/ote by show of hands: In tavor: CommJssloners Sharpe, Carroll, ,and Beaulac. Opposed: CommissJoners Kog/e, Sands, Eggleston, and Rabertson. Modon Fallecl. It was moved, by Commissloner Sands, and seconde4 that sbff work with WSDOT-AD f~'r; a p~erJad of three months (to conduct the(r analysls and present ft a ta fu ture , f~ e e t ing). C ha ir Ro ler t s o n a sked for clarification of process and whether we, `need to set a speciflc date for this ftem to come back b e fore t he oommiss(on*. Plann(ng Manager McCormldc said they can contlnue the hearing to a date certain or they can close the hearing and re-advertlse and re-open the hearing. Mr. McCormick said they need d(rection as to what informat(on the commission is seeking. Commiss(oner Sands Invlted Mr. Timmerman to comment as to the Information he would help provide. He said he recommends they work with the alrport on flight patterns, current and planned operations, and conductlng a risk assessment He sald he offers hts services at no charge to the Gty. Commissloner Sands reoommended someone from the real estate community join in the dlscussion for a falr and balanced eonversatlon. Commissloner Eggleston asked ff this analysis can be compieted in three months, Mr. Timrnerman said he can not guarantee anything. I/ote by acclamation: In Favor: Commiss/oners RoberCson, Carrol% Egg/eston, Kog/e, Sands, and Sharpe. Oppased.- Commissloner Beaulac. Motfon pra,sse+d. 12/11/2008 Planning Commisslon Minutes Page 4 of 7 Chair Roberston cailed for a break at 7:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. B. New Buslness - Publlc Hearlng, Tttle 20, Subdivisions Assoclabe Planner Lori Barlow explained the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the proposed Tfde 20 updabes and develop a reoommendatlon to coundl to elther apprave the updates as proposed, approve the updates with modiflcatlons, or to recommend coundl not adopt the proposed updates. She introduoed Henry Allen from Development Engineering and Rlch Waltrip of David Evans and Associates who provide oomments and guidanoe for plat review for Spokane Valley; both are able bo answer any technical questions from the oomrnission. She revfewed for the vommission diat T)tle 20 was adopted In 2007 as part of the overali regulations adopted and since that- time staff has been reviewing all of the regulatlons for inoonslstenci,es,:'errors, and things that don't work and need to be changed. She said that (n the '.time since she released the publ(c review document for comments, she h~s met ilvith; the legal departrnent and the Ctty Atbomey recommended fouF ~minol~ change~~1liat w(il Invoive some reformattlng to the document but ,~the content of tFie ; document is not signiflcandy changed. She said Tftle 20 includes all the regulatfons for, review of subdivlsions, short plats, binding sfte plans, alteradons, vacatlons;- and boundary ilne adjustments. She said the majotity of the '6anges are In !chapter 20.20, 20.30, 20.40. 20.20 - General Provisions: The Cfty Attorney has proposed that In the Exempdons section the' !exemptlons be categ'orized into two categories: a.) , provisions are exempt, Titie. 24 does .not appiy; and b'.) the foilowing actlons are exempt, the exemptfon applicat(on 'Is provided ;and a drawing oonsistent wlth 20.20.20 ts provided to the city,,Thls 'allows staff to review the drawing to ensure ft is not (n ~vlolatlon with the code'requlremept~. In addition, she satd item b5 has been added; however, it was In 6e previousf code but dld not get carried forward In the 2007 adoption. '~~•v,; , 20.20 - Monu,mentation: She sald ~his allows for property oomers to be marked or referenced; _right-of=way centerlines and street intersectlon monumentation as establlshed by'street standards. Another change is that side lot I(nes would be allowed to*be within 20 degrees perpend(cular fio the right-of-way. , Corner lot lines at street intersectlon of tv+ro publlc streets the property ilne will be located a~ a, minimum of two feet behind the back of a curb. At Intersections of arteriais, a minimum of fifteen feet from behlnd the pedestrlan landing wlll be rig ht-o f-way;or"bor der easemen t to provide for traffic utllities. Mr. Allen ex plained that; a.typical street section has a border easement located at the back of the sidewaik so that wldening of fifbeen foot border easement comes In tangent wfth ~ border', -easement called out In the street standards. If there is right-of-way that extends behind the sldewallc, then the flfteen feet would come In tangent to the right-of-way. To get the arc, he sald they use a CAD program to create a drde and the arc Is a part of that cirde, and flfteen feet Is the third-po(nt constant. Ms. Barlow contfnued to the proposed change that for tracts that are being dfvided lnbo lots greater than one acre, the Communfty Development Director has the discretlon to requlre a plan that wlll show how that land be further developed and it take into oonsideration the Master Plan. The Clty Attomey recommended adding that ff a redevelopment plan is required, ft should also take Into consideratlon the areas identifted In the future acquisitlon area and it wouid Identlfy areas we might requlre streets or pubNc fadlities. 12/1i/2008 Planning Commission Mfnutes Page 5 of 7 , i She safd an addftlonal proposed change is that alleys be (ncluded as improvements that are requlred to be constructed prior to filing a flnal piat, and exdsting and proposed easements be required on all drawings, and they have creabed a section establishing provisions that allow for attached single famny development to be subdivided. Chapter 20.30: Majority of changes are contained wtthin the contents of the appl(catlon. A slgniflcant change Is that they would requlre pre-aps would be required for short plats and binding slte plans, where prevlously there was no charge the City is now In the process of developing a charge. They are proposing a plat certfflcabe be required at the preltminary plat stage, that the assessors map and title [nformatlon be allowed bo be dated - ,wfthin 60 days of the appUcation, the vidnlty map scale and detalls, show,,tequlr!ed border easements on the preliminary plat, topographical informadon' can be shown at 5 foot maxlmum contour Intenrals or two feet Intervals and `.that the land surveyor can select a source at thely discretion. They.' ~have proposed bo eliminate the requirement of electronic flles being submltted at the preliminary plat stage as well as eliminate the requlrement for h(gh accuracy refereni;e network boundary point. . , Chapter 20.40: Proposing that at`the time theirtylar is submitted, the applicant provlde the Gty w(tfi an electronic flfe, that all dimensions be'shown on the draw(ng, and that the partlal dimensioris have to equal the overall d(mensions shown, the water purveyor and fire depa ,rtmerrt signatures be elim(nated. Language for the bond ~'in :Ifeu of construction she said the City Attorney recommend they d(vide the,types -of. lmprovements that can be bonded for into two categortes: street improvements.-, and non-stre"et Improvements. He has suggested they take out the language in the crtterla for street improvements that would dictate how to go aboutI bonding from, the subd(vision section and defer to the street design standards. Chapter 20.50: Ns. o 'signtflcant chan,ges _proposed but they clarifled the process to follow, . Chapter 20.60_: ~i4dded binding stte pian as a Type II process and Identifled a process ~that allows a binding sfte plan to use a reoord of survey to establish lots within the recorded binding site plan with speciflc criterla. Chapter 2030: No change proposed. .r: Chapter 20.80:11NIo signiflcant changes proposed. Added addtUonal language and the, Ctty Attorrtey suggested they add to item C: Such alteration shall not result in a bli (dIng setback violation or site coverage to less than prescribed by the zoning regu atfQns ~or areas as required by future acquisition areas. Ms. Ba'how said staff reoommends the updates be epproved wlth the items noted by the' Cfty Attomey. Chalr Robertson opened the publfc hear(ng at 7:55 p.m. ' Arnle Woodard, 2511 S. Best Road - Mr. Woodard said he is concemed with in Chapter 20.30, number 3 regarding condos and manufactured home parks there will be a dramatic Increase to the cost if there is a bind(ng site plan requlrement In the exemptions, another ooncern is the recording of the binding stte pian and how it affects the afFordabllity of housing. He asked the commtssloners to take that tnto consideration when making the(r flnal dedsion. 12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 Mike Philli", 909 N. Amonne - Mr. Phi(lips asked that they consider elfminating the noaoe required for a prelimtnary plat because he doesnt think ft Is neoessary to natlfy neighbors when submfttting an application and then an addttlonal notloe when it goes to hearing for oomment, adds approximabely an additbnal $350. He also said that he doesn't dhink they should requlre there be a radius on every lot on a plat when there Is a requirement to show the arc length because it (s redundant Rkh WaIMp from Davld Evans and Assodates conflrmed the radius informatlon Is redundant. Ms. Bariow said that whtie ft may be redundant but ft Is useful Informatlon. It Is not a change and Is a contlnuatlon of the oode requlrement John Gordon. 7105 E. Euc[ld - He asked tf boundary line adjustments wlil still require a survey. Ms. Barlow sald they do. He saidother munidpafities don't require tt and the prioe in Spokane Valley can cost uQ to $3,600. Mr. McCormlck said It Is requlred (n Spokane Valley because past ,.experlence revealed the property lines may be off, bufidings are not located where they often thlnk they are, and we need bo make sure the boundary'ii~e adjustme~t does not create a non-conforming sttuatlon. Chalr Robertson dased the publk hearing at 8:30 p.m. ;Mr, McCormick sald the In regard to riotice of applicat(on, It Is requlred by state law and we do not have any option''other than"to notlfy the publlc of the appiication. . ;It was moved by Comin/ss/oner Kogle, and se±cb~ M reavmmend to Gyty Counc~l the Tltle ZO Sub~dlvls%n as lt Is. Mr. McCormick asked for clartflcat(on ff that Included the changes from the City Atfiorney as presented thls even(ng. Commissloner Kogle amended,,the motlon :to Recoinmend to the City Counc/1 the T/tle 20 SubdMs/on changes ,,as prnpasecl. Vote by acciamation: In Favor: Unan imous. Oppose d: None. Mo~ ion passe d. ' ~ C. Election of 2009,Officers Commissioner Beaulac nominated ~ Ian Robertson to Chalr, seconded and unan(mously passed. Chair. Robertson nominated John Carroll to Vice Chair, seconded and 'unanimously passed. X. .GOOD OFTHE ORDER`,,;.;:_,_ , Chalr Robertsonthanked Commissioner's Kogle and Beaulac for the(r serv(ce to the Comm(sston, as well, as staff. He also asked that his thanks be extended to Mr. Kuhta for all 'h~s.hard work, . XI. AD70URNMENT-`: There being po'other business the meet(ng was adjourned at 8:40 pm ~ SUBMIlTED: APPROVED: Carrle Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Ian Robertson, Chairperson 12/11/2008 Planning Commission Mlnutes Page 7 of 7 . EXH1131T 8 . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY . Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 4, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check ail that apply: ❑ consent ❑ o1d business ❑ new business pubiic hearing ❑ information 0 admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Aviation Ordinance Discussion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70.547, 14 CFR 77, Spokane Valley UDC 19.110.030 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACT{ON TAKEN: City Council received an administrative report on this matter on January 8, 2008. At that time questions as to issues of liability and existing conditions were raised. The City Council had approved the Airport Overlay Zone in March of 2006. Those code provisions have been incorporated in the new UDC adopted in September of 2007. BACKGROUND: A number of citizen questions have been caised concerning #he density restriction set forth in #he adopted airport over lay. The primary restriction of concern is the prohibition to create any new lot, regardless of the underlying zoning of less than 2.5 acres. Council has asked for additional information conceming the adoption of this ordinance, requirements imposed by state law and laws of both adjacent jurisdictions and other ; ju(sdictions within the State of Washington. At the City council meeting on January 8, 2008, the Council requested additional information concerning potential liability and existing conditians in the affected area. This administrative report is designed to respond to those questions. Potential Liability: The City of Spokane Valley is not required to adopt code ptovisions as stringent as those cuITently existing. The City's is required to: t) Protect airports from incompatibte land uses and restrict any height hazard that would be deemed an obstruction to air travel. RCW 35.70.5471 14 CFR 77; and 2) Demonstrate that any proposed restriction on the use of property is reasonably rela#ed to protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and does not amount, to a ' unconstitutional taking of property. The current ordinance meets these criteria. An amendment of this ordinance, reducing the density restrictions could also fulfill these iequirernents. As a general rule it is important to have a legitirnate and supportable basis for a change or amendment to the zoning code. Reliance upon model ordinances that were the result of analysis and study by agencies with expertise in understanding the impacts at issue is one way -to establish that basis. The City may also review and quantify existing circumstances, the manner in which other jurisdictions address the same concems and rely upon additional fact finding or studies to provide this necessary basis. For example the County of Spokane is currently in the process of having the land use impacts relating to #he operation of Fairchild Air Force Base studied by consultants and will, based upon that study, rnake recommendations far _ changes to the curtent county code. • Existing Conditions Attached for your review is a land analysis perfomned by the Pianning Department, identified the number and location of parcels currently restricted by the density requirements of the existing code. OPTIONS: Take no action, provide further direction to staff or refer the matter to the planning commission for additional study and consideration. RECO{1f1MENDEO ACTiON OR MOTION: Council direction BUDGET/FINANCIAL lMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Mike Conneliy, C;ty Attomey ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Analysis 8. RCA, and minutes of previous consideration by council on January 6, 2008 ' ' - . , _ . , , _ .t . _.t., , -a= t-,. _ _ , • Attachment A S ~ ~ ~e - ~ ey . 11707 fi Spragve Are Sufte lOb 0 Sgakane Valley ZNtA 99?.OS 509.931.1000 fl F= 509.921.1ODS 0 ci#}►haII0spo3:anevalley.Org Me oran To: I?avid Mercier, City Manager arid lVqembers of City Council From: . Mike Basinger, A1CP, Seniar Planner CC: Kathy McC:lung, Community DevelopmEnt Directnx , Greg McCormic.k, AiCP, Planning Rsanager Nfike Corm.elly, City Atfiarney Date: February 26, 200$ Re: Airport Safety Zone Analysis I'lease find ttie attached analysis for airport land usE comp3tibility zone six (6). r ' Ai.rport land use compatibility zone six (6) restricts density, fio one (1) dtvelling unitper h1•o and half (2 3h) acres. This effectively prohibits any subd.ivision Qf Iand snlailer ffian five (5) acres. If the airportland use compatibility zone ikyere lifted, there would be the poten#ial for 38$ additional lots in the underlying zoning designations. Tlle tabZe Uelow identifies total pazcels, parceLs with the potential bo be subciivided (at least double the mirLtncun lof size), and pobenfiial lots withi.n the underlying x.oning designations. Tlte Cozridor Mix-ed Use (CMU) zoning designaiaon allows for high density residential and subsequently is effected by dus densify restxiciion. I?ue to the complexities assoaated witii calculating residenti.al capaaty in GM[J, analjtsis has not be done far fhis zoiung designation. Ughf Industriat (1-1), Heavy Industrial (I-2), aYid Regional Commercial (RC) greciuae residenfiial development. Zoning classifcation Total parceis Parcels at least double Potentia] lots . ' • the min.lot size R-2 1,154 1172 250 R-4 . 1 55 176 138 Total 1 I,309 (248 {388 At#achments: E-Wbit 1: A.irport Sakty Zone*A,nalysis for R-2 Exhibit Z: Airpori Stiffc.ty Zonc Analysis for R-4 ' F.xhibit 3: Airgort Safety Zon-s Map for R? F.xhibit 4: Airport Safety Zonrs Map !'or R-4 . ` i 1 ..Jh t ti EXH181T 1: AIRPORT-SAFETY ZONE:ANALYSIS•(R 2)• PARCELS ADDRESS , COMP, PHICLASS ZONiMG AREA LOTS • p 45083.2139 7803 E,SOUTH RNER WAY LDR UR-3.6 R 2 20,136• • 2:045063.2140 ' 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN LDR UR-3.5 • R2 20,555 • 2.1 45063.2606 3704 N ELY RD LDR UR-3.5 'R-2 22,387 2.2 45063.2802 8010 E SOUTH RIVER V1lAY ' LDR UR-3.5 R 2• 20,142 2.0 45063.2123 ~ 7507 E SOUTH RIVER WAY LDR UR-3,5 R-2 27,368 ' 2.7 45063.2121 7519 E SOUfH RIVER WAY . LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,254 2.0 45063.2197 7623 E SOUTH RIVER WAl' LOR UR-3.5 R 2 35o842 3.6 45063.2116 7703 E SOUTH RNER WAY LDR UR•3.5 R 2 21.037 , 2.1 45063.2133 8001 E SOUTH RIVER WAY LDR UR-3.5 R 2 33,379 3.3 45063.2210 3807 N EDGERTORI RD LDR ' UR-3.5 R-2 28,226 ' 2.6 • 450612109 7901 C SOUTH RIVER WAY LDR UR-3.5 R 2 , 20,573 2,1 45063.2218 7719 E KlERNAN AVE LDR UR-3.5 ~ R 2 29 j$91 2.2 45063.2142 7917 E SOUTH RIVER WAY LDR UR-3.5 Ft 2"• 26,406 ~2.6 45663.2902 8103 E SOUTH RIVER WAY LDR UR-3.5 R-2 29,572 . 3.0 - 45063.2101 8109 E SOUTH RIll,ER'VIfAY LDR UR-3.5 R 231,357 31 45063.2512 7706 E KIERNAN AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 22,145 -2.2 45063.2406 3714 N EOGERT0N RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 - 22,193 ' 2_2 45063.4605 8104 E SOUTH RiVERWAY LDR UR-3.5 R 2 25,690 2.6 45063.2607 .3620 N ELY RD ' LDR ' UR-3.5 • }'t 2' 22,419 2.2 45063.2505 3626 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2' 22,367 2.2 45063.4301 7620 E LIBERTY AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 21,256 2.1 35014.0201 7408 E LIBERTY AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 20,900 2,1 45063.2509 3615 N ELY RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 23,604 2.4 45063.2506 7703 E GLASS AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 220387 2.2 • 45063.3004 8122 E GLASS AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,942 ' 2.4 45063.3026 8120 E GIASS AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 29,528 3.0 45063.3110 8004 E GLASS AVE LDR • UR-3.5 R-2 • 35,587 3.6 ' 45063.3202 7904 E GIASS AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 35,872 3.6 45063.3014 8715 E LIBERTY AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 30,479 3.0 45063.3017 8209 E LIBERTY AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 22,226 2.2 45063.3016 ' 8203 E LIBERTY AVE • LDR UR-3.5 R-2 29,847 ' 3.0 45063.3015 8123 E LteER1Y AVE LDR UR-3.5' R 2 21,590 2.2 45063.3107 3419 N D1CK RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 20,581 2.1 45063:3207 7915 E L18ER7Y AVE LDR • UR-3.5 , R-2 ' 23,297 2.3 45063.3031 . 8101 E LIBERTY AVE ' LDR UR-3.5 R-2 30,373 3.0. 45063.3206 7901 E L18ER1Y AVE LDR UR,3.5 ' R 2 23,829 2.4 . , . . : . _ ° 'f't7~ft~-~a+KS~l~'.3~^`.73~'.~er_, `sirr+a -~w~-vz~r~=4~+tilyG~ . • . f , . , , • . EXHl81T•1: AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE ANALYSIS (R 2) • 35014.0102 3423 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 39,475 3.1 45063.3313 7815 E LIBER'CY AVE • LDR UR-3.5 R 2 . 22,210 2w 45063.3421 7717 E LIBERTY AVE LDR , UR-3.5 R 2 21,809 2.; 45063.4022 3303 N ELTON RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 27,800 2.. 45063.4208 3308 N CENTER RD ' LDR ' UR-3.5 R-2 21,779 2.; 45063.3718 3223 N V1STA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,634 2. 45072.1705 ' 2518 N CENTER RD ' LDR UR-3.5 R 2 . 21,434 2. _ 35121.6404 3015 N PARK RD . LDR UR-3.5 R-2 30,300 • 3. 45063.4313 • 7605 E EUCLID•AVE , LOR • UR•3.5 R-2 23,318 2. ' 45063,4011 • 7916 E EUCl.1D A1IE LDR , UR-3.5 R-2 25,278 .2. 45063.4141 7805 E EUCLiD AVE , LDR UR-3.5 , R 2 23,604 2. 45083.4415 7521 E EUCLID AVE' LDR UR-3.5 R 2 20,226 2. 35014.0172 7407 E EUCLID AVE f LDR UR-3.5 R 2 25,092 ' 2. 35014.0158 7119 E EUCLIO AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 27,018 . 2. 45072.0101 .7922 E EUCLID AVE ' LDR UR-3.5 . R-2 23,827. , 2. 45072.1904 8206 E UTAH AVE LDR UR•3.5 R-2 23,599 2, 35121.6402 3105 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 30,252 3, 35121.6401 3109 fd PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 29,967 3. 35121.0902 3908 N'DORA RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 29,592 3 • 45072.2702 8224 E• FREDERICK AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,659 2 35121.6403 3021 N PARK RD LDR • UR-3.5 R 2 30,675 3 35121.1703 7119 E FAIRVIEW AVE • LDR UR-3.5 . R 2 25,079 2 35121.1503 7009 E FAIRVIEIN AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,625 2 45072.3402 8102 E FAIRVIEW A1%E LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,073 2 35121.6901 0 VACANT LAN D LD R U R-3.5 R-2 167,111 16 45072.3604 2903 N VISTA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 26,626 2 3512'I .2305 7121 E RUTTER AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 27,066 2 45072.3743 2906 N DiCK RD LDR UR-3,5 R-2 22,291 , 2 35121.24(}2 7117 E RUITCR AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 25,207 2 35121.2404 7101 E RIJTTER AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 24,842 2 35121.9013 2831 N PARK RD LDR, UR-3.5 . R 2 29,018 2 35121.6602 7302 E UTAH AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,837 2 35121.6601 7218 E UTAW AVC LDR UR-3.5 R 2 21,406 Z 35125.2805 7009 E MANSFtCLDAVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 , 26,958 ' 2 35121.9004 7202 E UTAH AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 • 21,841 2 ' 35121.9057 2724 N COLEMAN E2D ' LDR UF2-3.5 R 2 21,227 2 35121.3302 7011 E MARiE1'TA AVE LDR • UR-3.5 R 2 441985 4 EXHIBIT 1: P►IRPORT SAFETY ZONE-ANAL.YSiS (R-2) 35121.4104. 2724 N 80WMAN RD. LDR UR-3.5 •R 2 ' 20,733 2.1. 35121.3901 7303 E MARIEI7A AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 39,087 3.9• 35121.3802 7223 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 • 24,476 2.0 35121.3701 7209 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.6 R-2 28,318 2.8 35121.3602 7207 E t1tlARIETfA AVE L.DR UR-3.5 R 2, 30,251 3.0 3512'I .3206 6911 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.5 ' R-2 34,122 3.4 35121.4901. 2617 N BRADLEY RD , LDR UR-3.5 R 2 41,049 ' 4.1 45072.1112 2708 N PARK RD . LDR UR-3.6 R 2 ' 20,595 2.1 35121.4105 7323 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 30,008 3.0 35121.3404 7101 E NlARIEITA AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 20,724 2.1 45072.5704 8112 E MARlETCA AVE ' LDR UR-3.5 R-2 22.908 2.3 45072.5702 . 2618 N DICK RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 22,276 2.2 45072.1213 2624 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 27,224 2.7 35121.8314 7312 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,178 2.0 35129.6310 . 7224 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 . 28,081 2:6 35121.6322 7208 E MARfElTAAVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 27,816 2.8 35121.6323 7202 E MARIETTA AVE LDR UR 3.5 R-2 30,867 31 35121.9056 6924 E CARLISLC AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 59,632 6.0 45072.6804 7918 E CARLISLE AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,780 2.4 45072.1608 2417 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 " R-2 20,962 . 2.'I 45072.1207 2613 N CENTER RD. LDR UR-3.5 , R-2 21,117 2.1 35121.5101 6724 E UTAM AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 68,859 6.9 • 45072.1206 2604 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 45,843 4.6• 45072.1208 2605 N CENi'ER RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 26,926 2.7 35121.4808 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN LOR , UR-3.6 R-2 41,755 4.2 35121.5001 2606 N ELIZABETH RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 26,777 2.7 45072.1209 2526 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 ' R Z, 21 o898 2.2 45072.6409 8204 E JAGKSON AVE ' LOR UR-3.5 R 2 26,619 2.7 45072.1720 2525 N El1R RD LDR UR•3.5 R 2 43,549 4.4 45072.6608 2519 N DICK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 26,175 2.6 45072.1210 2525 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 , R 2 21,756 2.2 35121.6210 •7219 E CARl.1SLE AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 . 22,344 ' 2.2 35121.6211 7211 E CARUSLE AVE • LDR UR-3.5 R-2 . 391102 3.9 45072.1503 2520 N PARK RD ' LDR UR-3.5 R-2 .43,541 4.4 35121.90'15 7007 E GARLISLE AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 20,699 ~ 2.1 35121.9047 6925 E CARUSLE AVE LDR UR 3.5 R-2 39,543 4.0 45072.1742 2517 N CLtA RD LDR UR-,3.5 R 2 20,883 2.1 • . • . . , . ' • . _.-.~i.ewsr,ci.; -._~........1_......e~.'c+_c4-sw-N'~+w'7t$:AkaYl+e9di,tP',S.'~j►.~7~ii+~-:.'.-L'rK~`~i;a . rutit=:'a=.'.. __....7wiTa!%', -,1 _c-,-:••dS~r,v-..1sFxs►,...~.a; ar. r'r- , . ~ ~ EXH181T 1; AIRPORT SAFETY ZONC ANALYSIS (R-2) 35121.9046 6915 E CARLISLE AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 21.815 2 35121.5201 2527 N EUZABETH RD •LDR UR-3.5 R 2 40,895 4 45072.1725 2424 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 42,069 4 45072.1709 2507 N ELLA RD LOR UR-3.5 R 223,944 Z 45072.4506 2512 NPARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2• 24,696 2 . 35121.6255 7117 E CARLISLE "E LOR UR-3.6 R 2 20,452 2 • 45072.1710 •2503 N F_UA RD LDR. UR-3.5 R 2 . 20,958 2 35121.5501 2593 N ELIZABETM RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 25,444 ' 2 45072.1505 2505 N CENTER RD . LDR UR-3.5 R 2 26,936 2 45072.1712• 2415 N ELLA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 26,571 2 45072.1507 2504 N PARK RD LDR UR-3,5 R 2 24,695 2 45072.1711 2425 N El_LA RD ' LDR UR-3.5 R-2 28,599 2 . 45072.6801 7924 E CARLiSLE AVE LOR UR-3.5 R 2 22,163 2 45072.6602 2428 N ELLA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 22,951 ~ 45072.1607 2423 N CENTER RD • LDR . UR-3.5 R-2 23,955 ~ 45072.1602 2426 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 23,352 ~ ' 35121.5601 2503 N EUZABETH RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 200086 d . 45072.1714 2418 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3,5 R-2 . 320064 c 35121.6238 7320 E CARIISLE AVC LDR UR-3.5 R 2 • 23,394 ~ 35129 .6232 7224 E CARLISLE AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,159 ~ 45072.1603 2405 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 • 32,944 ; 45072.1718 2403 N ELLA RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 21,902 ' e • 45072.1716 2402 N CENTER RD . LDR UR 3.5. R-2 20,896 ~ 35121.6223 7118 C CARLISI.E AVE . LDR UR-3,5 . R-2 37,994 ; 45072.1601 2420 N PARK RO LDR UR-3.5 R 2. 23,354 35121.5602 2425 N ELIZABETH F2b LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,805 : 35121.9021 6906 E CARLISLE AVE , I.DR UR-3.5 R-2 23,202 : 35121.6242 2411 N PARK RD . LDR UR-3.5 R 2 32,759 ; 45072.6803 2408 N ELLA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 22,930 ; 45072.1727 2412 N CCNTER RD LDR , UR-3.5 R 2 28,507 ; 45072.1717 2409 N ELLA•RD LOR , UR-3.5 R 2 21,879 ; 45072.1606 2409 N CENYER RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,983 35121.5901 2415 N ELL7A8ETH RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 40,886 ~ 45073.0110 8117 E KNOX AVE LDR UR-3.5 R 2 20,054 : ' 45072.1605 2402 N PARK RD ' LDR UR-3.5 R-2 20,651 ; 35121.6001 2403 N ElI2ABETH RD LDR . UR-3.5 R 2 40,886 35121.6101 6607 E MONTGOMERY AVr= LDR UR-3.5 R-2 21,459 ' - _ _ _ . _ - - ,...~ti,~.~ar,e.... _ _ _ , , . . _ -_m~rs•_.ae~~k.+ai*.~ ~•,w..~~c~3~"~,:._:.- - EXhiIBIT 1: AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE ANaLY51S (R-2) 45073.1903 2320 N CENTER RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 29,987 3.0 45073.2001 2325 N CEiVTER RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 24,140 . 2.4 45074.9085 2322 N VISTA RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 60,638 6.1 35124.0113 2318 N 80WMAW RD LDR UR-3.5 ' R-2 33,546 3.4 45073.2109 2314 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23.973 2.4 45073.2002 2317 N CEPITER Rn LDR UR-3.5 R 2 25,178 2.5 35124.0801 6812 E MONTGOMERY AVE LOR UR-3.5 R2 21,780 2.2 35924.0802 6806 E 11lIONTGOMERY AVE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 21,780 • 2.2 45073.2108 2310 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 ' 25,472 2.5 35124.3203 2215 N COLEMAN RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 23,455 2.3 45073.9086 7801 E 1NDIANA AWE LDR UR-3.5 R-2 70,978 7.1 35124.0118 2301 N f'ARK Rd LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,972 2.4 45073.2192 23001V PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R2 28,294 2.8 35124.3101 2346 N COLEMAN RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 21,256 2.1 35124.3201 2305 N COLEMAN RD LDR UR-3,5 R-2 23,005 2.3 35124.0815 2123 N BRADLEY RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 49,557 5.0 35124.3202 2223 N COLEMAN RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 23,313 2.3 35124.2705 2220 N GIRARD RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 20,009 2.0 35124.0807 2209 N BRADLEY RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 26,521 . 2.7 35124.3204 2205 N COI.EMAN RD LDR UR•3.5 R-2 23,429 2.3 35124.0808 2205 N BRADLEY RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 26,544 2.7 35124.3205 2125 PJ COLEMAN RD LDR UR-3.5 R 2 23,403 2.3 35124.0813 2117 N BRADLEY RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 43,453 4.3 35124.3206 2117 N COLEAIIAN RD LDR UR-3.5 R-2 23,377 2.3 45073.0302 1822 N PARK RD LDR UR-3.5 R2 37o087 3.7 T4TAL Adjusted /ots ere Calculated by roundin,q down Io A whole number IFtan subtracGng the exisUng lots - . . ; . . , ~ . ' ' , , . . , - ' EXWIBIT 2: AIRPORT S/1FEN ZONE ANALYSIS (R-4) • 45072.4106 0010 C GRACC AVE LDR UR 7 12,772 R-4 2.1 45072.0904 2820 N CEtdTER RD L• DR UR 7 32,458 R-4 5.1 . 45072.4004 • 7910 C GRACC AVE LDR UR 7 12,625 R-4 2.• 45072.0912 • 2812 N CENTER RD LDR UR-? 33,070 R-4 5.; 45072.0907 7727 E BUCKEYE AVE LDR UR-7 ~ 21,608 R-4 3.f 45072.5403 8005 E MARiE1TA AVE LDR UR-? 22,976 R-4 3.1 45072.4603 8021 EBUCKF_YE AVE LDR UR-7 22,975 R-4 3.t 45072.4602 SOOS E DUCKEYL- AVE , LDR UR 7 13,216 R-4 2.: 45072.0911 2806 N CCNTCR RD lDR UR 7 26,825 R4 4.; 45072.4904 8006 E BUCKEYE AVE LDR UR 7 13,364 R4 2.; 45072.4901 8022 C BUCKEYE AVE LDR . UR•7 12,825 R4 ' 2.• 45072.4803 7918 E BUCKEYE AVC LDR UR-7 14,707 R4 2.; 45072.4$02 7914 E BUCKEYE AVE LDR UR 7 , 17.745 R-4 3.( 45072.1007 7720 E DUCKCYE AVC LDR UR 7 12,399 R;4 Z,' 45072.1048 2722 N CENTCR RD LDR UR 7 16,887 R-4 2.1 45072.1019 2709 N CLLA RD • LDR UR 7 17,997 R-4 3.1 45072.4809 2714 N ELI.A RI? LDR UR 7 12,477 R-4 • 2.' 45072.1009 2716 N CCIVTER RD LDR , UR-7 13,908 R4 2.; 45072.1012 7717 E MARIkT'TA AVE LOR UR-7 12,399 R4 2.' 45072.1011 7715 E MARlE1TA AVE LDR UR-7 . 15,499 R-4 2.1 45072.1010 7703 E MARIE7TA AVE LDR UR-7 15,298 E2-4 2.; , 45072.5801 8010 EMARIETTA AVE LOR UR 7 12,569 R-4 2.' 45072.5902 7010 E MARIEY7A AVC , LDR UR7 12,680 R4 2.- 45472.1310 0 ADDRCSS UNKNOUVN LDR UR-7 17,324 R-4 2.! 45072.1302 7704 E MAR1E'T"t'A AVE LDR ' UR 7 ' 14,148 R-4 2.. 45072.6103 8005 E JACKSON AVE LDR UR-7 22,030 R4 3.' 45072.6001 7925 E JAC{<SON AVE LDR UR 7 16,266 R4 2.' 45072.6002 7911 E JnCKSOtd AVE LDR UR 7 ' 14,905 R4 2. 45072.6003 2604 N EILA RD LDR UR-7 14,787 R-4 2.. 45072.1311 2605 NELL.A ST LDR UFt 7 43,566 R-4 7. 45072.1312 2604 N CENTER ST lDR UR-7 43,535 R-4 7. 45072.6102 2603 N DICK RO LDR -L1F2-7 12,365 R-4 2. 45074.2307 8409 E MANSF(ELD CT LDR ' UR-7 15,021 R-4 2. 45074.2302 8404 F MANSFIELD AvE LDR UR 7 ' 15,975 R-4 2: 45073.2113 2224 N PARK RD L,DR UR-22 18,310 R-4 3. 35124.0105 2219 N PARK RD LDR UR-22 15,713 •R-4 2: 45073,0312 7521 E NORA AVE LDR • UR 7' 49,520 R-4 8, , EXMlBIT2: AIRPORT SAFElY ZONE ANALYSIS (R-4) PARCELS ADDRESS CODE pH1CLASS AREA ZONiNG LOTS Al 45072.0804 3011 N EU,A RD LDR UR-7 23,013 R-4 3.8 45072.2201 8020 E UTAH AVE LDR UR-7 17l328 R-4 ' 2.9. 45072.2204 8010 E U7AH •AVE LDR UR 7 18,974 R-4 3.2 35'121.0217 7324 E EUCLID AVE LOR UR-7" 12,825 R-4 2•1 45072.2203 8006 C UTAH AVE LDR UR-7 'i 8,141 ~ R-4 • 3.0 45072,2506 8002 E UTAH AVC LDR UR-7 18,261 R-4 , . 3:2 45072.2304 7920 E UTAH AVr- • LDR UR 7 22,639 R-4 3.8 35121.0218 7328 EEUCLID AVC LDR UR 7" 12,624 R-4 2.1 45072.0801 3023 N ELLA RD LDR UR 7 19,195 R-4 3.2 35121.0219 7332 E EUCLID A1/E LOR UR-7" 12,623 R-4 2.1 45072.2501 3019 N DICK RD LOR UR-7 20,599 R-4 3.4 45072.2401 3024 N ELLA RD • LDR UR-7 15,511 R-4 . 2.6 45072.0802 3013 N CLLA RD LDR UR 7 • 21,721 R-4 3.6 45072.2402 •3018 N ELLA RD LDR UR 7 154539 R-4 2.6 45072.3301 8018 E FAIRVIEW AVE LDR UIR? 14,787 R-4 2.5 45072.3105 7923 E t=AIRV1ElN AVE LDR UR-7 16,468 R-4 2.7 , 45072.7303 7720 E UTAH AVE LdR UR-7 12,117 R-4 2.0 45072.3003 8001 E FAIRVIEVII AVE l.DR UR-7 22j975 R-4 3.8 45072.3103 7919 E FAIRVIEW AVE LDR UH 7 13,900•R-4 2•3 45072.7302 0 VACANT LAND LDR UR 7 131652 R-4 2.3 45072.0805 3003 N ELLA Rn LOR UR 7 25,554 R4 4.3 45072.7304 0 VACANT LAND LQR UR 7 ' 12,059 R-4 2.0 45072.7301 3004 N CENTER RD LOR UR 7 13,976 R-4 2.3 45072.0803 ' 2917 N L'-LLA RD LOR UR-7 51,247 R-4 8.5 45072.3306 , 8042 E FA1RVIEVIIAVE LDR UR-7 14,156 R-4 2.4 45071.3205 7924 L= FAIRVICW AVE LDR UR-7 16,745 R-4 2.8 45072.3203 2922 N ELI.A RD LDR UR-7 12,380 R-4 2.1 45072.0702 2906 N CENTER RD LDR UR-7 41,395 R-4 6.9 45072.0806 2915 N CL.lA RD LDR 'UR-7 251658 R-4 4.3 45072.3802 8021 E.CRACE AVC LDR UR-7 16,376 R-4 2•7 ' 45072.3801 8011 E GRACE AVE WR UR-7 14,787 R-4 2.5 45072.3803 8003 E GRACE AVE . I.DR UR-7 14,787 R-4 2•5 45072.0704 2820 N CENTER RD LDR UR-7 . 38,141 R-4 6.0 45072.0807 2903 N EL1A RD LQR UR i ' 29,485 R-4 4.9 45072.4703 7915 E DUCKEYE AVF lDR UR 7 15,526•R-4 2.6 45072.0901 2821 N LLLA RD LDR UR-7 31,268 R-4 5.2 . . . r • i ; , . . , . . . EX!-IIBff 2: AIRPORT SAFE'TY ZONL ANALYSIS (R-4) 35124.3207 2100 N COLEMRN RD LDR UR-22 23,348 R-4 3.9 45073.0227 2015 N EOGERTaN RD LDR UR-22 12,883 R4 2.1 45073.0228 0 ADORESS UNKN4WId WR UR-22 12,080 R4 2•1 TOTAL •1~-±„~~;{~,ct rr~t~ nm cnlrrr►rafnr-f tly rriclrirfirr, cirwrrr fo r) whoIr> >ai;nthorttroir `~tJ~)lr~C(~rif~ Illt~ (~~:1~I~ft~►(o(:i 3'• °n , '2 4 ~ ~ - ~ ~ , ~ • 'r y I ~ ~,.,,n~` ~ • t ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~1 ~ . "~1 ' [ 1~ •~i 't Zon, ; ' es- . ~^i . 'L~ . ~ - ~,Ie~.y • ,y•~ ' i . , ir~~J jl ~ i ~ w~` i ~ : ♦ ~ , . `f: y;`"~~,.: ~ yl ~ ~ ~ . ' , , ~ . , t{, ~ , , ~ ~ ~ . :f~'' r ~ t ~ • . ~ ~ ~ . 4 r { ~..llf , ~ • ~ ,-ti M • ` • 't.. ~ `~~r~ .~l~1 ti , ~r~~,~•~~' ~F~ ~ ~l r t C.- ; • ~ ` . ` = ` _ ' ' r~„~`_• ~ ~ ~ • j i ` " .;L s , r ` r~i '~!%d * ~ `~r,.. ~ 'f '~j~.~ ~ rv . .i S ~ , . \ ~...,~IY`•_ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 1t., ~ ~f5 A1 ~ ~ ~ Y - . ~ ~ . tR~ ~ .,1~ ' ' ~ ' . ~ ,3 y, . ~ ; ~'s~+,. •,r~t • ~ . ~ ~ i l . • . ~ ~j. '~a:, . - ' ;~Yr• ' 1 t!" l , ~ - ~ • rw 1 v ~e~'~ • r,`~_ ,~"~f.`'j . ,,q ' t •w ~ i . • • ' - ~ ~ ~ ' ~'L• ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~.~i= . - . _r•r';. ~ i . . r ' v. ~ . ' ` i1.- " ~ . Al : ~`~0~ ~r• ~ ; ' ~ ~ ~7 q "~4 . ~ , ` t ~ ' ~ ^~y 'f ~l . ' ' . . - _ . . S • r , . . . 'ti „ . . . F~ ~ .R-Y~~ - - ~ ~w ti ~Yl . S . ~t ~:.K~✓ ` t . . . f . :i~ r+'~~~ ~ ~ ~ j. , ~1• ' 1 _ Y - ' . ~ t. N"r { s, 1 - /T . ` 2 t ' ~ ~ - . ' ~ .~t ~ • " ' ~ M. ~ . . " •~t ~ i r~• .r•. , r t ♦ 1' •s~ t ~~r:~t# v'~r ; . ~ ~ ♦ 1.J !~~.i ~ • 1: ! ,~,•R~' . ' . . . 1 , `I -~.i ~,~r . ' • 1) { : a ~ i . ~ ' ~ l. ~ . . . ~ ~ , t~ . ~.rf~i,~~~`/ k ~h,_ r~. - ~~(~~~L~~ i ~ . . 1 ~.,2' . ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1` ~ hi'~ ;~{t , :.e~~ _ . ' ~ 'C"t,"'d ~ f :~~~l.J+t~ ~ ~,Y • ' ...~j1 ~i ~ " ~ ~'1S~i~ / t .rY~'1 ~ e~~ y~,~ ,r+'. . • t~,,. . ~ , ' c t ~ ' ~.y _ • ~ : ~ • y, i~+~ •~i~E'~~,y,~1 ~ ~ C ' ~,a1~.' . f • - T ' j~ i, + , • ~ • 't-~3~1~~`r . , . .R. i a ~~,r ~T - 5- 1' • ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~A~ ~i~ :i p` ~ •-r'- r tl~" ~i; . ~ ~ ' ` . , '~r.«.-~•~` • r" ' j i t ~ ~ , , ~ - 4 ~ . "''~'a:= . ~ C ~ , 1"F' ~ ~ '~Y. at°.~~ S . ~ , _"jt ~ _ - ~ r j, , .s~. • ~ f ~ "~'c M . ~ ~ ~;~'ii. ~ ; . . ~ ~r~'rt~~ ~~,y+• rf' .a~C ~ y,. ~ i~.rrl.. ~-y . ♦ t~ . ~ ~ ~5 S. . }t~ ~.~.j~ ~ ~r#~ .5 ~~i~''`. .r' _ . •'1; . ~ ~'t,R. ~ .S ,y ~ l~' t ~ : . ~ ~ . ~ e ~ • i t t ' , 1 : ~ a ~ t 4 t .~~1 7 t ~ -'9~ .~1-.~ Ki~'~~~ _ ~'tt i. ~ i~ ra iW "i K! t • ' 4 : . ' { ` ~ ~ ~ . M ~~1 i ' ~•r , i ~rll i l ~ . ♦ ~ a~ • ' ~ ±'1~~~.1 - ~ . ~i -,t 1 ►r- ~ _ • y t 1 ' • ~ ~ . ~ ~ ai~~~~:: ~ j . Kr 4 tT ~ l . ` . . ♦ ~ _ ~ Pv., ~ Attachment B C{TY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date. January 8, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: ttem: Check alt that epply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ InfomnaUon 0 admin. report ❑ pending legtsiation . AGENDA 1TEM TiTLE: Aviatlon Ord(nance Discussion 'WERN1NG LECISLATIC3N; RCArV '6.70.5~.7, V' CJ=fZ ~IDC 'ici.110 0-0 PREVIOUS CUUNGlL ACTlON TAKEN; City Council approveti ilie airport oveclay zo►ia i~-1. March of 2006. Those code provisions have been incorporated in the new UDC ad September of 2407. BACKGROUND: A number of cltizen questions Iiave been reised conceming tha densiiy restrlcfion set forih in the adopted airpott over lay. The primary resktfction of concern fs the prohlb'rtion to create eny new lot, regardless of the underiying zon(ng of less than 2.5 acres. Council has asked for additionai fnfonnetion concerning the edoption of this ordinance, raquirernents imposed by state law and laws oi both adjacent jurisdictions and oiher Jurisdictfons wnhin the State of Washington. OPTtONS: Take no ac#ion, pravide further direction to staff or refer fhe matter to the planning commisslon for additional study and consideretion. REGOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTiON: Council directian BUDGEI'IFINANCIAL IMPACT'S; NA STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connol(y, Cify Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum fram City Attorney witli Exhfbils 2. RCA and minules of previous consideration by Couricil on Septembar 25, 2005, (=ebru3ry 14, 2008, and February 28, 2006 3. Documents previously provided to Planning Commission r mentioned Yhal• Finance Director Ken Thompson is the City's designated responsible official to receive : AI7A-related complaints. Concerning specific orclinance options, Mr. Connelly said we do have the rigbt if Council desires, to make abutting property ov+mers more responsible, or we could charge them and eould even attach that as a lien if we do the work ourselves or hire someone to do that (cleuaing the sidewalks); and in response to council's qucstions about complaints, Mr. Connelty said wc do get a fEw; including some camplxints that the properiy ovmer shoveled the sidewalk and fihen the sidewalk got buried by the snowplow; or compiaints of vehieles throwing up water and creating ice berms, and complaints about the inabiGty to walk along pfuts of Sprague and the difficulty of maneuvering a wbeelchair when property oNvners don't sho<<el their siden►atk; and that be feeis we get five Qr six complaints a winter. • iJeputy Mayor Dcnenny suggcsted perhaps we should form an ad hoc committee to address this issue, including examining who should be responsibte, bus routes, high traffie aceas, and areas whete chitdren walk to scbool. After further discussion, there was Council consensus to form an ad boe committee to work with sta.ff in the areas mentioned above, and Mayor viunson appointed Deput}, iliiayor Denenny Ks the committee chair, and included Councilmembers Schimtnels and Dempsey as committee members. Uepuh, Mayor Aenenny said he will conununicate with odiers and staff, and that perhaps they could get a map of the number of miles in order to get a sense of the arcas of responsibility. 6. Admin Reoort: Aviation Ordinanc.e Discussion - Mike Connel]v City Attorney Connclly cxplainctl that there bave been a aumber of citizen questions and concems with the density restricrion set forth in ow adopted airport overla}; that the primary concern is the prohibition to create any neAv lot, regardless of dtE undErlying zoning of less than 2.5 ecres, and xhat Council has aslced For additional information concerning the requirements of this ordinunce, and of the State requirements of both adjacent jurisdictions and other jurisdictions. Mr. Connelly pointed out his memnrandum also contains details of what other jurisdictions have for airport reguletions, and menLioned that other Spokane County jurisdictions have less svingent airport regulalioas chan our new?y adopted ordinance; wiiile some other Washington jurisdictions outside Spokane County havc similar provisians to rhose we reeently passed, and he mentioned in particular Skagit County and 'rum«►ater; and stated tihat some options far Council inclucle doing nothing, or referring this ordinance back to the Pianning Commission for review of the deosity provisions. Council discussion includcd what are und are not the primary crash ~~oncs; mention of concern about heig4t or about noise and nuisance; witb Mr. Connelly remar •'ug that Council can choose to focus on or cxprESS concerned about whatever they wish, Nvhether safety and community, or title notice abo►it some tisk and noise. Councilmember Gottimann said he would tikc the accident data of Felts Field. Qfiher remarks included discussion on having some machani5m to make sure people who move in the area or ' buy properry in the area realize they are in a fly zone; mention of the need to took at GIS breal:down of what densities are residential zoncs buili now and what lots alread}► have housing, and that there are hundreds of potential aew lots chat could be fomied if tlieso restrictions were not in place. Councilmember Taylor said be would like to examine the current density, would like to see 1vhat zone 6 covers relative to current residential areas, and see what is the average density curreatly in place. Mr. Connelly said we can keep the ordinanee before Council for further revietiv, but any change will ultimately need to go back to the Pla.rming Commission. There was Council conssnsus to bring the ddta back to Council that Councilmember Taylor asked for, then to send t]ie ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further deliberation. uYf'ORMATIOiN ON'Y,Y: The items of (7) Aquatics Facility Update, (8) nangcrous Dog Ordinance, (9) Private Roads Map, mid (10) pepartmcnt Rcports were informatiQn on1y items and not ceported or discussEd. • _ . Council Regular Meeting: Ol -08-08 Pagc 4 of 5 . Approved 6y Council: 0l-22-0$ . Y • • . S boRane ~ Valle . ' . y ' 11707 E Sprague Av,e Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valiey V!A 99206 • 509.921. 1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhalt@spokartgva(ley.org .demoran um . T'o: Mayor I3iana Willute, m,embers of the Ciiy Council f . From: Mike Connelly, City A,ttomey . . • CC: Dave IY.Cercier,.City Manager; Kathy McClung Director of t . COIIImllIIity DeVelOpttleIIt . , , . , Date; October 29, 2007 . , , , • . . ' , ' , Re: Ai.rport Overlay Zonesc . , Qui.stions Presented: ~ • ' •Do other Spokane County jurisdictions bave sinn,i.lar •airport regu.lations to I.hose established in the new Spokane Valley Unifonn DevelopmEnt Code (tJDC)? ~ ~7V'hat are the statc and fedet~al 'requirements related to airport regulations? . . . r• ' Short Answers: • . Qther Spokane Connty jurisdictzons bave mucb less stri.ngen►t airport zegulations than the newly adopted Spokane Valley T)DC sectioia 19.110.030. However, ofber Washington . , jurisd.ictiom outside of Spokame County do have similar provisions to those recently adopted by Spokane Va11ey. . •RCW 35,70.547 requixes citics to protect aixports from incompatible land uses while at tlie federal level, 14 CTR 77 requires t~,iat no heig,ht hazarcis cxist which would be an , obstruetion to ai.r travel. Neither law man.dates the "adoption of a specific ordinance or a specific pro'vision Nvithin an ordinance. A►.natysis: ' l. Airport Regulations of other jurisdictions City oF Spokane Valley, under UDC sectiori 19.110.030, now laas the most stringent airport zoning regutations in Spokane County. 'X'he iJDC establishes six Airport Land Use Compatibil.ity , Zones Nvhich set a maximum riumber'of dwelt"mg units for each zone in addition to establishing f'tve Air - ffazard Height Restrictions 'zones, S~okane Valley is the 'only jurisdiction withi.n . Spokane County to establish these corapatibility zones and set density zequirements for each , zone. Ofiher Spokane Coun.ty jurisdicd'ons have esfiabUshed four "airspace and accident potcntial . areas." These areas do not appear to cornespond with Spolcane Valle}?s.Compatibility Zone.s but L • , • • ~ • . . . • , , . 'are more closely related to the Aix Hazard Heigbt Restrictiozis. Below is a sunamaxY of the other + M' jurisdiction's airport regulations: ' C r . Spokane County: Like Spokane Valley, Spokane County has establisbed an airport averlay ' zone which is governEd by section 14.702 of its code. Ho-Arever, this overlay zone does not • • unplernent the density requirements, established by the Spokane Valley UnC. Spokane County is alsn currently revising its Airport Overlay Zone,, however, the revisions have not 3ret goDe public. The current section doES address'the following: - ' • • • Establishes' four a.ir space and laud use safety areas with the following builciing regulations: ' o The conical area which is "a}1 #h.at land .which lies directly under an ixnaginary ' con.ical su;rface extending outward from the primary surface at an elevation of 35 fect above the elevation of the centerline of the runaway !'or a distance of 3,500 feet aud then upward and out«+ard 'at the slope of oue v~rticat foot for every 100 horizontal feet for a horizontal di,stance of 30,000 feet;" ' M No 'stzuctures or vegetabon with heigbts in cxc,ess of 35 feet may be buiit in , tllis zone. Structures incideatal to air travel are excented. . o Thc Appzoach A.rea itihich is "alt that Iand tihat lies directly undcr an imaginary appzoach 'surface longifiudiually centered on the extended centerline at each end of the runway." The Approach area is then subclivided into Accident PoteDtial Zones A. arid B which list prohibited uses. • -o The A,ccident Potential Zone Awhich is "all larid in fihat portion of the app3roach i - arca of the• runway which extends outwazd froma the end of the prunary surface a • distancc equal to one-third of the runway. ' No buildin.gs or structu.res are allowed to be built or altered i.n. this zone." The ~ following uses are excepted: warehousing, outdoor storage of equipinent, cemcteries, nurseries, agricultuxal uses except for feed lots and other agriculttiral uses that attxact substantial amou.0ts of birds, nublic utility ' traosmission facilades,.quarries; 4uto iN7eckzng, xa.il or trucking tenuinals; oTb.e Aceident I'otentialZorie B wluch is "all land ia the port}on of the approach area to the run-way Nvhich extends outvard from Gone AiL distance of two-th.irds Of the tt1IIway.I I . • ~'rhe foUowing uses are pzohibitcd i.n tbiis zone: RV parks, churches, hospitals, manufactured home par.ks, motels ' aad hotels; nutsing homes, schoots, stadiuxbs and theaters, •day care faci.lilies; as purt af Spokatie County Resolution 07-0221, residential subdivisions and residentiai binding site plans ' are also prohibited ' • 1'rohibits certain uses i.n areas whcre suUstantial noise i.mPact exists including churches, ' day care facilitie.s, hospirals, libraries; mamu~'actured hoax~es, nursi.ng liomes, and schools. . . • The density requi.rements for'an ai'rport overlay zone ivithin the county are determin.ed by the zone tlassi.fication Nvhich the land.in the zone falls into. For exam.ple, the Airport . Ovezlay Zone foz the Spokane Internationat Aixport falls into Light Industrial and Regional Commercial zoues, The tight Industrial dens~.ty requirements aze 15 units per ~cre. 'rhe Regional Cornrnercial zone prohibits single fami.ly and two family duplexes, but does a11ow fox multifamily divellings which must meet a 30 dNvelting unit per acce . . density requirement. ' • ~ . . 2 ~ * . ~ « T1ae recent rews staries r+egarding thc Cvuaty's agprovid of a bouse and wbdivision in the , . airport overlay~ zane sterns from a cbange to tha Ligh.t Industriaf zone ~lassification in the ' . Accident Fateatial Zane B. The Count~ had adopted a special zoning ordinance that did ri4t allow for resideuti.al use in d1ne 1igbt i..ndustrial zone around the airpvxL That - vxdinaxce was amended ta reainve the ban on residential uses. I-lowever, the County ' recently adopted an in.~eArn zonmig resolut~~q (RcsaIutian 07-0221) that xemaves aiI such reside,ntial uses. It is aiso pl&nxing on atnemdi.ng #]ae Zoniag Cvde back to p:rahibiting these uses ass it led to "compaibility issues" aud axi en6raachment aa the 1aM regulated by the airpvxt and Faircbild Air Fvrce I3asse. ''hese changes weFe discussed at aPlann.i.ng Cvn=issioa meeting held on October 29, 2007. Resoxufiioa 07-0221 is aftched tv this . memo as ExTaabit B. O'ty of Spukane: 'Ihe City of Spakane currently dnes not h~~e airport regulations related tv zaning, Its C0* de does conta.in sectian 11.19.230 whiob allvws the Planning DE.r~otar to desigaate aixport: hazard areas witbian v4ahich "vanious heigbt, 4gx1ing, and otb.er ai.rport zoning mquirrements apPlY." However, accordiug to the City of Spokane Platning Departuae~t this cnde praNision is obsalei:e. The City cu.rrcndy has a ~bapter ix i~~ Unifiecl Development Cade reserved for airpoxt reoativr.s, but lha~ yrt fo begr'► dra.fLirig the regulations, The Planna-ng DepaTrtment anticipates . the drafUvg prowss wiU bcgin %ithi.n the next six montis. City of Spokar~e Wi11 be using Spokane Counfiy's airgdrt reguJatioms as its mvdel (see above). '~ity of Deer Park; Likm SpolCara.e. V'aUey, Deer Paxk has established an airpozt overlay zone which is govemed by ~ection 18.72 of its ~ode. 'i'his section, addresse,s the .fvllow%ng: , i Establi_shes the same fou.r sirspace and land ►s.~~ safety areas as Spokane Caunty; •Height restriction.s prohibiting.struciures which are not necessuy or incidental #o a.4ort aperations; , •Prohi.bits ~eftain uses %n areas where substautial naise impact exisf.s inclu.diti,g churc'hes, day ca,ce faci3.ities, bospitals, Iibraries, ma,nufac~~~d horaes, nnrsin.g bomess and schovis. City of Airw~y'flcigb#s :Airway Heights a].so has ari airport a-verlay zon~ Wbioh is governed 6y section 17.15 of i#s municipal ca~~~. This s~ctiQn adclresses the follovdDg: . •Establishes the same fouz airspace and laxd use safe°ky areas thaz ~~okane Gouuty a.n.d Csty of Deear Park eztablished in their a.i.rpart averlay zone; . t■ Height xestr-ic#ions prohibiting structzres wbicb are Dot necessary or i.ncideiatal to a4ort pp£SatiQnS; ' ~Prnh.ibits certai.u uses in areas wheie substan.tial noise~ impact exists iacluding qhurehes, . hospitals,librarries# manufactuxed hozne parks, nursing hoxnes,'schools, and all residential u-ses. ' • . . , , . • . ~.Tawn of M3Uwi?d: ~'S.i~~lwoad clzready dvess nat have any ai.rport reguMoas. . Although Sp01~~e County jurisdictions da not have simi.lar prauisivns to the Spoltane Va11ey UDC*'s Land LJse Campafibilit~ Zones, othher Washbagtvn jiarisdic#ians dv have similar . pxovisiozis whicb am listed beIow: • ~ • 4. • • , i 3 . Skagit Caunty: Section 14.16 of the Skagit County Code establishes six land use "safety zones" and rxaaximum densities for each zone fox the Skagit Counly Airport. These ~.vnes have similar ~w prohibited uses #o the Spokane Valley prohibited uses. As for Zone 6 of the Skagit Coun#y Code, the following regulations exist: . • • Maximum Demsifiy: one dwelling unit per S acres; this is more stringent than the Spokane valley l dweiling unit per 2.5 acres. • • An open sPace requiremcnt of 10 percent; • - • Existing residences and residential lots arc allowed to be replaced or built; • • For churehes and schools, the densifiy of the facility shall not exceed 100 peoplelacre and the proposcd site shall include ox abut a pennaacnt open space area; • Yndustrial development is allowcd so long there are no emissions released that wial cxeate a safety hazard to aircraft. . City v.f Tumwafer: City of Tumwater Code secfion 18.32 establishes and ai.rport oArertay zone for the Olympia Regional Airport. Yt is coniprised of five compatible use zones. Wle the code docs not establish maximun► density rcquirements, it does e.stablish the follovui.ng zones wb.icb . regulate uses i.n additiozi to beight hazards: . • 7rone 1- Run`vay Projection Zone: pxohibited arE residential clwel.li..ngs, storm-water «tet . . ponds, rccrcational facilities, schools, day cares, cburches, bospitals, and uses . that dina.ialish the ability of pilots to see oz communieatc between aircrafts; • Zone 2-- lnner Approach/17cparture Zone: prohibited are multi-family dAtell.ings, recrea.tional:facilities, schools, day cares, chuxches, hospitals, and uses that dimiivsh the ~ ability of pilots to see oz commun,ieate behAreen aircrafts; • , r ' • Zone 3- Innet Turaing Gone: prohibited are multi-farnily dtvellings, recreational l facilihes, scbools, dAy cares, chutcbes, bospitals, and uses tlaat di,minisb the ability of ` pilofis to see or cammun.icate vetu'eP•II a1ICI8ftS; • Zone 4-- Outez A.pptoach/Depart~ure Zone: prohibited are multi-family dtivellings, schooLs, day cares, chuxcbes, hospitals, and uses that dimiaish the ability of pilots to see or comni.unicate between aircrafts; •Zone S- Sideline Zoue: proWbited are multi-family dwellia1gs, schools, day cares, churches, hospitals, and uses thnt dimi.nish the ability of p'tlots to see or communicate• Uetween airorafts; • Residential land cliv.isions i.n zones 3; 4& 5 require clustering and open areas for . emergency landing. 2. Tederal and State Itequiremeats for airport regulations There are botih sraie and fcdcral statutes relatii.i.g to airport regulafiions. RCW 36.70.547 ' requares ai.l counties, cities, and toRms that include general aviation airports to diseoursge the siting of incompatyble uses adjaccnt to the airport in their comprEhEnsivc plans and deNtelopment • . regcxlaiions. ThE statute also requires fonnal consultation with the Washington State Department of xranVortation (WSDOT) and the fding of all plans with WSDOT. WSDOT provides . technucal assistance to local govcrnments in addxessing airpart land use compatibility. Unfortunatety therc is no case lativ or WAC's that interpret whaf an incompatible use is. However, after filing proposed plans with WSDOT, the deparbmeat ~Nil.l provide suggestions to , the cit-y regarding compliance with this statute. Fwrther, the WSDOT's Aviation Dhision offers . J " • some guidance regarding the definidon of inc;ompatible laud uses on theix web page: • 4 .._r...` y ...awr:-Yr_p.+.!.v+,.'G~ ,r^.t lsi_~.."`~Lr.Pl17n9~_:.zCN'~?4'.~ ~~'R..~i~i~~~''~~.'•~:1'sx ~'a?~w~ sc•:ay.~p._y - :.f'i yAY1 !W~\ t axaS` ,-r~ ~l''. i ` y, . . . • v / , • • . ~ . Depending on airport cbaracteristics, Iocation, and amount of key open space z, • . adjacent tA a general aviation airport, incompatible land uses may include public assemblyllarge concentrations of people, residential deasity, intensity of nonresidential development, structure, height, haa~,ardouslexplosive material, 'wi.lldfirE hazards, lightldare, air quality and electronic signals. • ' While the use of a'rrport overlay zones appears to be a common technique employed by many cifies, RC'9V 36.70.547 does not speci.fically require this or any other particular )and usc approaeh. According to MR,SC, since the statute is silent with respcet to the preeise method to be employcd, it appears tliat cities are free to cboose from among the siting recommendations of , the Aviati.on• Division or any othex. locally deternined method 'unplemented through their "comprehensive plan and development regtilations that accomplash the intent of discouraging adjacent incompatible uses. ' Pursuant to this statute, Spokane Va]Iey filed its Airport Hazard Overlay Zone dra,ifi ordi.nance «rith QVSIaOT Aviation Division. The Departranent made 'sevcral suggesfiions to the ' draft wWicb are 'reflected in the cuzrent ordinance. (To see tte WSDO'Z' reconamended cha.nges, see Exhibit A). . • " The fedcral statute pertaining to airport regulations, is 14 CFR 77, entitled Objects ,A►ffecting•Navigable Airspace., Whi.le tbas stafiute does not use tb.e term "incompatible uses," it • does say that heigbt hazards corastitutc aa "obstzuction" to air travel. The 'aVashington standard for height h.azards coraes from the national standard established i.n this statute. Accozding to th.is statute, any object, which penetrates "i.maginary surfaces" are considered to be a heighfi hazard • obstruction and ere not allovved. Imaginary mrfaces are defined in xelation to the auport aa.d the . , rtiwway. 1"he size of these swrfaces' is based on the category of each runway according to the " current approach, and to any future approach plannecl for the runway. 14 CRF 77.25. . . • • . . . . , . • . . . ' ' , ~ • . 5 • r'#'' 'r „5+..*r.'~':~'~"'-+T"-.' ~,~rr °.=r~•"id~:v'i ' s ,%~"~`t'@-w y~.. Yhat 'tiYws.- - - t '~_,-~`_'.w~~;~!~~~i y _ ~ ~ 5 ;t','~"YAar• ~ 'x-r :S~/~,d•1 / • • E.XHlBIT A . • ' . WSDOT Aviation . Airport Land Use Compatibility Program ~ City of Spokane Valley - Draft Alfport Hazards Overlay • • December 20, 2005 . We have several suggesbons noted below.and on the draft ordi.nartce (insefions and comments using track changes). . • , . . • Titte~ ' We zecommend that you change the na,me of yow ordinance to Airport Overlay Zone because it now includes height and land use compatibility: In addition, we suggest you change the name of the accident scrfety zones to airport conipatible use zones or something similar. There are two ' reasons for that change. First~ the regulatioas address more tban just safety in eacla zonc - they. address other measures of compatibility as well. Second, your objective is snore than safzty. The objective of the state law is compatibility, • • Appiicability Sectlon • . , . , `Ve suggest that'you expand i:ho applicabilit}tsecfion. T"he followi.ng ex.ample &om t;hc City of TumNvater Caa be modified as appropriate: . • Pro'visions oF this cbapter shall -apply ta all lands, buildings,''struc#ures; natural ' features and' uses • located within the Airporf (AP) ' Qvertay zone district as . depicted on the maps, except rhat the provisions of this cbapter shall not apply to , e.ny use that is• defined as ani aviation use. All uses and activities are at all times ' subject to the underlyi.ag 2otung'district, l~~lhere the requiremenfis and restrictions • imposed by the Air-port Overlay zone district conflict with the requirements of r the undertyino zone district, tht more resfiricdt►o requirement sha11 bE applied, • Avigation EasementlDisciosure Notice: Why are both an ati►igation easement and disclosure notice included in the ordinance? There may be an opporhinity to «rork witla tkiE airport board to deaelop a nevv policy thai is defensible and ' . mnintains protectiott for the airport. We «rouid be happy to belp you -vvith that. ti'Ve recommend ' that ulNmately you choose a sin.gle easeiuant vr nofice ffiat is filed with the counh}► auditor. Having boLh an casemenf and a disclosure notice that apply in differznt areas may be very compUcated to,administer. " • N1aps o A map shotiving exasti.tig penetrations o:f the imaginary sudaces would be very helpful for gdministering the regulations and bclp you idenrify areas where penecration of the surfaces is • possibte or lil:ely. Adding elevation contours to yaur Existing map would also help illustrate fhese issues and assist tha city and applicants during the peimitting process. o We a]so recommend you also add a profile view map to illustrute actual heights in the various . zones. The additional view would be especially helpful during implementabon, to help • • planners at #he'front eounter describe the policyto applicants. o• As we discussed during oux visit, the Caiifornio guidelines have used updatsd accidEnt data to modify the shape of the sa.fety zones, especially zone 3. I have attached the information for your refecence. . ' . , . i 4. . 'iF • • • . • EVEYK& Lnj I BiTa WSDOT Aviation ' , ' ' Airport Land Use Compatibility Progtam , ~ o Rather than including only the referenco diagrams for the safety zo4es aad M Part 77 in • your ordinanca, we rc3conimend that you include a safety z,one diagram, noise contour map, Heigbt I3azard Part 77 map, and'yow compatibility zone map. Y havo attached an exainple of a map that shows customized compatibility zones and tbe safety zone diagram with relevant . dimensions. • • . • o You might also consider including them in y(?ur comprehensi<<e plan: These maps, along Nvith supporting information, will a11ow Spokane Valley to better imple,ment airport Iand use compatibilrty. The airport compatibility zone map and FAR Part 77 should be shown an the zoni.ng map if possible or included as references in the zoning code: ~ Other Cornments ' . ' • Ill ' o You 'should include information about hojv height will' measured for,the purpose of . implementation. For example, you might noto that applicants will be required to include the • ground elevation and maaimum structuro elevation in their'applicatibn, T}ae process you use • for detertnining builduig beigbts uiay also be appropriat6. Tiie following it an example from ' Douglas Counfiy that'ma'y bo modified to fit your needs. It is probably necessary to add langua~ge'specifying und'er which conditions ineasuremerits by a licensed surveyor would be . reqi.ured. . . . , • • • 18.65.070 SITE F'LAN REQU(REMENTS t • • An appiicatiori foe a buliding, structUre, use, subdivision;'short siibdivistan, binding site plan or other development activity shall submit the foilowing . informaUon In addition to application materials required as set forth in the DCC. . , . A. The site pian shall clearly dellneate the locatlon of the project to ttie Runway Protection Zone 1, lnner Safety Zone 2, andlor Inner Turning Zone 3 as described in Section 18.65.080. • . B: The location and height of ali'proposed buiidings, structures;,and naturai vegetation a'measured from the airpoh surfaca and when located within the • following: • . • 1) Runway Pro#ection Zone 1; {nner Safety Zone 2; andlor fnner Tuming ' Zone 3; ' 4 ' ' • ' ' , 2) HorIzontal and Conicat Sur#aces identified as a natural obstruction; and ORDINANCE TLS Ot3-05-38 9 3) Buitding or structures that exceed a height of thirty-five feet (35) when . Iocated in any other aocident safety zone or FAR Paits 77 imaginary surfaces not described in sub~ection A and B. . ' . oWc recommcnd that you not includB trees and vegetafion in the'height restricfions because it is very difficutt to enforce. - . . . , - . . ' o It is not necESSary for you to list thc Part 77 heliport zones. We checked with David Cmvc►ner about the heliport, and he told us that it uses the same traff'ic patiern as other aircraft. That ' means that tlie imaginary surfaces would also be the same, so tihere is no need to lisC thm heliport zones sepazately. . . : o Intensity li.mitations on commercial and industrial uses should also bo listed in the table. -t - : - - ~ - ~ - . . . , , E~B~T ]3~ , , • , . ~ . ~ . . . : . . . . . . ~ . - . . . . . . . . - ~ v . . ~ . ' ~ ~►Y ° Ra9att~~'~~4~~ pF cov~►~•~o~'s10~~ . . . ; • ;Q~~~FOIC±~ ~tTiJ i'it„r~►As .~~,~'j'c3~t• . • -mw 11iATTgR.'OF` All' lqDAA~~ . • ~C3NI~Y'.R~SbL,~'IOlY 3~U; 6. D~8i•G',-1Q~2,, y• ~ra ?-~~s3; , ArrQ ;,nO~v ;~tvnIMx , •zoNIi;af 'tiokdi~A 1% . T4 .~~,ko'LP;7`.~roY • • - xESmENTui.vsa IN :r•~ uupt. ~ . . , AND ftIRPOit-P'O ~AY 7A~?~ 1C~C~LNT ~ ~ . '$o~~fi ~►fc„~x~ ' , F.t~ ~ . . -GOD~3:OC~Sp~O)CANL 66 ' :t~cq~t~ ~'sotiic'~" ca'Ker:[tiaflcr ~all~t~ ~6air.iL ~ has. th~'caz-c,bfc.~u~hty ~rttpci~+ dtl~il ~'o'c~tai~,gcmeat . . , , , N-s; of;6*4~t ;7011JLCWt. Viei'UcRd. lre3 ndop~ed:the, ~~9nlrB.~F:a .~P_o~anc;CP.i~►9~4.rt~~!~E..~I~{~ ~~F:.of Sj~cka~g.~cntrity;tiond • . . . . , , • . w~~h:l,t~c~1 , tR ~Pes~ry~'~ie,a~at~y~ A?ia:so t~'~.~' • ZUl~uo~:g ~~f na3 ~o•ee~timd ~~at~y;~,ze~~;~~~1~~1; ~r~ " • , .~;f2~~~~<~L,~~~.~/il~i,~ J6j~Uf~.~7~ ~~iiin~tt ns~c~ r.heQ~ld:i~,'pi~~iif~~t, n~•gi~;~h~ inFct4ri ~aiii_,t~t'~~i~diYUiri~e Gt~f~h•uG~~ stxf}t c~s of ~QaTS~,~~1Fp~,~upt~~cndz~~s.oitectausti~}►ic~ ilg~nauoa`~iefar.~ t~ii3:ti'c~ing~~ ~hcr~ ttlio ~ "Y 1 . f• `1~q~i1, s~ll do :s~t immr.d~at~~r. ~~~r tl~s ~ublle heu jmrigr An iiilihrn zba~tu~• o~aancc'Edoptcd wtdct b4'me}~ ~ . • ~ :~~ac~i~e.fnr:up'~o~on~•yeer:t'~a;w,o~k,p~~ ~~o);~~Q'pa~ fo.CJ,r~$Qc~.~di~s pry~~~.3:.S..vc~'... ' .t~ ~cri~i:~on~ ordih~n:o'n~y: #io :~icwo'~ fo~ aZd or ~ ~ix:niortt~ ~cnod.s if a ~~z$uc~t.pu6tio: ~A1~~'a~ ~30 ~'lhQ~ ~:'~1:~8{I' G~ f~'e -1d'~'~t ~ ~t~i ~3P1~. , . :a~l6w`~}L,c~mplianEt~~vith,thiS=~hapf~sr;.to":~void'e~Iinmm~a~tfirraitd,Pub~i~ hc.~lttig~.se~a~yc,.tbp ; en ia,"n1'n~i'n'cnt ~n~c to p,f~ic'4r ~i~itia~O.gr3~c~fY~ b~ ~xc.v~Y et1 ~ ..1t,~nZ t~}r~at of r;ot~ cnviT~mt,~t~11• . *t~cg'r,n~nnf,io~, 6E~.oU'~sc esccmP~ A$'cn~icS:mE►Y sp4c,i}y', thcse,emcr~cncy c~ctiQ,~a~cn 1fi~~r p~oacd~n~:s~'; end . . , , • ~.~~F'k5 '}-h,'9:'7N:~i~q ~tF¢;ofS~o};an~ Coui~►tjf.'c~s,'rr'rccn~lj;&m-;ckdd.~,~l2ia! us~s-%vi,thi'* tha • ! ~~,'~'~1~.I~aus:iial(t.~} za7ti4:iti.tE►~na~c,0i~b~tcd n~eas o,[Spa~~'~,-ng ~oe~ity s~t~i~c;~.Gy ~hr,aptt~.14:6tA 1 . ~tiS'dirs ?t~.iff[•~onrs) spWtf'iaa~tlySciflba W02:2a0 (_)'und.14:614.230'(l5}z.tnd ~ S • ' ' ~~-''~~~r$ ~c 9~~5~l~t~~Y~'c~u'c'e~tlK•~i~'r.esid~i~bl u~e~•t~i~in tba ' ' 'Lo#vD~asii~'Rc§tdcaltial('L-DR~,xw~fn~~;~'~ir,lid~arai;c'd•arba's;of Spoka.nc`Cotri~`~~gursu~r.~ fo Qb~t~r .q • . • ~%OiFra~C X :1?.or ,prolubi~Y I,tl~iS~; of S,~,re"`•~•~§ 4~a ,it~y ~gr.t 'Ov,ekl~! Zo;►e, anQ~fiPc.c~ Aec.idcnt~Pate~Ei~,f.,aao . ~ . a~~ :~~~l AF ~~~'~~~s ~st~r ~sc ~ A. ilcyaiopvicit dad • . gg~Ke~on ~ilP$~~7;S~u~ie;It~~siy~ia1 ,FG'}{td,Afr•~`~ Bdse'~ni~,iiii~ a~ns ~C~A-fPA~: j Pi.e,r~n~n~~gr1P-A3 ~nc~•6- ~Nes! in sA Gc.an~ A7ea t3~1 ea , . • . . , ~ : . . , • . . . • ~ ~i . ' _ / ' ~ - - - . - • - , , . . • • • • • ~ r , Ar, :.eJPiat 83Q , . 'ititi~~'rr'aI'i~s~~~;l6tircd'~h t~e aa'm'_'e iont. • . ' of ~C5po-lcniit,Go~r+t~+~•At~crt Ot~~tlay Zon~ ~oidcnt,Fate,Mi~l~on.: "B;' ~r~~ rr~aY cr~tc ~ . sa1'ciy:luzatd~l~ ifi~'sC;~ii'e9"~ftig lWpublio Bee11E}; Wety, pnfl Welf&V. .9c~ qYd~r~sLn~' onc 4 ~e ,6m ~~...Dcvclopm~:n,tofresi~eatinl vscs.Eri,@,*I.iSht Wu,strial az ts jtbb a~~aili~rte fi~Jdalory of~.i~~it Faitustc~nl ~ofi~ Ero~esties.° o~ th ~ilipbrt ap~'~i s q; . - 8); j~zsideilEia7' us~ "d~'a~esaP'to ali~ofts i'ulco'#npafibl'e ~;i ~ 6 tfLe Jb~ y~of ~11 9~~F~: ' • ;•~tid ' ' . . ' ?~W'10%.uses,aj, fnae~.m..93ibte OjIfl.n:Vca ' ~ti~t~'sstnd'de§ignatio~ exctgl fui a~Ctb~pl~rincd~fi~t4~tfial t~i~i~ien3s ttia6p~3c residclcca intwdcd, . ~(b; ~,fp~~1p[oj►ecS far'tn~ pl't~gd'~ti~trisl c~e; n~d'. • _ ' . . . • ~IAS.~tj~~iiitd3fbF,`~~~ Gd` " ;d'd fUbffie• • t~a~•m ~i~~p~e~ n ~ •4cB'1'Llni ~mum t67p,'Ou6a:anu '~~i~y~ ~f•'•:a ~t;bp~£~oaa~:wbile.ul~9~ q~T~nB:t~c safctj►~snc~ .;~rol~ct3oanfresid~'fc~i~i~'r~art'ra1'~di~pstt~'cf;id, . , . - . w ~ ~ t ~'~~t~:'$t~:~`d• i~?Y.d.`Q.s~',- - • ;ZOOG' tYig:k;-~Cf,:u~a~it,'„~g.`~~"mor~;#cr'iilni :e-f~j~'ct;b~ fgir'~.qitdiii~ ji~d!s~~~ttd~ ldid tws A ~a,ppljostialg,~o~ res~d~rti4~ v~,ca wi'~in ~,mv~toc{unt & -tds~•~s~~anc~ ad¢~~ ~ tz~D say~o'f D?~itt`~CCSb ; $a .y ,r . ~ r P'~ r.~.... • ~Ne m a~ogtad;~nc~; ~,sq1uU'vn ~79;; 6~Q~3~fgr-s~;r~~~►~~Fr~o~ w `i ♦ • v ~ 1 ;~~tqofedo~tinh.on~actb~33;~~6toMa~~i 3; 2407r axfci • . ~ . . . ,~r F~~ •io :~'c~o1;v~.o~t; ~~0: ~i',~8153'~. p4.~s: r~~ 4.~Qp~ :~;~tl`Eh •dsy pt , . ,P~~~r~;~ uudci QbQ7; nrid• . ~~rgo'r~.og~attor~g ~jd~'uwx~'~i~pQrt ~abi~ity b~?a~:t~c pg,p~~011 ~n~l~iPF4S~id ~ ~i}'• ~F3'~.cx~°~$ . .~QUi ~'t~t~r~a~as v~tl ns ;pr~.yuit s~fli't3~o~sa.~'~n~vcr~Peurbr~:~;~8~u~i~i1 c~~elag~f-~c~j actn~ t~c~~air~acls~ ~ris~y.~~;t~~c•~► ic~~s~~~ ~;a~~~r~ ; W~a - ' i • - , , ',~tS ~9~ c~c~9 ii3'~.t' mC ~~ci~t'uh• fi~~?~ z~K~=~ ~~o' P3`44'a?t a{~~1nnnl . • , . ge3 , . ~d . . . ~ : : . "~~tE~Sa .s~o ;`~~~s~ ~ ` ;carih~.er'~~3,~ ~t4 ~.~eti-}~~ ~~iifal,;g•~fias~ ,~%t~ai~~ thi9 ~i:fit~r. '~~'iirtirE~' ' 01?~~~~~~,~ia dc6~~'Q?.?~R~~~§~fd~mqmtQrt~{n.~.adoR Itt a~ solttlior~ I~0~53, dad: 8jmuGtmdAY 'rtpliesiii{t w~th ~in' ~lii~t~n kmling Crdin3ls~C 't;cn~ric~n~ • ,rc~ldect~iml u'soi~i t7}a•Y:igkt•fad~~'~~1;I) zqriaa;~d ~irpb~t Ov~r~a~r ZO~1h~~Ab~id~t Pate~tial ~ane "8'`i pPsU.dA• dg Bp,~IQA'~JPA~~~ esQtJ • . ' . • ~~,~~'th,S; ~Ji~:n~tct{is~;zAnii~•o,cdimu~ca~~~Q ~r~b.e~.'~t'ini~,c.~.€'o~'ffiqpubliGh~~i g~fc°pt~.id ` ' w~ ~-r~ca~ri~;~e~ tf~ o~iHg~iomt~S oftith~~~Dut~4y. ~tsfd~~eow'a$o;e sid% 0 f.tncorar,,qt~10 %e§ • ctsn:tfl:afrport's ~MQW;36:7011':5~~0•i~~d;~tC~l3¢_7a~=@~~1 . • . . . • - • - ' _ . . . ~ - - , . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . , . • ~ , 7 . . • . . . ~ . .~...r.... , . ~ . . . ~ • ' . . . • . \ . • ~ ry \ ~Goilfit~ uarit to -v~;ions bf RG'~V;36:7Q.7~,5i ~nd,'R~j'.tiP~~;7~;3~E1 th~i t3~c.B~d ficitb,y~~d4~t9 :$n~ci~im;~nia~ o~i~qc:c~r~l,B:#o•lana t~and aepafa~o4~~'~ ~r:c~'s:~~ ;4~~►}~YJdasa,ul,vc1c; . ;r3a~d'th~Y,n~i~:OY~ifl~•7.ticc, Aa~~eni'Pot~tt~~J Zosia aB'~ [ar ti~a.til.cst'Piafns7TEiorp--ti(JA-JPA R~ia th: td knd •iOQip.ornted; hrieirt b" '~~T ~ • ~ • ' ' ' • ;it~,tiS]CB' ~ ~ ~ • . t' • SE 'I'' ~ ,~JItT' RFS,OI~~~LD 6y,' a CQ4ui ~ un"ty, =np, ~•~mcF~~yria adop~c.tc~zt~'c, •~~usts ?~~ft'oP.~L .r .~`~do'1'~~t't't auslriql ~io~g.~7id''.AirgoT* ~O'~ ~Ya7ioqA, Aait~t Pbf~.tijtl~ . 6rih u~ ~th~ It~et33~ely p~a~x~n8~~tiarn' .an~ ~ta so r~R~tU~ f~@ ~Icr,e`bY dcjeruune t?ta~ 7n~r ~ bt ic~ uod a(, W-A -.1980► . . Qxr,flinuce wicti Sh'''A ib t . 5 ,-~L',~I~•~TLfRT.~~R►~5~3~~D t~i~3~d~~'-•Qf;Cbu~i,f.'Y, A 's P. 4~'~~~,ner~~tiy t`hat:~:B'B~Il~£~oufity~Co~iu~sio~I~~a d'o~sire -~'.l ¢n6-~838'ehd ~ .?t3~~fir ~:''UI~~ , .'~"R~:so~YE~ b~•~i.e.'.9oc:td t~f jC~iin~ ~o~rii~i'ssioitc~9.~2f ~~li6~II~~ Caunty ~ . . . , . ~~Atia7:isT d•„ ~~c=1~,~1 ~k~ pl ate:~imulte~,~~ ogi t~ hogr e~d da~e is~e _ .iic . _ . • ; ~n: ;$0?~d ~,;,;of &~~o3~pne:Couni~. ~ ~~!b►!nof'~uitc~g~ond:pisanibg s~-. ~tl sche,da,l'I~yc:~tt~a~c~~vlycca~~,m~• . cbrisi`shcnt;m~ti'i epp}'ablb- ~r~t,1'otions vi►ith ~scRd jto t~:e~ ~exs ~rovldo3 .or . W. . ~ , . ' • ~3E~Ifi;FiIRTHFR I~SOL~3~°b~ i~ B~t~nd• Gi~,t'jk, ~oFti,i,~'~'i~3fon~r~~ o~ 5pb~~ Ga~ty:• . ~cmry.~~tpTm~St~S~'~~~;~R~~ ~ ~~~~'Irjlr,'ciri~~4ni7r'~'oriliuari~~~thin=sixtyj~60~ds~~a,,bi=#~ddop~ioda~ffiis'~e~olu!{uri, . . ~ , • , `tc~~J :'Qb :FtIX eb"o~ft,t Fi ~s~Ox~ B'oli:~t~ 6jc ~wBfl~ pt. 12'121fletly i ~t ~i~ g actians ~lic Qo~'s'd,'o r`c~i#a1.-aa a~;~'iuc~ny in•s~7p'p'c~iii ` . . coE ' ~ ..~~rEsoE~bp~rf~•,~aa~a4df:~.~ x te o~rntziri'~i~q,qin~,omd,f,•mn~cis M~ j, . . . . 4F C'~NIY G`pi',i,SSi0~~1~tS' . : ~ . ~ : S~~'cad,y- C , ~'GTON• . ~ • . • ~ ~ oQr~ v , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' t~ ~ ' '~~tlj • % ' • ~ , . • . . ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' • ' ' ~ • '~3Tj: R1C~T t' . s - ~j'. .pi ~ I ~ ~ . . I ' r • ~ . ~J r~ 1 • ~y ~ ' ' M i, . F-}~• ~t rr • • ~f - ,C:W ' ~ ~ 1• ~`u/%?w~ 1• . ~ j nd4•..=~=_=E~oTm~'~•~4aser, V~cChair: (I • ~ • , ~ •p .,e~ , ' ' ' • •~.i • ..V\./•(•,I ~\.~''r~~~ n~~ //J, • t r•'••~~~~ ' , ~ „ ` •r ~ • ~i~ ~ • . , DgnfcTa E*13.0n, c~li.ofbe,BorArd , ~8 ~~11•~; Co'm~Tnssioldd~• • . , . ~ . . • . • ~ ' . : , ' . , . . . • • . . . ~='-l _ . . • ~ , w. .n r•~ . • • •r. . • • ~ . ' ~ . • ~ a ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ • • . • ~ ~ . ~ . . , . . . . , ' • ~ . . _ , . ► , , . P 091 We• . ' . es.p1a' : horpt ',.1~:-~A ancfi~t~e S1~'esf.Pl 'atns-~Ci~-T.t'1;~ -vr ~ 7}ia5~i~is~dns'[8d~ft"af~d~~To'~sKrittl~i~1P?y~n~to-i~te.~S$.Ti6lt~fiiifr~a~iciiie~.lar~f~i~th~'~~.st ' . ~~gt~org8~i1-A-TPA ~ ipi~~;ai~.5~o;w~i•fn9ie!'~a~8~~7ih~ , ~~-J~S~~~~ • . . . . . . • . ,~~icn~-$~tio~~.~.G1'.4t~sYoI16~S1 . . • , . , ~~:~6~:4.?29 ittti'i~t~tai: ~~id~3vra~ii~ _ • , , T~1~~E•Gt'41t ~'~n'a2~7:~'a~~I~r~trnc . . , , , ~ ~ . . . . EQtftmvciaTBu'slaciq • . . ~ ~ . ~.•l,ji~`'u7~t'~?'siir?r! fi~?iylr,o~fr?~; : . , ~~:2'3n i1~i~t'th=~~"Sf~'~ . . ~ • - , ~ ' . ' . . . f.; ~ • ~4:• s~',o`~'i~ci~~'~u'sts~.B~;~1,,~i6f~?ss~i~•aiA~s3'ia~t~t~isic~ ► ~ . . . . . .r • , , . . ;ga,r ;~cs ial ~ :tii~tc~x ~ ° ~l' Coiisride;ci ~:'~of cl~zr~i'eis~o~asgQ"' acc~pf . ;~T~~ ~j~ u~:Sy~~f~~~r"n~;bnd ~$~},f.~zicrt~ct~ont eS~B~l~~b?i~At'and' ~xratitt'or si'neI~. ,fnniIl~: dt~iil~ic alsd~lri"UfnYnU~ twstdei~iiil:'u"sc,~.• •Pi~v~'a'ed ituil~p','tFvosd usc9 ti~icd.attdtr• ~ c~ ag~ c-op~I~caa_1'~~ ~?g pccmi#~¢'P.s n~rs3di}i . Q~•con~iy'a~il}us~'fntEh*sL~~htiln^~{nlMn~; Pd~oYfd. furthcr,%I~e~ioaa4.~r~rnsc~'3a1;1~%&.q' . . . `~o`~vcr~ ~ifi.~ie I~r ~ :Trid=~s#'ria1;z~aa~iGl1 tn~tt'n~E~Qi~ lte~+in~l'C~iizinra~inT, c1e~rolo~tucnk . . e~~rds a~ ~ct•fort}~ m;Sec~ons `t~.~12.~bb.. . . . . . ~ ~ TflbloGj 4l, xndustad Zoncg . : . w _ ~ _ . . _ , . . . . . ~ . C+rt~f:~ ¢%s`r~a~ ~ ~e~o~ I~idyrsrrl~rl , • R~c~~t~ . • ~ ' • ~~ea.'~ia~;~ise ~ . ~ ~ • ' • , _ ' ' ~ . ~ , 'N . , . . . . . , . . - - ' y. . . • . . • ~ . . • ~ . . :`'~iS'''b"a` . • :.r ' j'~""'pl4t"".' . . . . ~ . ,,iec o, • . . . ~ . . . . : ' . C • ' • ~ ~ ~ . 9 SO. ~ ~22 . I 14,614.~!30 U~~y ~~t~q'~'; ~,`~rs~t~-i~`L~'-£r ~'n~r~3 t5-~ c~C`.-^~ ~-~4~3v£~-~ ~ • •,~~kl ~ C''-~-~ G d • , _ , ~`rl5 ~'~~x~iYsl~n~ t~~i'~h~,e lCu-~~-n a f i pn el,~rl►Q~-f, . , ~saettd stcttou V.701 x4 FvRa"rrrr; • fn Atddnt V41-41 ~on:,,TS", 2. C(t~h .t1?. 1~~OW: 4Carr,i*~,.ufAy ta"~sttil~c~-~ttYc~ii't~r 12. PettiC),paitt sprnit'ttil$ t4:c~'Cl;fpt? ~ T°,lrrfily'cseT;-czr~ ~ira~~ia~r• LB, Izeip~- tfona! vehicic~~ ~e~(~~,~~theli~d F-~ ~ ~co l~ • . ~ l~ e,~f d anfFttl'FU~~~ci trtl ~c~c1 cIi v~r~ . ~is CYt,ftSf~:r Ltr'GS' ~s wr.U~~s' ~ 7. T4~fcicaf~ Lfa tllng sf 4 jAntns ai d'din+:x! lrifh G Snolc;t nL, Cad7I f-v, ~ .S~i~tBivtsi4n pratn;,n~~, , , . ` , . 5 . , , _ . . . . _ , . ~ r tr,, ~ .;,~a.F`.~', =g;:~ • ~ ~ tb1t~ ,t f1QT ~~c'~; , ~`."1~'s '"'r"""~ ~ , j+..'~;O( ' ~.1~1 •~f'' ~ \Y.~. Y~( ~~L~ ~ • ~ ~ti t{ ~ . ~ ~.'~.,,,~y~t`iti ~ • . ` y ~ j`( ' • ` ♦ 'y~ K ~ robi. a / F` ~ /1~~~~ l~,~ i ~ i ~ ~ , ti7' 4,`~~~`ti • ~tid16'" 'j ~ ~'iN~llr► ~ t~-4 ~ G'~ sy s r `rl Sf~.' r ~ ~„rv-e~:^_"""' . . iS, : ~ ~ti ti,``' ~ ~ ~ ~ nt ~ . . ~ ~ • ~ " . ~ • ~ ~ ` i 1~ ~.~:,Y1~1 r`~ ~ ,ti 1'~`~y.`i ~~';i~ r ••r,• ~ `i , ~ x 1 ~ Y ~I . 1.;.'w'~ :'~a.• 1 ;t ;,~4 , 'ti . ~ . . ~ ✓ ~ t ~ ~ .~1 ul_ ,t-~-~.• .sN ~f ♦ 'lz 5•~,`+;,~1 %KC~"~'x~; t`\',. 'i'~;'~'~"~ia ' - ~ , i r/ " t ~ trL U f ti S'~ „ ~ 71 ~ /J/'l~ <C'~.' W ~ l~it~~aa r~' ~`~~1r ' '1~ \ , . c ; ; : ,i ti . 1 ~'1,f ~ ~r,-~- t , ` , ~ ; ~t•'~ / ~j ~ ~ . ~ A1-b"1 'f ~ yA~ ~1i ~~,~t'`.\\~: :ti ` t` ~ ,..,t..- ~i~""°'. ~j i I {t V~}~~~ t~~ ~ tl 4~ 'OOF 4~,C ~ ` ? ~ . ` .1 t \ ~ Y y ` ~ ~ ~ r ~7'' ~i~ i 1c11, i"~ d l" t3.= ~„`~c" t"` ~ ~ y~=. , ~t ~ ~ r-1 , ~ i~ L+6 ~yti'~ ( 4 ' 1~ 4p'1'~~,•t --t' j , 1W t ~ o t~. ~ _ ~ ! ~~iw ft~~, ~~^~~}~~h~~~..~'a , E ~ ~ ~ ~~7f~yil~~ ' ~~,y~ i I ' i. hY~ , " ~MYc • ` iG ~Q ~,,,,,~y sy r4 1 ~ . fr y~ ~ 4 r~?j'ro..~ 2h~Lj ~ i' .r lx.. , + •A 4'vl ~VkE1~~P"'~~4"++~a. ` ~y~M~ ~t t' Ii , ,'SCt~`~:/•. ' ` F • ~ , ' G 11~~%5~..•v [lf ~ E~ -4 ~t ~z~ 4~ . ~ ~ j{,, t ~ ~ ;ti,'`~.~. ~ ~ .~c;~'~` ' ~ I ~ ~ , ) ~ '.~',y . E` -1''~ ' ~ ~ l ~ ' Q3 ~ y , t ` ~~.~.~;•~`'y,~1.. .K _,,.,a ...r,r,~"'`; ~;~.iLn~ i` ' Y ~ . . ~ 4 ~ ~ ~,ct ~ t 1 _ ~ + ~ tA ~~,_.'."'"f~ , ~ ~ \ ~t,.'~ .~1r ~ty~, ~ ~„"`t ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ' ~.~Y` ~ ~r ,.v; ~ t ~ ' ',.y~,L` `.,tic\, ' i_ : Yf 1 ► ~ 1.,n.n y y~" ~ `F" •f , ~ A lG ' • • S~" ` ~ ^ . ` ~ 1'2 ~ ' , r n ` "CY t...~-"'~-° J I , -a ' i.. ' ` ` ~ ~~e Ia ~ ~ , ^'~i{~~ '1 r1t~ R ~r+~ ~ ' • i'•.++'_ Y ...r'a ` ^ ♦ r ! ~r.. ~ ~ , • ~t . , ~ ,r..- ~ 9t~ ~t~~~ YSh olA ~ • ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . r . • • , • • • , ( ' CiTY QF SP4KANE VALLEY . ~;Rec{uest for City Councit Action • , . . . . . . ideeting Da#a: February 28, 2006 . • ~A1 , ♦ - Item: Check all that apply: ,[I consent C] ofd bustness Q new bvstn~ss ❑ publlc hwrig • ❑ infarma6on ❑ admtn. rEport ~ pendfng tagEstaUon ' aGEHDA rMM TTTLE: Second Reading: an ordinance arnending SV.fldC 10,30.060 by . amendPng Chaptet 14.702 Airport Overlay (AO) Zone in the ' victntty of Fetts Field. • . , . GQIJIERNINa LECiSLATiON: RCW 36.70, SVidiC 10.309.06 ' - ,PRE1/iOl1S COUNCIl.1COiSAMISS1ON . . • ACTION TAiC'EN: City Council was briwfec# on tha ficonststencles befween the interirYi Airport • arrerfay, Zone regutaiions, state BuideUnes end federal reguiations -on • ' • September 20, 2005.' Ptanning Commission, recefvEd a presentaUon by the • • WSDOT' DNlston ,df AviaHon on the requfrarnenb on December 8, 2005. . Planning Cammissiop,was briefed on thg proposbd'emendments on January • -112, 2006,• and • held a public hQaring on Febn.ra'ry 9, 2005, plannln3 ' CoqImiss(on recommended' approval with minor amendments. On Febcuary • 14, 20060 City Council adVancad.the proposed ordinance.as recommended by the Plshning Commissiori to a seoond raading. • • • • BACKCROUhi[3; ' * ; • . • . . . s . . { Felts Fieid'is loca#ed' adjac8nt to the Clty of Spakane' Valley.. Approxitnatefy 10 acras of the • ' airport is included wlthin the• Gft}r's oorporate Ifmilts. Property adjoining tfie airport Is genera{ly - fuify devefoped end zoned low denslty ressdential'and irtdustrlat. Felts Fieki is a public re!?zvzr airport prirnar(ly handting general Wation. As such,. it ig regutated pursuatt~ to Chapter 77 of tha . Gode af Fedoral Reguiadons, Safefy and helght regulaflon is estabtishad by fede'ral regutaUon , bqsed on th6 lengt4t of the tunway. Federal cequirements ere generally overseen by #ho VJspOT Division of AvisEion. 1'he proposed . amendment brings the, alrspace hazard planas into corfaRnanca with federa) roquiremenfis and •afso esfablishes land use compaf161Effy zortes restricting oettatn land uses (n proxJmfty to F2its Fi6k1. . . . , . , • . , . ' A DeEermination of Non-Slgnfflcanca was issued'pn Dacembpr 1, 2005 v6ti comments due not '(ater than Janttary* 151 2006 and a draft proposat twas submitted to CTED and other agencies for ' fhetr review on De~mber 3, 2005, ' . ' OPTrONS: •1. ftepeal ChaQter :14.702 in i#s entirety.. ' • . . 2.. ,~1PProye. • • . ' 3. Provfde stad,w'rth dlrectlon conmmEng addleionai emendrnents. . , • REcoMMENoEo AcTIoN oR moTtonc: Move to approve ordinance 66-002:, ' • • . . BUDGET'lFINMlCtAL.INtPACTS: None. STAFF CONTAQ3: Nfarina Sukup, A1CP, Communify Dev8lopment Dlractar• • , . . . . , , • . , . , - AT-ACHMENTS: . , , . . ~ • Draft Ordfianca,'Comment l.E'LterUVsDOT Qivjston of Avi3tion . . : ~ . , . , . • . . . • . . . . . . . ~ • 3 . , ; . Philin Rudv, 5647 B F.ru'rthilI; Wlained tbat be has an offic:a a# 720 31 A.rgonne,, that soineono romtty drove intn iv, buildiag; that fartunately -no ona was hur% aad hs thankoti the Shesil~s Offca, Police , Departrnenl~ and Stato Patrol fac their respDasa ta tho inoident, thet the perpch:ator was taken bo jail but wa3l-itar releas$d; fibet he feels the enforcement arm ia th-a cornmututy is strong but tlw'justice system . needs help as the r= who was ralcased hed four ccurt dsites far other ofiFerises, and that Dr. Rndy is , interested in tonight's court report • • James W Pantalco, R t 04a 4•IloImaa Road: rcprding the n.eighborhoad chq~er; said if this cbapter ~ - mer&s intra gna#her seation, thera wQn't bc a acighborhoad prflg,gin at all'as it wiIl be lait. . Meyor'~ilhite invited funherpablia comments; no fnr~or`co~ents v~rere o~ered, • . , , 1 , , . , . . 1. CONSF= AGKIAMA Consists of itenis caasiderad routine vvhicb az8 approved'as a group, A CounciLnem.her may renove an item fcon the Consedt Age!Lda to bs constdeted'separstety: a. Fo11o~r{ng clnim voucbere: • ' . ' . . . , , . • . ^ . - Vo"UCHER LzST DAT.l3 VOUCHER #s TOTAZ. VOUCHM • • - AMOUNT . February 10, ZOOb' . ~ 8575-8617 • ' ' • • . $162,993.85 Fcbruszy-15, 2006' 8618-8654 $609,3$4.31 • GRAND TC?TA►J, $772,348.16 b. Payro!! for Piiy Perlod Endin.g Februnry 15, 2006: $146,775.99 ' . • c. Approval aflRi~ubes of Fcbruary 9, 2006 Specid CouncO Mestiag • . -.r d. Appraval of Mirivfies of Febiuary 14, 2006 Regular Council Metting . • , • • • , . rt x►as maved by I)epury, Muyor• T'oylor, sewnded 6y Counetlmember DeVlaminV. mrd unanlmnusly , agrEed to approve the' c¢rrsettt agend4z • . . • , . NEW l3'OSMESS . 2. Sscand Readi~, Pip osed Orclinanco 46-002. AmendinLr Ai mort Ot%erlav 7',.ono - Marina Sukup After City Clcrk Baaabrtdge rcaci the ordinanco titl e, !t was »iovM by.ne,putyMayo'r;T*nr and seconded by Councilnxember DsYle7ting, to appnove Ardin=e 06 002. Commuaity 17evelqpme.ut D'uwAor Sukup • rnentioo od that no#hing ia the ordumca bas changod slncs the first reading, hotvever, the towr.r,sbadad portian,vf iho map ivIIl bo remoWd, which is'zoned•3 in tho Iand use coxnprakibi]ity, it showr.tl 200 f.rom the eeobsriine of the nmtivay iathcr thnn 30, that wiU bo rcniov«i; As that was tho reco;nmQndeiion af the Ptanning CvuimissR4u. Council statad no objecdon. Mayor' Wilhite 'invified public comme,nt; uo ' comme.nts were offered. ARer ceuncil commended stalPs work, the vota was,tidwn by acclamativn: In , Favor: Unrmfmous. Opposed: None, Astmtions: Nane, Mah'vn carried ' . 3 FinqReadi2g Pronased Ordivance 06-003 Amcandiug Gertain Se.ctian,s 'Nwnbered 14 af thaInterim 7anina Reevlatioas - Can, I7riskiell . . . ARcr City Clerk .B ainbridge read Eheordinanceti.lifl, it was move d by Depuiy hfayor Taytor and socordzd . by Councilnsember hl'r,arsori, to sucpe4the rule.s mid approve ondirccmce 06-003. Deputy City Aftorney . Driskcll explained that this is a bansekeaping issue and clean,; up 6otne #iiinp the City has•'alraady supaneded, and tba emending witl aialco the Cada moro consistent MayQr aliIhite invibed publia eomment; ao cornmenb weza a$ered. Yore by Acclarragan: ,~n Fmm- t'Jncmimovs.. Opased• 1►'one, Abstenrlons:Nvne. Motion carrisd • • ' , • , . . • . • ' , . Councl Mcciiag: p2-28-0G Par. 3 of 6 Approvcd by Cauncil: 03-21 •06 _ • • • •RI • •••Y • • . . . ~ • • • • • • N • • • i • • y • • . . • • • • • ~ CITY OF SPOKANE V.AL.l.EY ' . • ` ' ~'tequest for Cify Councii Acflon • • ' . . . . . . . . . Meefiing Date; February 14, 2006 ' • . . : . • . • • • . fLam; Check afl that appiy: [3conslent o1d bissiness ❑ new bus(ness C] public hearing ' , • . U infoomavon ❑ admin. raport El pendtng teglstaUon • AGENC?AlTEM TITLE: First Reading:' an ordinance amending SVMC 10.309.06 by . • amending •PhaAter 14,702 Airport Overlay (AO).Zone in tfte • vlcinify of Feft Field.' . . , . GOVERNIhI(3 LEGISLATION: RCV1136,70, SVItIC 10.309.06 ' . . PREVIOUS CD[!NC{LlCONfMlSSiON ' ~ ACTIoN TAKEK; ' City Council tvas brteted on the tnconslstpndes b~~veen tha fnterim • Airpor# Overlay .Zone. regulations, state' guidelines and federal iiagulations on Sep#embar 20,12005. Placining Cotnmission t'eceived e ' presantaUon by the WSD07 Diviston of AviaQion on. the requirements ' • on December $ 2005. Planning Gommlflsion was brisfed on the •proposed amendments on -January 12, •2006, arid hiBld' a public hearing on February 9, 2008.* ' • . , • : • • eACKGROUND: • . ' • . . . • • _ . • Felfs Fteid is lacated adJacant to the,Cify df Spok,ane Va.lley. Approximatety 10 ac-es of the . etrport Is includad tivithfn tfie Ctty's aorporete limits. Properfy edjotntng ffia airport is gensral(y ' fully.devafoped ind zaned low decrsity cesidentlal ond industrial. Felts C'fe(d ts apub(ie reliever airport primariiy handling generel evlaUon. As 'such, it Is regulated pursuant to Chapter 77 of the ~ Code of.Fedaral Regulations. Safaty and hetght regulaUon ts es#ablished by zedera~ regulaflon . based on the Iength of ihe runtNay. , • ~ . . Federal requinemenfis are generally overseen by the INsDOT Qivisfon of Aviatlon, 7he, proposzd ' amendment brings the aIrspace hazard planas into cor►formance with federal requirements and • ' also estabCshes •land use compatibjlR}r zanes restricting cartain land uses in proxim(ty to Felts 011e1d. . . . • . • . , : , . . . A Daterminatfon of Kon-Signtficance ti►ras lssuad on December 1, 2005 :witii cQinments d,ue not ' ' later then January. ~1 S, 2008 arid a dre~t propasal ~~as submitfed to C"CED and'ot~~er agenctes far - tfietr revtevi on December 3, 2005,' • • • OPTtONS: 1. Repeai Chapter 14.702 tn Its entirety. • l. • 2. Approve amendments as submtLtted. . . • . , 3. Provtde staff wifh direction cancemtng addi#tonai amendments. RECOMMENDED ACT10N 6R MOTION: - °I recommend approval of Spokane Ualley ' • : Orc~lnance No. 06- ~rx amonding SVNIC 40,309.06 by omending Chapter 14.702 Atrpott Hazard Overlay, (AO) zone itt the viclnity of Fetts Fietd.': . • , . . • ' BUDGET/FiNANCIAL. lMPAC78: None. , ' . . STAFF CONTACT; Manna Suicup, AICP, Community DevzloPment Qirector • . , • , . . . . . • • . . ' ATTACill11(EN7S: ' . • , , . . Oraft Ordinanve, Comment Lefter WsDflT D[vislon af Aviation, Sound Comoarisons , - • • . ~ ' . • . ' ' ~...r....... _ . , . ~ . ~ . • . ~ . , . . Gvthntann, seccnrled by Deputy Aluynr - 1"aylor, cnd rosrmfmousfy. agned to apprrove the rntnutes as chimged rrEvv BvsLNZss • - : 2. SecondReadiDer Pmno~ed Ocdsnaztce 06-00I. LFR 1 Intenm Zonina-Marina Sukuo ~ Aier City Clsrk Balnbridgv rcad tho ardiriance tido, it was moved by Depuly Mayor Taylor card se"aonded ~ by Cosmcilmember kt'sMaA to apprflve Ordin~ 06-001. Cocnmimity Daveiopment 13ircctiar Sukl.rp ezpTaiued tbmi other than the twb previously noted correctioas in the Findings of Fact, a.g. comct • district nnmber for Vea~a, 4nd tha dsta, nci ejbenges heve bsen ~ade to ti~a ordinanr,n, '~iyor ~V°~Ihiis inv2rer~ pubiie commenr, ao 'comments wwe offsied. Yotc by leclmrrution: In Fcrvor: thcaninious ' ' OPFased.• None. Abstentians: Nona Matinn carricd ' . , . • • • • • . . ' sed-04bmi . . . t. . Praviously removed from the egcada. , . ' • . . • . . . . . . ' • . 4, First Rcading•'ronosec~ Ord.inajtce 06-003 Amendine Aviation A.rea N"a Suactro • After City'Clerlc•Bainbridgo rcad the ordinaaco tids,it was maved b~~'Councflmember 14iurrson and • seconded ta crQ'varrce tlte ardinance to a second reading Coirirntunity Uevelopiient Di'recfiar oxplhined . ~ that Couucil Nvas_briefcd last fiall en the inoonsistezicies befwcca the iniarim 41rport Ovarlay zono regvla#ions, sFa:e guidclinwes nnd tho federal'regnlatioDs; that the Ptanning Commissian was hrie.fed on tho • propvsed amendrnents to~tlus`ardiaance~, thay he,ld a publia hearing Februa~y 9, 2046, and prior bo t5at receivsd'a present$iion -by WSb,CYT Divisian of Aviation on the requiremenis. Ms. Sukup explaineti tha# the propDsed amendments wiU hring the eispaccs har.ard ordinaacs inbo confarmanca •with fcdcral , requ3rements, and estabUsh land usc compatibility zonss ratricting ccrtain land uses in pjoximtty to Feits Ficld. Ms. Sukup addod dlat tlao Planning Commissfon alsa Xccoinmeud$d the delation of "medicat f~edl'rties" as found Qn pagB 6, sabssctian lo. Counail concuzred to delete "med.ical facilities" as iuentioned above, and on the "prohibited usal fiabla; bo edd a Iko indicating tbat the "dat=' ind.ieated the usa is prahibited. Mayor Wilhita invited Public aommEnt. Di'ck Bchn, 3626 S R3deeS►iew Drire; 99200 said be is impressed w'sth tWs ordiuance; that atthougb Felts Field only has a sma11 portian in Spokano Valley, ow City and dw City af Spokano will benefit equally, Mayar Wiihita invitcd furthar publio commant; no further commenits ware otfbrcd. ' It ivas rnnved by Cousrcllmember _Altmson ccnd seconded, to [tmend the motfon to irtclude lF.e removal of • tlm term "medlcal faciliKes " Yoie by acclarrratton to cunend the motion: In Favor: Unan ftr:otu; Opposed: I1rone, Abtsfentirnu: NOlts, ltifotton carried. Y'oi-to by acclanratton to advanee tlre ordinance to a secoru? Teatluig wflh llsr ChaPrge Of delaiirrg the 3vords"ns.edical facllities" as found on pagE G, subsection le: .T» r-'avor: Ifnanfmous. Opposed; .None Abstentiotrs: None. Mo1Yon carried. , 5.11[otion Consideration: Meniom~ndum af Understandinp p6th Snokane Cotmtv RezardinR 2006 Sewer C021b't1t]_CtYQiI g10emlla -1TE11 KQ~~,l It was nwveJ by Cotvicilmember Muruon anrJ secoxded by Depury Mayor Taylnr to autlwrize the City . Mmwger to execute the 41'emormdun: of Ardlsarities wtth Spokaw County for fuff-wfdlh paving cosrs crssociated wilh S,pokcrne Cotnrty's 2006 Sewer Construction Fragranr; _ P~blic Works Director Kerstea . expIained tho pavaback program as pex his acrcompaaylagFebruary 8, 2006*n1em0*randuIIi, meatioaed thai the adoption of the 2006 budget in.oludes fimds For fu11-widffi strcct paviag associatEd witfi the County's Sewer lProgram; gnd 'explai,aad the pmject intibhred, esstirruated raad irnprovement casts,' ard estimatrd drainage improvement costs. MayarWMhits invitied publia ccmm~nt; no cammei~ts were of~e~ed. ' • . ' ~ . " ' • Cfluuc4 &cussian included mentiQn tb.at full-width pavuag wfll not be douo sutomatieally every year; • that ths dallars = well spent; co.atingency ftmds; not wanting to send the wrong message to the voters ' who vated against such a policy; and raasanable blds. Yote by Acclnmatinn: rn Favor:Mayor Yq'llhhe, ~ , . ' ♦ • . Council MePting; 02-I4-06 • Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 02-28-06 ~ . ~ . • • ' ' . . . ~ ' . . • . . _ . . . • _ . , , • ~ . • ~ . . C. - ~ , C!Ty OF SPOK#Nri 11ALLEY ' . ' Reqttest foc Coun~~l Actiari ' - . . , ' Meeting Qaia: Sepfentber20, 2I]D5 ' . . • . • - • • ~ ; itEm: Checka[I t~t~t app1y: co~sac~E.~ 0 ajd 6u~~ness ' L r~e'~r busiriess C] publio hea~ing ' Enf`vina~on 10 ajmirt. rzpoct fl 'pending 1egIsTatlan . , . . . . . . , , , aGr=NDA ITem;3'ITLE: . Adminlstrafi+re Repoirt •A9rport fhrefty Zoning ' Gg1lERNlNC lEGISlAT(t3N;• ~ RCW 38,70, 4okan-3 Va{ley Ordanance 03-53 PREVI(7US COLlNClL E1CfiON TAl4EN: Entirlm DeveEopment Regulatiflns Spokane Caunty Zo.n9ng Code Seckfon 14702 • . r. . . ~ • . • . ~ . . • ; .'t _ , • ~ ~ BACKGROUND: , ~ . ' . , . • TeR acm Qf F'e[ts Fiefd !s loca#ed vAh;n the Spokane 1lalley limif .FeIfs Fietd Is ownsd joinly . by the. city aF Spokift, Spakano: Counf~ and the 11j~act Board-' gs:,fenants fn common. ' . SpoS~ar~a 1l~f[ey eXecu#ed arr* qgr~eemsr~.t acknowlEdgtn~ tha adopted Alrcsrt'N4asiec F'lart in '200~. ' • . . . . , , . , . . • . . . Airport Overfay zonirtg Es intertded ta pr-ofec# publlc airpods ff'am encroachment by-'riafu~t or man-made hazar~cts ti~vf~ich v~ould rreate unreasnnaUie sa~'ety haza~ds fdr a~rcrdt~. The purpose - of fhe repprt- is •to expEatn ~he presenf attport nv2~iay ~ot~ing anr~ to s~ek Cruncil direc~ar~ concaming Rossible changes.• . , . , . . . . , . . . , • ' . . . . ~ . • . ~ ~ , . . . ~ _ . . . , ~ . , . . • . - . ~ . . : , • . - . . • • _ . ' . . , . ~ . ~ • . . ~ . ~ oPTIONS: fnforma'Llan only. . ~ . , . . . . , . , , . RECOMMENDED ACT1ON OR NIQTI£}N: fnfarrnattart onfy ~ • . . • . ' • ' ~ . ~ 8U,DGET1F1NANCJAL.IMPACT8:- None: . . . . • . . . . . ' ~ • - . . , ~ STAFF;CUN'fAGT: 'Marina Sukup, AICP, Communifty Revelflamenf Diractor , . . . Aracxmev's: ' ~ ' ' ~ • . s gresentation . : . ' • . - . , , . ~ . , i . . - - ~ . . . . . . , . . . . , . „ , , . , • . . . . . . ~ • ' ' , ' relaticn to our posr'blO future programs, N1r. Jeckson also retnindad Cottncil that the Plan is flexible, and thess wil4 be future opportvaities for filrthor public input: ~te~ay Ria,ht~f-wa~'r.~nsfer Aiscus~gp-Neil Xersten/CarK,Driskeu • . • Fublic Works Director Kedstcn stated tha.t be celayasl to SQokmne Couaiy, tba Cii}r's concams about some of the issues Inti►olved with fialciag over tha Appleway right-of-liray, wbich issum were ccntaffied in the draft quit claina decd. DepuEy Caty Aaomey r)riskeu safd that ha has contaotea rha county's lepl deparbment on this issue, and whife no responss has br,P,n recetved yet, the Counfiy indicaied they hope to hsv8 such by tho ,jolut Scpternbcr 29 meetinz V!'r. Y4rsten rn=tioned thei ho and Ross Kelly havo discussed the property end tfia possibilZty of giants, and that they eontiauc to tivork o[rt the details so this . can bo discusscd fcnt~icr at tho u~.+comi.hg jourt Couni}►lCify meetmg. ~ . . . , , , 7. Aqolewav Sianage - Carv })riskell Nei1 TCembi • ' , Public Woiks bireotar Kerstr.n gavo a brief waview of whai was presEnted previausty conceniing sigas on Appletivay, on whet wa can and cannot do regnrding the bluc signs, and wbgt might wa do in terrns af ' othe,r form3 of commeraf$I advertising in the riOit;of-way if that is rouncil's pleasura; , Mr.l3riskell ntBUtioDSd his baCkgrOtuid LnfoniiatiOII, end comeeted a mis-statcmerrt m the packet fhat tha . sigu codo adflpted by the City did not confain the definrtion of wbat au official sign is, but that is not the caso as the " dafcaition is inaluded.. At#orney Driskeil then v►fent tfirough his PowerPoirit presentation. CouaciUsmff • discussion iucladed that Conncil couid make tfio policy choica to, aUow commercial advertis:Ag i.a thc , Af-~+ay; tho sign cainmittca'cduld'bo asked fo axplaro other ogtions; the op'Ioa of hirin,g a design consuftant; ' ~~g of pubIic fund'~use of si 'gas for. clu'ec~~onal purpase; makiug the si' suora readable without necessarily advcrtising thQ budne;ses; how to deberm3ne who gets a sigii and who does no~ gnd , the pmcess of charging the cost, af the sign. Iti was determiaed that the Sign Committee will be iavotved in brin,ging back a recommendation tn Council, and tnemb$r3 bf that commiEteo wil3 be asi-ed to dEftsmine a tmelinis oFNvhen this issno can be re-addressed by Cotmoil.' ' N14ror 1Vt'Ihits calietl far Arecass at 7:33 p.m., and xeconvencd the meating er 7:44 p.w. . . . • , , . ' 8. Airnart Overlav Zone iv1'P.rina Sukvi) . . Community l?cvelopmtuit Director Sukug explained dit+.t thes pUfjZ05@ Gf 1t119 dISCUSS10n ]S tD CXpWIl th0 , presr-ut airgart overlRy zoning end t4 seck Council direction canGorung posm'ble chenges. Sha explamecl ' that this tssun can3e up baseci,on Q pratesE &ont a. propsrty ov,mer~who want,ed to build a builciiag and did . aflt want'fo gr'Ve fl LtaVlgddoii cassrntat; Ms:• Sukup, ;n goin.g throngh her 'PowerPoint prescntWon, eVlaiaed tha# diftrent xules appty fvt Fehs FicId arYd Fairchild 4ir Fqrco Base; aad she,addsd that atthls point sho has nat been ablo to discuss tlli.s, issue with the airport mgnager, and aeeds to confiim the . ' federal reguiations unless there uo spsc''ic uregularities with Felts Field, City A#emey Connelly added tfiat wbiie ho has not cvmpared the hvtS ci4f~rtnt typ,m of ~irports, lie will research tn' discover the ntiaimum staaclard9. Xt wss also menti4nad that the Airport Board, along witla the g{rport inmaer abou4d bo eonSUkted. M. Sukup stated fhat iF thera, ts a requirsment for'navigation for'developmant, theA ihere . may a]so ba such for aU devBiopmew enci not jvst commcrcial developmcnt, It was dWruaincd that staff ' wiU eonduct further research by cheeking with the airport~the airport board, aDCI federal'regulatiog9. , • , ' 9. Communicatiou Tnfrastrvctura Ad'Hoc Corntnittes -Mavqr Wilhits_ , Mayor Vdhita explaincd tliat at the August 30 council study sassion, sho suggexted farming e cidtien Ad Hac Committeo to address ona of Counci(''s gvals, that af coinmunicatian inftastracfiurs; ard ftt it tivas • suggested Council might want to consider writimg a missian stetement for such commi46ea, Mayor - Wilhita eaplained Ehat sbe did not iec$ive aay suggKStions fram coaneilmembers, and therefate proposed . t~e fallowing pa,ssion and visibn StatelIIBDtS:- MissloD; to map: tiie cuaem.t teiccommunic.3tions infrastructiir8 In Spolcane Valley and devclop a p4an on how to provide both tiyire and tiv7eless • cammuuicafiions %tiitun oLm ci#y limits; Vision: posifiion Spokane Valley as the c,emmunity af choica for r • ' • ' ' . • ~ , Siu6y Scstf o11 Mhutw: 09-24-05 F9gC 3 oi 4 {Ippravcdby Counr3l: 10-11-05 A_,..... • . . . , • ' • r' ~ • . . ~ Aglftk ' • Washinston State • aYiaUoRDt'Vi3i077 ~ ' Departrrient of,'['ransportation 3704172nd straet, Sulcs Ic22. Douglas B. MacDvnaid • ' P.O. 602 3367 , Secretary of TranspDrt$tion ' FaUUn9tw,WaShUs&n 98223-3367 360•651-63001 1-380-552-0888 • _ ' • , , , Fax 360-831•8318 ' 'fil': i-8Q~?-833-8385 y 31, 2006 - : _ • ~~wv.w~otv►a.gav - . Januar . . . . . • . . ..t,~ t , . , , • . 1vk. David Crosby, Chair Plannu~g Comnussivn ' • ~ . . • . . . . . City of Spokne Va11ey 11707 E. Spraaue, Suite 106 • ' SpokanQ V'aliey; WA 99206 . . . . . . ' ' • • RE: Proposed Aixport I4azerd Overlay Ordrnance • ' ' . , . . • , Dear Chauxuan.Cr,osby: ' . ' , . . . . . . . ' Thank yvu fox thc oppoztunifiy to comment on 'die proposed Airport Hamrd Qverlay , Ordinan6e. The 'GVasbi.ngton Stato Deparmaent of Transpartafiion (WSDOI) A'viation Dxvision sv.pporta the proposed- annendmeat- - We believe it is an i.mpottant stcp in . pratecting Felta Ficld Aixpart from encroacb.memt by incouipatible developm.en4 and will . hstp preserve tho viabUity af the airpart in thib ftitura. • • , . , ' . N • WSbOTAviatian works wM local comxnunities ficross Wa;~tom Stateto encourage a .~balance betwa-n preservation of transpartatibn infrastructure aud quality o#'ae. Zn,1996, 'tho Wasbi.ugton Sfiate Legislature ameaded the Cnowi,t Management 'Acfi to requ6. ell cifiies_ and counties to protact ' airpo 'zis'• froin ' i.uconpatibIo land tises through comprehensive planuaz~g and development xegulat{ons. Tbzougki the Airport ~.anci Uso Compatibility Pxograin., WSDOT Aviation prov,ides techniaal Assisstance fo help _ ,luixsdict3ons comply ~m:h thc law. . . - . , . . . . . , . The eity's ' pzoposed Airport •Har.ard Otijerlay witl help jpzofect the ahport from enczoaahmenf., Z'he amend.naeat im. ases ~ieight licn.i#s near t~.e ai ' p rport tp unprove safety, amd limits land uses that may interf~re with a.irport 'opwa#,ions and conficibute to -health aud safety cancerns fax the communify. We recompaend the city include its Iand use compatibility and airport heigb.t b,azards maps in:the comprehen$ive plann to reinfotce their ioaportance. To further enbauce these grot~cttons; the city wiil bo worldng with the ' Spokane, .Airport Board on the easamentlcovenantldisclosure notice ua comin~ ~ montbs. • . . we svpporf tfus collaboratioia and look forward to v~rorking yvith both parties. ' • . • . . , • . . . ~ . . Thbse protections dm= porf,ant fo'r ~e a~iport, wbi c~i ~ • supp6rt's a'variety of act~vities and ,~•sig ~n.i~ . . ~ • • . . ~ . ~ is-a• , . caiit eco~.omic reso~'r.cot •for'the zegian. •~or ext~aa le; severaI bu~taesses ar~ located an ' azt P~Pc~Y, Provi~ ' aviativA servic,es ine~u ''$i t scbooUfli~t . . ~P , . . . , . ,••.ti Erai~kg, a~i~rxa& zen#al and sales; aviation' accessory and pilot supply salos, sightseeing • tours and cbarGcr, aad• aircraft mauntennee'and modi#'ication. In additaon, Spokanc ' . Connnurnity College operates its aviatioa me3ntena,uce pxogrram at Felts Field, Iia tofial, . ' ~ . . . • , • . , • , M, Dava.d Crosby . • January 31, 2006 • • Page 2 . . ' approxiwately 300 airciaft are based ax the auport. A study conducted by WSnOT im 200I e;stimated that the aizpoxt geuetates $16,5•mullion in total annual saies.output. Thank you agai.n for the oppozbunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Adoptzon • of the•~Airport Hazaxd Overlay wiU help pxevent fubure emcroachmont of incompaatiible . Iand vses and protect the opetatiam of Felt3 Field. .~1'0 offdr oiir conti.nued technical • assistance to address aviatiun issues and Ioo}~ forqvard to working with the city i.a the fixture. • . . . . . S't.ncezely, . ~ . . - Kexxx Woehler . . Aviation plannex • - , Cc: Mar'i~a Sukup, DirecCor of Conimilnity DevclopmentlPlanni.ng . ' . . . David Crotivner, Spok.ane ArportY3oatd . . . ' Dee Caputo, Washington Stafe Department of Communiiy, Trade and Ecagow.ic . • Developman.t . . • . • . • , . . ~ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off. Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information 0 admin report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Valley Mission Park Improvements Project GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Capital funding approved for this project in 2009 Capital Budget. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2008, Tim Gavin was retained to develop bid ready construction drawings and specifications for the Valley Mission Park improvements to include new play equipment, a new picnic shelter, additional security lighting, new walkways and new landscaping. The construction package has been prepared and we are scheduled to open bids on March 13, 2009. Staff anticipates construction for these improvements to begin in April and be completed by June 1, 2009. This will be timely as the summer season begins then and the new facilities are anxiously anticipated by park patrons. These improvements will also coincide with the June 17th grand re-opening of Valley Mission Pool with its new zero-depth entry pool. Staff's intent is to bring forward a motion consideration for March 24 to award the construction bid to the lowest responsible OPTIONS: Advance bid award for motion consideration Provide additional direction to staff RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to move the bid award forward to the March 24 Council Agenda for motion consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funds included in 2009 Park Capital budget. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ~ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Indiana Avenue Extension Project - TIB Grant GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of 2009-2014 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan on June 24, 2008 (Resolution #08-014) which included the Indiana Extension Project; Approved on August 12, 2008 a motion to submit TIB Grant Application for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project; Info RCA in February 24th Council Packet. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley was successful in receiving a TIB grant for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project under TIB's Urban Corridor Program (UCP). The City applied for project grant funds in August of 2008, and was notified November 25, 2008, that funding has been approved for this road extension project. The proposed project would extend Indiana Ave east to the Mission/Flora intersection as a three-lane roadway including a center left turn lane, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike lanes, and drainage improvements. This project will help alleviate congestion along Broadway Ave and Sullivan Rd by completing a missing link and providing an east-west route immediately north of I-90. The City has obtained written support from Hanson Industries, Inc., Spokane Transit, and Centennial Properties, Inc. to move forward with this project. However, before we can request grant reimbursement for costs associated with this project, the attached Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreements must be signed by the Mayor and returned to TIB for processing. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to move this item forward for motion consideration at the March 10th council meeting BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS. The City has been granted TIB funds in the amount of $1,566,850, for the project specified above. Additional funding on this project consists of City of Spokane Valley for $314,900; Private Developer - Centennial Properties for $529,688; and Private Developer - Hanson Industries for $200,000. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreements (2); Project Funding Status Form (1); Attachment 1- Project Funding Summary (1), Correspondence from WA St TIB to Neil Kersten aft!:; Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Fuel "fax Grant Distribution Agreement LEAD AGENCY: ~ SPOKANE VALLEY PROJECT NUMBER: 9-E-208(002)-1 PROJECT TITLE: ~ Indiana Avenue PROJECT TERMINI: ~ 3,600' e/o Sullivan to Mission & Flora _ 1.0 PURPOSE The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (hereinafter referred to as "TIB") hereby grants funds for the project specified in the attached documents, and as may be • subsequently amended, subject to the terms contained herein. It is the intent of the parties, TIB and the grant recipient, that this Agreement shall govern the use and distribution of the grant funds through all phases of the project. Accordingly, the project specific information shall be contained in the attachments hereto and incorporated herein, as the project progresses through each phase. This Agreement, together with the attachments hereto, the provisions of chapter 47.26 Revised Code of Washington, the provisions of title 479 Washington Administrative Code, and TIB Policies, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supercedes all previous written or oral agreements between the parties. 2.0 PARTIES TO AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are TIB, or its successor, and the grant recipient, or its successor, as specified in the attachments. 3.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by TIB and shall continue through completion of each phase of the project, unless terminated sooner as provided herein. , 4.0 AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 5.0 ASSIGNMENT The grant recipient shall not assign or transfer its rights, benefits, or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of TIB. The grant recipient is deemed to consent to assignment of this Agreement by TIB to a successor entity. Such consent shall not constitute a waiver of the grant recipient's other rights under this Agreement. 6.0 GOVERNANCE & VENUE This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington and venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. TIB Form 190-500 Page 1 of 3 Rev. 2/14/2003 s~ Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement 7.0 TERMINATION 7.1 UNILATERAL TERMINATION Either party may terminafie this Agreement upon 30 days' prior written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for perFormance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 7.2 TERMINATION BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT Either party may terminate this contract in whole or in part, at any time, by mutual agreement with a 30 calendar day written notice from one party to the other. 7.3 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE In the event Tld determines the grant recipient has failed to comply with the conditions of this Agreement in a timely manner, TIB has the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement. TIB shall notify the grant recipient in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within 30 days, the Agreement may be terminated. TIB reserves the right to suspend all or part of the Agreement, withhold further payments, or prohibit the grant recipient from incurring additional obligations of funds during the investigation of the alleged compliance breach and pending corrective action by the grant recipient or a decision by TIB to terminate the Agreement. The grant recipient shall be liable for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, repayment of misused grant funds. The termination shall be deemed to be a Termination for Convenience if it is determined that the grant recipient: (1) was not at fault, or (2) failure to perform was outside of the grant recipient's control, fault or negligence. The rights and remedies of TIB provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. 7.4 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE TIB may, by ten (10) days written notice, beginning on the second day after the mailing, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, because federal or state funds are no longer available for the purpose of ineeting TIB's obligations, or for any reason. If this Agreement is so terminated, TIB shall be liable only for payment required under this Agreement for perfiormance rendered or costs incurreai prior to'The effeciive dafe of termination. 7.5 TERMINATION PROCEDURE Upon receipt of notice of termination, the grant recipient shall stop work and/or take such action as may be directed by TI6. TIB Form 190-500 Page 2 of 3 Rev. 2/14/2003 Washingfon Sfafe Transportation Improvement Board -Z Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement 8.0 AVAILABILITY OF TIB FUNDS The availability of Transportation Improvement Board funds is a function of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections and existing contractual obligations. The local agency shall submit timely progress billings as project costs are incurred to enable accurate budgeting and fund management. Failure to submit timely progress billings may result in delayed payments or the establishment of a payment schedule. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachments are incorporated into this agreernent with subsequent amendments as needed. Apprnved as to Form This 14th Day of February, 2003 Rob McKenna Attorney General By: Signature on file Elizabeth Lagerberg Assistant Attorney General Lead Agency Transportation Improvement Board Signature of Chairman/Mayor Date Executive Director Date Print Name Print Name TIB Form 190-500 Page 3 of 3 Rev. 2/14/2003 ~ Transportation Improvement Board Project Funding Status Form Agency SPOKANE VALLEY TIB Project Number: 9-E-208(002)-1 ProjectName Indiana Avenue 3,600' e/o Sullivan to Mission & Flora Venfy the information below and revise if necessary Return to Transportation Improvement Board PO Box 40901 Olympia, WA 98504-0901 PROJECT SCHEDULE MDa~~Sho n'on Re sedyDates Applic_ation , Construction Approval Date Contract Bid Award Oct 2010 Contract Completion Jan 2011 PROJECT FUNDING PARTNERS List additional fundinq partners and amount ~ a~~~~it~t'~ f ZF.r ~~Y1~~•~~~`~',", ~i`~ jk ` F~d~t9~~.~i a r'trit`~'S+x"-.~! ,~r-~x- 4.'~..~.n.r.~,~,• :°~1'~e~ ~k~~ia~ v~a~~'~"~ SPOKANE VALLEY 314,900 WSDOT 0 Federal Funds 0 Developer - Centennial Properties 529,688 Developer - Hanson Industries 200,000 I TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS ~ 1,044,588 I Both agency officials must sign the form before returning it to the TIB office. Mayor or Public Works Director Signature Date Printed or Typed Name Title Financial Officer Slgnature Date Printed or Typed Name Title ' TIB Funding Status Report Attachment 1 Project Funding Summary Project Information Lead Agency SPOKANE VALLEY Project Number 9-E-208(002)-1 Project Title Indiana Avenue Project Termini 3,600' e/o Sullivan to Mission & Flora TIB funds for the project are: Phase TIB Funds Design 156,650 Right of Way 0 Construction 1,410,200 Total Grant 1,566,850 TIB Form 190-600 Rev 2/14/2003 *~Bhlnbton Srat e Washington State ~1 9 Transportation Impravement Board al~~n Impto "4e~ TIB Members - November 25, 2008 inalmember Jeanne Burbidge D Charr, Cfty of Federal Way ~ CommissfonerGregParich Mr. Neil Kersten G~L ~ 2~~U~ Vice CRav, Whrtman County Public Works Director r°~orv`~ ~~,8r City of Spokane Valley ;oundlmemberSamCrawFord 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 E;' Whatoom County Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Kathleen Davis wsQOT Dear Mr. Kersten: Mark Freiberger, P E Crty of Sedro-Woolley cratary Paula Hammond, P E Congratulations! We are pleased to announce the selection of your project, Indiana wsaot Avenue, 3,600' e/o Sullivan to Mission & Flora, TIB project number 9-E-208(002)-1. The NiayorJames Irish total TIB contribution for this project is $1,566,850. Giy ol La Center Doreen Marchlone Nopellnk Before any work is allowed on this project, you must: CouncilmemberNeil M1cClure • Verify the information on the Program Funding Status form, revise if necessary, CdyofYakrma and sign, Dick P,9cKinley . Submit the section of your adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan Crty oJ Batlirtgham Dave tdelson listing this project; Grant County . Sign both copies of the Fuel Tax Agreement; JiII Satran . Return the above items to TIB; ffice of Flnanclal Management • You may begin work only after you receive notification from TIB. Heid1 Stamm HS Publrc Affarrs Harold KtngCountyMefroTrensit If you have questions, please contact Gloria Bennett, TIB Project Engineer, at (360) SteveThomsen,pE 586-1143 or e-mail G1oriaB5,T1B.wa.aov. Snohomish County John Vodop(ch Sincerely' Cdy of 8onney Lake Jay Weber ~ . - ity Road Adminrstrafron 8osrd 1 Ralph Wessels, P E ?icycle ,411fance of WashLTgtan Cormissioner Mike WiIsan Stevan Gorcester Grays Harbor County Executive Director Enclosure Stevan Gorcesler Executrve Orrector P O Box 40901 Otympia, WA 98504-0901 Phona 360-586-1140 Fax 360-586-1165 vN,nv tib wa gov Investing in your local community CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information 0 admin report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Memorandum of Understanding 2009 Sewer Paveback Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of the 2009 Budget, which includes funds for full-width street paving associated with Spokane County's 2009 Sewer Construction Program; Sewer projects on list of 2009 Anticipated Council Actions for Public Works Capital Improvement Projects presented at the February 10, 2009 council meeting. BACKGROUND: Spokane County's 2009 Septic Tank Elimination Program includes five projects within the City of Spokane Valley: West Ponderosa Sanitary Sewer Project (Phase I and Phase II) -#0106 This project will be split into two phases with 44th Avenue being the boundary The project is currently being designed by Spokane County staff. Bid advertisement for Phase I(north of 44th Ave) is scheduled for early March. Phase II (44th Avenue and area south) is scheduled for late March or early April. The Phase II project will include our 44t' Avenue Pathway project (CIP #0054), which is currently being designed by staff. The project limits are from Locust Road to VanMarter Road, south city limits to Dishman- Mica Valleyview Sanitary Sewer Project - #0107 The project is currently being designed by Taylor Engineering for Spokane County. Bid advertisement is scheduled for March The staff designed stormwater and curbing improvements at 16th and Bettman (CIP #0100) will be bid with this project. The project limits are from Buttercup Road to David Road, Lake Road to 13th Ave. Rotchford Acres Sanitary Sewer Project -#0108 The project is currently being designed by Spokane County. Bid advertisement is scheduled for April. The project limits are from Sullivan Road to Steen Road, 16th Ave to 10`h Ave. Clement Sanitary Sewer Project - #0109 The project is currently being designed by Varela & Associates for Spokane County. Bid advertisement is scheduled for April. Project limits are from Flora Road to Greenacres Road, 6th Ave to Sprague Ave. Paveback costs which determine the city's cost to provide fuii-width paving and drainage improvements for the four sewer basin are summarized below: City of Spokane Valley Share 2009 Estimated Road & Drainage Improvement Costs Estimated Estimated D . 11• Projects Improvement Costs • • - - Costs Estimated Total Costs $1,300,000 $200,000 The City also applied for CDBG funds and was successful in obtaining a preliminary recommendation in the amount of $211,095 to assist with full-width paving costs associated with the Clement project. Final approval of the CDBG funds is not expected until April. As was done last year, Spokane County will bid some of these projects with an alternate bid schedule, one schedule with trenching and asphalt patching, another schedule with full-width paving. The difference in bids between these two schedules reflects the City's costs. This approach allows us to take advantage of credits that Spokane County would typically pay for on a trench/patch project. These credits include pavement saw cutting, crack sealing, and pavement surface sealing. Attached is a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the City of Spokane Valley's reimbursement to the county for our share of the paving and drainage costs. This draft MOU is based on the same MOU approved by Council for last year's sewer program Section 6 of the agreement regarding invoicing was modified to reflect preferred periodic invoicing. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2009 Street Capital Projects Fund includes $1,500,000 for the 2009 STEP projects; $1,000,000 from Street Capital Fund, $200,000 from Stormwater Fund, $300,000 in CDBG grant funds. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M Worley, Senior Engineer - Capital Improvement Program Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2009 Sewer Construction Program MOU DRAFT Memueandum of Understanding - ]Between the City of Spakane Valley and Spokane Cvuaty Pavement Replacement Cast Sharing and Drainage Imprnvemenf Costs For the 20[}9 Sewer Construc#ian Program WHE-REAS the City of Spokane Valley (the CITY) and Spokane County (the CQUNTY) desire to work cvllaboratively to construc# partioDS of the CDLNTY's 2009 Sewer Cansfruction Program together with CIT!' pavrng and drainage improvernent prajects; and W]HEREAS the CIT'Y desires that the roads impacted by the canstruction of sewers in the 2009 Sewer Canstructivn Program be reconstructed tp the full preconstruction width for an 1iriprDVed roadway surface; and WHEREAS the CITY alsQ desia'es that pavement reglacement work be extended in some areas beyand the limits of'sewer construction; and V.FkEkEAS #he CITY also desires that certain drainage improvements be canstructed in areas that will be impacted by the CC)UNTY's 2009 Sewee Coilstructifln Program, and WIMREAS the costs of such full width regaving, additional Iength of road reconstrLiction, and miscellaneous drarnage improvemenks arc not fLlxided by the COCJNT1'"'s Sewer Construction Program, and said costs wili need to be pard by the CITY; and WHEREAS the 2009 Sewer Constructron Program includes the West Ponderosa Phase I, West Ponderasa Phase II, Valleyview, Rotchford Acres arrd Clement Sewer PrOjects within the 1iYnits of the CITY, as identifed in the COIIN'T`Y's adapted Six-Year Sewer Capital 7mprovement Program 2009-2014. NOW rHEREFORE, the CITY and th~ ~~UN7Y do here6y agree as follows: I Prior to the bid of each project, the C~UNTY shall provide the CIT'Y vvith a set of project plansy tagether with cost estirnates indicating the extent of pavetnent removal and replacement to 6e paid for hy the COLFNTY as a part of the sewer project The CITY sha11 review the plans and estimate, and shall aduise #he ~OIJNTY regarding the extent t~r whieh the CITY c3esires to add paverr-rent removal ant~ replacement,, as r~~ell as the sgecific drainage improvements that the CITY wauld like ta make in cpnjunction with the project. 2. 7'h~ COUNTY sball prepare brd documents that include the addLtiQnal work that is requested by the CITY. The CI`IY may request that the CDLTNTY include a Base Bid SchedLLle and an Altemate Bid Schedule in the bid doeumer►ts to ailow for a rnore accurate determinatian ofthe true cost impact ofthe additional wQrk requested by the CI1`Y. 3 After t-ie bids for a project are opened, the CUUNTY shall prepare the bid tabulation and provide a capy to the CITY on the day of the bid, tog,ether with acalculation of the CITY's estimated share of the project cost based upon the unit prices subrnitted by the low bidder. If the CITY then decides to proceed with the desired irnprovements, the CITY shall provide a written notiee ta the COUNTY within three days of the receipt of the bid tabulation. Memorandum of Understanding 2009 Sewer Paveback Program Fage 1 of 2 DRAFT 4. The CITY's maximum cost for the five projects shall not exceed $1,500,000.00 without written authorization by the CITY. The COUNTY shall not proceed with any work that would increase the CITY's cost to an amount greater than the total amount authorized. The estimated CITY costs are presented in Table 1 below. The CITY and the COUNTY recognize that this estimated total cost is for planning purposes, and that the actual amount will be based upon final quantities and actual contract prices. 5. If the CITY subsequently elects to make additions to the scope of the project, the CITY shall request such additional work in writing. A corresponding adjustment shall then be made to the CITY's share of the cost based upon the resulting increase in pay quantities and the associated contract bid prices. For work items requested by the CITY that are not covered by the contract bid prices, the COUNTY shall prepare a change order for the CITY's review and acceptance prior to work items being constructed. 6. As paving operations are undcrtaken for each project, the COUNTY will send progress invoices (no more than one per month) to the CITY for the CITY's portion of the cost of roadway and drainage improvements. When all paving and drainage work is completed on a project, the COUNTY will send a final invoice to the CITY for the remainder of the CITY's portion of tlle project costs. For each project that is not completed by the close of the 2009 construction season, tlle COtTNTY will send a progress invoice to the CITY prior to December 31, 2009. TABLE 1 City of Spokane Valley Share 2009 Estimated Road & Drainage Improvement Costs Estimated Estimated Drainage Road Improvement Costs 2009 Projects Improvement Costs Estimated Total Costs $1,300,044 $ 200,000 SPOKANE COUNTY: By: Date: N. Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Date: David Mercier, City Manager Memorandum of Understanding 2009 Sewer Paveback Program Pabe 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date March 3, 2009 City Manager SiBn-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information 0 admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : False Alarm Discussion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNGIL ACTION TAKEN: Council requested further information reference outsourcing the false alarm program BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2009, discussion was held regarding false alarms and the ordinance goveming them, including the pros and cons, potential solutions, and problems with the current system, which is not cost efficient. A possible solution would be outsourcing with a company called °CryWolf , which would have no direct cost to Spokane Valley. Outsourcing would remove the courts from the equation, thus saving court time, clerical time, and taxpayer dol(ars. The objective would be to reduce the number of false alarms, free up officers' time to deal with other services, and un-clog the court. Direction was given to explore the ability to piggyback on the City of Spokane's contract and provide specific language for council consideration. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTtON: Council concuRence to move forward to procure false alarm contract; and to proceed with ordinance draft. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police ATTACHMENTS 200712008 Comparison: Number of Alarms for Valley of Spokane 700 - No Penalty Fee 630 600 616 - - 500 - ~ € 400 a [32007 o ■ 2008 ~ m ° - - E 300 0 z 213 200 , 100 70 81 55 i' 40 tt 0 1 st alarm 2nd alarm 3rd alann 4th/above alarm Annual Report: January - December r ~ a ~ . . . . CrywolfO Provides Complete False Alann Management Solutions Tailored for Individual Communities , . . ~ ~Two Alternative Approacties: ~--:---'r - 'r ► Systems for Departments to Operate ~ ► Enforcement Programs as an Outsource Servlce I In most areas of the country, law enforcement resources arn unforiunately scarce. When combined with the growing , demand for services bY individual communities, govemments continually ask Agencies to do more with less. . , ~ ~ + - In this conbext, non-critical calls for service, such as false alarms, decrease the amount oE time that officers can spend FALSE ALARItiII PROBLEM: responding to true emergencies and reduce the number of staff that can work proactively to prevent crime. This ► Alarms comprise 10% -1596 of emergency environment also places officer and public safety at calls for service increased risk. ► 95% - 99+96 of all alarms are false For more than seven years, we have helped local ► False alarms divert scarce public safety resources from true emergencies EL waste govemments enforce False Alarm Ordinances by providing miiiions of law enforcement dollars false alarm management solutions. In every case, our technology and services have helped these Jurisd.ictions ► False Alarms increase officer and public safety risks reduce false alarms, increase collections and 'unprove efficiency. Today, we are the leading provider of false alarm management systems to over 104 cities and counties in 28 CRYWOLF~' SOLUTION RESULTS: states and Canada. We also provide complete outsource ► 3096 - 60% mduction in false alarms alarm registration, tracking and billing services on a"self- funded", revenue sharing basis to many Agencies. 11. Alarm fees and fines quickly pay Program startup costs ► Enforcement requires few adnwlistradve staff G 2007 Public Safety Corporaticn CryWo1fA' Technology fs Patented ► Alarm fee and fine collections fncrease _ J Advanced Alarm Management CrywolfF9 Components for a Successful False ' tures: Alarm Enforcement Program • Online access to tailorable reports ' Alarm Tracking / Registration / Permitting - - direct data inquiry and report CrywolflO solutions track alarm systems, ma.intain generation via the web. The approach keyholder information, and identify non-registered offers flexibility, security and Iocations. Outstand.ing charges are automatically timeliness that no other reporting tracked for all accounts regardless of registration. process provides. Data is easily accessed by a variety of search fields to facilitate inquiry. • Web-based, fully-interactive alarm • Seamless integration of computer interfaces - registration - secure, online access We have more experience building, installing and bechnology that allows an alarm user to' register online and have limited m~~ng 'nterfaces in support of alarms access to registration information Praessing than any other company. We have deveioped and installed required interfaces tc~ riiclst major CAD/911 and various financial s`,stems. • Other Online Functions - false alarm payments can be made over the . Autonlated geIlEl"df10I1 of vio1dtlOI1 iiivoices web, alarm companies can aceess their and notices to alarm uBers - Our solutions customer false alarm performance and automatically generate letters/notices and invoices users can attend online alarm schools for false alarm evenfis in accordance with Alarm 24/7' Ordinance requirements. Our technology ful ly supports multipl~ fee Schedtilt's 1,V lc►cItiOn; -~1: i•nl • Enhanced Alarm Data Securi ty ' type; and stahi ~ . Alarm Management requires the collection, maintenance and . proven Collection Tools - tiVith over 1 millio11 communication of sensitive and highly false alarms processed annually by our technology, confidential data. In providing Alarm We are the proven industry leader in alarms Management senrices, we have the processing and collections. Our solutions inciude a technical infrastructure required to variety of tnols to help collect fines. ensure the highest levels of data security• • Production of Management Reports - Our system produces numerous management and ~ Hearing and Appeal Support - tracking reports, many that can be accessed online. fully integrabed hearing and appeal Standard and custom reports are provided. system that allows for the adjudication of any action for any account. • Unparalleled Technology Update Progrant. - CryyVolfg solutions include a robust enhancement program driven by the needs of more than 100 cities and counties . ~7'. 2007 Pirhiir Safetv Corpc+rat+on - . • ~ ♦ Phone: 7 ♦ Vilebsite:,_ ♦ Emafl: Cifiy of Spokane - Municipal Code Page 1 of 1 1- 77 . 7 . F. . . r. . r_ t^ u .1 . . l f > L.. ,j ect All Title l O Regulatipil of Acbwties ; St' t ~ z, s, Y F''" x - . 'F tj, ♦ .I 5 . .r . i i -~13 J • t ` _ . ' 'i . ~ . .Sx. . . ~ t r I rt r { i. . a~ ~bs;.'`'1 'j,. w !Yr~' . f t -~r'y' . i -r . .~°`'tl ~ T ~~r .~i.. r=` c ~~;~,:ti r y y ~ ri,~ ;:•y^r , . Alarms -z s,,: j,-1~.» ~ rr,,;_ ~ ect-AII Chapter 10.48-FaEse. Y . 'i- • - F ,I r r~ Y ,t T' . - ~ ' n y ~ . i.~ `.F i 1 ~ r . . : . . i ~j..,,~ n c'. y ~rj1J i . j .t ~ ~ ~ s Secbon10,48.010 Pa ~ "'YSC r 5e~c6an 10,48020.Defntfons , Sec tlon 10.%030 REPEALE D (Penal b es) ? , - . . - . ' , - - .i : . - q _ ! r. ' `ae.i- - ' ' . r 5ecaon 10.4$.Q40 AdmiNstratlon and Funcling - ~ ' ` ti _ : , ~ ~ , . , , z , . t ' r: ' -r Sectlon 10.48,050 Alarm Sbes Must be Regfstered , • f Y , i ' _ r Sectlon 10.48,Q60 Registration Tetms atd Fees ti•' ~ ~a,_ , t~: rlSexhfai 10.48,070 Rsspons+bilit'es 4 AJam Users ~ r sfis 4nly Licerued Alzrm Eusinesses.mayIi#i~eF~arm:Dfspatc Reqtle SecUon 10.48.Q@0 h ~ , . _ . . A~ . ~ _ .I ~ . . r'j.Sectlon 10.48,090 Yaified Response RequiiIed:In Cerkein'Circumstances ~ . . - ' . . ~ t Sectlon 10.40 .100 [Reserved]. 4 ' ,Y. ` ,r c t• 8.110 Di Fferetitiation and Repatin g of Alarm Athi vati ` ❑ Sec dan 10.4 I _ . ~ ' K c°' t^-c`•• a`' .3''~ . j Section 10 48120 Alarm D+spatc h Requests 5ection 10.48.130 Duties.of Alarm Installation Cornaany,andjor Monitonng Company rl 5e+ction 10.48.140 Compl4arue wkh Monboring Standards Required ; Secti on 10.48.150 i41arm ~Dispatch Request CaFUellaGons_ X' ( , • _ ~ ia f 1 t`+ '{'':~.a' . r . - r i Sectlon 10.48,160 Prohib&cd Devltes . , r . r• . ~ - r i Secbon 1 0.48.170 Wolatlons . . ` ~ - r Sectlon 10,48,180 appropriating PutAc Palice5ervfces for Prfvate Purposes Subfect to Cost Retovery Fem Sectlon 10.48,194 Fees for Appropriatinq t'ubac Police Serrlces For Private Purposes r SmbQn 10,48.200 Authorizakfon 6o Issue Citatims and Assess Service Fees r' 5m Gon 10,48210 Fee Processinq ~ Settlon 10.48,220 Suspenslon of Reqistratlon Sa4on 10,48230 Fake Alarm Awarems dasses r Sec tl on 10.48240 Appeal s U, Sectioct 10,48,250 authorty of Alarm Appeal Offiters Secb on 10.48.260 Warm Appeai s OFfi cer Sel ecb on - Qu diFxaki on and Rcmovai r Sec tlon 10.48270 Improper Influenc g Confi ct oF Interest an d Appearanca of Fa(mess r-i Swtlon 10,48280 Orqanizatlon - Rules ❑ Section 10.48.290 Exceptlons r Sa tl on 10.48300 Speci al Rul es App6 cable bD Publtc Scfiod s [l SmUon 10,48.310 ConRdentlalky of Alarm Iriformadon r I~ectlon 10.48.320 Scope of Police Duty - Immunkies Preserved , http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/sme/?Chapter=10.48 2/2412009 ~ Spokane Municipal Code Page 1 of 16 Spokane Municipal Code Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 10:56 AM 0d.ai I Close Window Font Stre: n a e I Decreasg Title 10 Regulation ot Activides Chapter 10.48 False Alarms Section 10.48.010 Purpose A. The pty regulates security atarm buslnesses to assure that responses tn fafse alarms do nat diminish the avaltablilty ot polke serv[ces to tfie general publk and to assure that dtlzens who cannot at'foro or do not choose to operate securfty afarm systems are not penaflzed for their cvndidon or choke. B. The Intent of thfs chapter is to encourage alarm businesses and alarm users ta maintain the operatlonal viabllity of security alarm systems and to signtfkantly reduce or etiminate false alarm dlspatch requests made to the poHce depafinent C. The purpose of the chapUer is bo provide for and promote tlhe health, safety and welfare of the general pubik, not [o proted Indivtduals or create or oderwtse establksh or designate any partlcular dass or group of persons who wid or shauld be espedally benefited by the terms of thts chapter. The chapber does nat impose of aeate duties on the part af the Clty or any of fts departrnents, and the obtigadan of aomplyfng with the requirements of thfs cfiapter, and any liabiiity for failtng to do so fs placed solely upon the pafies responsibie for owning, operadng, monifi0ring, installing or maintaining security alarm systems. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 ORD C34041 SecJon i (Recodtflcadcn) Sectbn 10.48.020 Detinitions A. "Alarm administraUor" means the person deslgnaCed by the chief of po8oe bD adminlster the Gty's secuiity alarm program, bo Issue dations and levy fees pursuant to thks chapter. B. "Alarm appeaLs oMcer" means the person(s) designaUed by the chief of police to hear and decide appeals related to servke fees and registration svspensians pursuant to this chapter. G"Alarm business" means amr business, by an individual, partnersfiip, ccxporation or other entity engaged in [he sellfig, feasing, I maintaininq, senrking, repalrIng, altering, reptacing, moving, Installing or responding to securlty alarms. i. AlaRn businesses also lnclude any person, business or organlzatEon that monnors securlty atarm sysbems and Infdates alarm dlspatth requests, fnciuding unlts or dlvisions of larger buslnes.ses or organtzations that provide proprietary security ataRn montDring s+eervioes ony to afiiqa0es of the parent business or organitation. 2. Alarnn businesses do not inctude persans datng installation or repair worlc solely on premises they own, lease or rent where such work ts perFormed without compensatlon of any klnd (i.e., "daR-yourselfers'~. D. "Atarm dispatch request" means the INtiating of a communicatfan to the poliae, vfa police dispatch, by an alarm buslness indicating that a security alarm system has been activated at a particular alarm site and requesting police cfepartment response LD that alarm site. E. "Alarm Installatton oompany" means a person In the business ot selUng, providing, maintaintng, serviclng, repalring, altering, repladng, moving or tnsialling an alarm system U an alarm site. F. "Alarm ste" (also'security alarm site'~ means a structure or portion thereof served by a single securFty alarm system (a "frxed" alarm site). 1. In a multi-tenant building or complex, each portion of the structure or complex having its ovm securit), alarm system is consldered a separate alarm site. G. "Alarm systern" (alsa "security alarm system") means a device or series of inberconnected devices, including, but not limited to, systems interconnecCed with hard wlring or radb frequency signals, which are designed to emit and/or transmft a remote or bcal audible, visuat or electronic signal indfcating tha[ an intrusion may either be in progress or being attempted at the alarm ste. http:/lw~vw.spokaneciry.org/services!documentslsmc/print%default.aspx 2/24!2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 2 of 16 1. It means only the equfprnent located at the alarm site when a system Is conneded to an alarm system monftoring company. 2. Security alarm systems do not include those devioes designed tD alert only the Inhabitants of specffic premtses and that have no sounding or signahng devices which can be generaly heard or seen on the exterlor of the alarm site. H. °Alarm user" means arry person, Rnn, partnership, corporatlon or other entity who (wfikh): 1. cnntrois a security alarm system at an alarm siDe; 2. is named on the alarm reglstratbn; and 3. Is flnandally responsible for the operatbn of an alarm system. as used In tfie chapter, the term "alarm user" may mean more than one person, tf more than one person Is Iisted on the reglsp-atton and has acoepted finandai responsibfiity for operation of an alarm system. 1. "Surglary alarm" (also "property/intrusion alarm") means an alarm sysbem that Is used bo detect and report an unauttartzed entry or an attempted unauthorized entry upon real properly. "CaII-up dialer alarm" means a security device that is destgned tn evoke a police response by transmitting a pre-recorded, unverified signai or message to the police E911 system or to any other police belephone. K. "Chief" means the chier of police of the City of Spokane or his designee. L. "City" means the City of Spokane and/or the area within the incorparated munldpal boundahes of the City of Spokane. M. "Control number" means the unique number assigned to each Iicensed security alarm business by the alarm adminlstrator that Is used to validate alarm dKpatch requests. N. "DepartmenY' means the 5pokane polke department. 0. "Duress alarm." (See subsectlon (AB) of this sectian -"Robbery alarm.') P. "Enhanced call veri#katbn" means an Independent method whereby the alarrn monitoring company attempts to determine that a signal from an autamatic alarm system reflects a need for immediate polioe assistanoe or Investigatfon. 1. ThEs verification process wlll be oonducted by tfie alarm system monitoring personnel and shail cunsist of making at least two phone calis to the responsfble party or partles and shaQ not take more than fivve mtnutes from the tlme the alarm signal has been accepted by the alarm system monitoring company. Q. "Faise alarm response" means polke department response to an alarm dispatth request by a commisstoned officer of the departrnent where, in the optnton of that offioer, no evidenoe of the commission or attempted oommission of a crime is present that can be reasonably attributed to have caused the alarm activatlon. 1. A false atarm response Is also deemed to have occuRed when the responding officer ts unabie to determine if evidence of a crlminal offense or attempted criminal oPfense Is present because the alarrn sfte Is inaccessible (e.g., where the alarm site Is located: a. within a Iadced strutture, such as an apartment building or buslness compiex wtth a common entry; or ~ ~ b. behind a locked gate and no person Is present to provide aooess to the afflcer, or ` c contains a dog and no person Is present tn remove the dog so the onicer pn fnspeci the site; or d. oDntains any type af "protectlve/ reacttve" devioe or contrivance). R. "Govemment facility" means any alarmed lowtbn where the primary owner, operator, renter or {essee is the City of Spokane, County of Spokane, State of Washington; or agency af the Unfted States govemment. http://www.spokanecity.org/servicesldocuments/smc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 3 of 16 S. "Holdup atarm." (See subsection (AB) of this section -"Rabbery atarm.,) T. "Intrusion alarm." (See subsection (n of this sectlon -"Burgtary alarm. U. "Monitoring" means the pracess an alarm business Lres to. 1. keep watch on alarm systems; 2. recelve alarm attwatlon slgnals from alarm systems; 3. verify alarm acUvatlons; 4. retay alarm dispdt[h requests to the department for the purpose of summoning polke response to an alarm site; and 5. tn cancel alarm dispatch requesfis (when approprtate). V. "Multi-unit oomplex" means any buiiding or group of buildings located/co-located on the same real property and comprised of two or more separately ocapied units. W. "One-plus duress alarm" means a security alarm system which permits tfie manual activatlon oF an alarm sgnal by entering on a keypad a code that either adds the value of '1' to the last digit ot a normal arm/disarm oode (e.g., the normal arm/disarm code "1234" if entered as "1235" aubomatkally acttvates the duress alarm teabure) or that involves entering any Incorrect final digit ta a nortnal arm/ disarm oode (e.g., tfie normai arm/disarri cade '1234' is entered as u123X"-where "X" is not "4"-automaticaily activates the duress alarm feature). X. "Pank atarm." (See subsedion (AB) of this section -"Robbery alarm.") Y. "Person,' br purposes of this chapter, means an individual, corporatlon, partnership, association, organization or similar entity. Z. "Property alarm." (See subsettion (I) of thfs section -"Burglary aiarm.") AA. "Protective/reactive alarm system" means an alarm system that is equipped and prepared to produce ar.y temporary disability or sensory deprfvatjan through use of chemical, e4ectrical or sanit defense, or by any other means, including use of vlslen obscuring/dlsabiing devires. Ae. "Robbery ataRn" (also "duress alamn", "hold-up atarm" or "pank alarm") means an alarm signal generated by the manual or automatk activatbn of a device, or any system, devioe or methanism, on or near the premkses intended to signal that a robbery (refer to RCW 9A.56.190) or other crime ES in progress, and that one or more persons are in need of tmmediabe polke assistance in orckr to avoid injury, serious bodity harm or death at the hands of tfie perpetrator af the robbery or other aime. AC. °Security alarm monftoring business" means arry person, flrm or corporatbn which Is engaged In the montoring of secunty alarm systems and the summoning of polke officer response to activatlons thereof. 1. This Indudes all buslnesses that are engaged in alarm monlboring for proflt and businesses M have spedallzed units or subsidiartes that monttor only their own alarm systerr~s. AD. "SubsQiber" means an alarm user who Is a eust+omv of an alarm nwnitnring company. AE "Suspend" ("wspension'), for purposes of this chapter, means tlhe temporary loss for an alarm user of the prfvileges assaciated specifkalty wtth the regtstratbn of a securtty alaRn system in tt►e City of Spokane (specifically poUoe response). AF. "Unmonltored alarm system" means an alarm system (see subsettion (G) of this sectlon -"Atarm systemm) that Is not adively monitnred by an alarm business and whose functlon ft ts to evoke potice response soley by means of a generally audible and/or visible signal. AG. "Verfied respons2" ("independent reporting~ means a police response that is based on Information reteived from a person physkally present at a bcation (e.g., an alarm site) or from real-tfine audb or video surveillance positivety verifying that there is evidence etther ot a aime or an attempted afine at tlhe locadon. 1. The verifletf response by the alarm sysbem manitnring company may not take more than five minutes from ft time the alarm http://,A-vN-w.spokanecity.org/scn,ices/documents/smciprintldefauli.aspx 2I24I2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 4 of 16 signal has been actepted. Dabe Passed: MondaY, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectbn 2 Secilon 10.48.030 REPEALED (Penatties) Repealed by ORD C34223 Date Passed: Monday, Apri128, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectlon 2 Section 10.48.040 Administratlon and Funding A. Re.sponslbllity for administration of this chapter is vested with the chief of police. B. The chief of police designates an alarm administrator to carry out the dutles and functions desaibed in this chapter. C. The chlef of police designates one or more persons to serve as alarm appeals officer(s) to carry out the duties and functions related to appeals descrlbed in tfiks chapter. D. Moneys generated by false alarm servke fees and registration fees assessed pursuant to thks diapter shall be dedicated for use by the department directfy for administradon o# the alarm program and for recovery of general poike servioes bst to false alarm response. E. The atarm administrator conducts an annual evaluation and anatysts of the effectiveness ot this chapter and identifies and trnplements system Improvements, as warranted. Date Pas.sed: Monday, June 4, 2407 ORD C34041 Sectlan 1 (Retodification) Scctbn 10.48.050 Alarm Sifies Must be Regisfiered A. Polke response to prfivate alarm sttes in the pty ot Spokane, extept as specified tn SMC 10.48.090. is a prtvitege avallable onfy to those I alartn users who have alartn systems regisbered with the qty. B. No alarm bustness providing monitoring servke to security alarm sites in the Qty of Spokane shall actlvate alarm monitoring setvice or I tnitiate alarm dispatch requests relative m arty alarm site in the Ciry that ts not properly registered. G Faifure by an alarm monitoring or installation wmpany to provide its updated customer (nformation at least once a month to the C1ty of Spokane in accordance with SMC 10.48.13" is a class one civtl Inhactlon. Date Passed: MondaY, April 28, 2008 1 ORD C34223 Section 3 Section 10.48.060 Registration Terms and Fees A. Alarnt reglstration !s valid for one year. B. Alann registration Is tssued to a person or persons ("alarm usern) having bona flde ownershlp or oontrol of an alann sibe (I.e., home owner, business owner, rentef, leaseholder, ebc.) and spedficaNy for that alarm sibe or address. 1. Alarm registratlon remains In tfie name(s) of the alarm u9er of record undl a change of ownership ar control of the alarm site oavrs. C. Alarm regtstratbn Is attached to the atarm user and the alarm site reglstratlon and ts not transferable. 1. A new alarm site registration must be lssued whenever there Ls a change of ownershtp or oontrol of an alartn site. http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents!smc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 5 of 16 D. The Initial registration appliption shaii be gtven to the alarm user at the dme of alarm installation and shall be submitted to the alarm administrator or deslgnee within thirly days. E. A signed copy of the discbsure statement required in SMC 10.48,130 shall be submitted to the alarm administrator along with the initial registrariori applicaUon. 1. Receipt of the discbsure statement is a precondition of reglstratlon. F. Regisbratlon Information is determined by the alarm administrator and shall include, but not be [imited to, the fotlowing: 1. Name and address of the alarm user (i.e., the person finanaally responsible for operation of the alarm system being registered). 2. Home, bustness and oellular Gelephone numbeKs) of the alarm user. 3. Name, address and telephone number of the alarm business providing monitoring servke to ttie system. 4. Alternate telephone number for verificatlon (cell phone or odw telephone designated by the alarm user). 5. Signature of the alarm user verifying that he has read and understood the Gry of Spokane pubfic disclasure statement and agrees to pay the fees associated with false alarms. G. On receipt of the application, fees and copy of the signed disclosure statement, the alarm administrator (or designee) shaii Issue a security alarm registratfon number to the alarm user. H. The security alarm reglstr'ation number assigned to an atarm user remafns the same for as long $s the alarm user continuously malntains reglshatbn tor the alarm site. 1. Registration may be renewed under the following oonditlons: i. The alarm site has no past-due fees. 2. The alarm site's reg(stratlon ts nat suspended for excessive false alarms. 3. The atarrn user either updates hls regkstratlon information or verifies tfiat the currerrt reglstration Informatton ks stiq comect. 4. The appropriate annual regtsUatlon fee ts patd. l. Renewal information and fees are submitted to the alarm administrator (or destgrtee) on or before the tnRlal regisfiation anniversary date each year. K. The rate.s for securfity alarm registratbn fees are in SMC 8.02,088. i. The established rates shall assi re that the alarm administrator posltian and all other costs related to adminlstration and enfaroement of the security alarm ordlnaRCe are supported entirely by registration fees. Date Passed: Monday, Aprii 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Section 4 Section 10.48.070 Responsjbilities ot Alarm Users A. Eactt alarm user Is r+esponsible, annua(ty, for. 1. registering hls alarm system, 2. paying the registration fee, and http://vvww.spokanecity.orglservicesldocuments/smc/printldefault.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokaae Municipal Code Page 6 of 16 3. provfding current registratfon fnformatlon. B. Eadi alarm user is respunsible for assuring that his alarm system Is used properly and in aaordanoe with tfie manufadurers directiorts and the taw. 1. Inherent in this responsibility is assuring that ali persans with acoess to the alarm system are property tralned on correct use of the system and are authorized bo cancel accidental acthrations, and assuring that procedures and practloes are followed tfiat minimlze the rtsk of false alaRns. C. Each alarm user fs responslbie for keeping his alarm system properfy malntalned and in good working order. ' D. Each alarm user is financiaqy responslble for paying service fees when police respond to false alarms from his alarm site. (See NSC 10.48.120) E. Failure to meet the responsibilitles (fsted in subsectforts (A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section may lead to suspension or revocation of alarm registration and bss of the privileges assodated with that registratbn. F. It an alarm user has six false afarms within a calendar year tfie person/business responsib{e for the alarm sfte shall meet with the appeals affcer and prov(de a faise alarm abatement ptan to the appeals officer. Date Passed: Monday, ]une 4, 2007 ORD C34041 Sectbn 1 (Recodiflcation) Sectbn 10A8,080 Only Ucensed Alarm Businesses may Initiate Alann Dtspatch Requests Effective January 1, 2006, and thereafter, tfie departmerrt shall respond only to alarm dispaUch request; from atarm businesses that possess a valid Clty of Spokane business Ikense and control number. Date Passed: Manday, June 4, 2007 ORD C340415ectlon 1 (Recodtficadon) Sectbn 10.48.090 Vertfled Response Required in Certain Circumstances A. Effective 3anuary l, 2006, and tfiereafber, the department shall respond to the acthratian of: 1. unmonitored security alarm sysiems; 2. alarm sysbems moni0ored by untbcensed sewrity alarm businesses; 3. unregistered alarm systerns; and 4. alarm systems with a suspended reglstration only It tndependent reportfng tndicates that a crime is In progress or has been attempted at the irnolved alarm site (i.e., verified response). 8. No alarm user or alarm business shall presume, antldpate or expect that a polke response will result solely from the acUvatf~on of: I i, arty unmonftored security alarm sys0em; ~ 2. an alarm system monitored by an uniboensed security alarm business; 3. an unrEgistered alarm system; or 4. an alarm sysbem wfth a suspended registratlon. Date Passed: Monday, Aprii 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectbn 5 http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/default.aspx 2l24/2009 . Spokane Municipal Code Page 7 of 16 Sedion 10.48.100 [Reserved] [Reserved] Date Passed: Monddy, ]une 4, 2007 ORD C340415ectbn 1 (ReoodiflcaUon) Sectbn 10.48.110 Differentiation and Reporting ot Alarm Activations A. Effettive .lanuary i, 2006, and thereafw, no person shail operate a seauity alarm system In tfie Ctty of Spokane that fails to dfffierentiate burglary/property/intruslon alarm activatlons from robbery/hold-up/paniUduress alarm activations, or that fails to accura0ely report such activatbns tndependently. B. EPfecGve )anuary i, 2006, and thereafber, no persan shall operabe a securfty alarm sysbem In tfie Ctty of Spokane that falls to differentiate poboe Incidents (i.e., burglary/property/intrusion alarm adivations, robbery/hoid-up/pank/duRSS alarm activations) from fire, medical or otfier non-poilce Inoderrts, or that faNs to aauratety repart such Ucidents independently. Date Passed: Monday, ]une 4, 2007 ORD C34041 Section 1 (RecodiRcation) Settion 10A8.120 Alarm Dtspatch Requests A. Alarm dispatch requests shall be made In tfie manner prescribed by the alarm adminlstrator and apptoved by 911 and poliae dispatch. B. Alarm dlspatch requesLs may Indude, but are not (fmted to, the following informatlon: 1. Atarm site t2g(sirdtion number. ' 2. Location of the alarm actlvation. 3. Type of alarm activation (i.e., burolary/property/intrusion, robberylpanic/hoid-up(duress or roll-overlairbag dep{ayrnent). 4. Alarm business' incident number (or other afficial incident identifier). 5. Alarm business' assigned controi number. C. Alarm dispatch requests made LD the departmeni (or its designee) shaU be for polke incldents only, and shail accuratety indkabe the rype of alarm activation (i.e., burglaryJproperty/intrusion, robbery/hold-up/panicJduress) that ls the proximate cause for the alarm dtspatch request. D. No alarm buskiess shall iniaate an alarm dispatch request lf t tmows, or reasonably shoutd know, that daing so would cause an empioyee of the Cfty 0D respond Oo an afarm sRe mntatning a protecdve/reactive alaRn system. E. No dtspatch request and subsequeri# poUoe response bD a robbery blarm (as deftned In SMC I0.48.020(AB) may be cancelled by the alarm user. In every case at least one offioer shail respond to affirm tfiat tfie alamn user is not under duress of arry kfnd. Date Pasxd: Monday, Apri128, 2008 ORD C34223 Section 6 Sectlon 10.48.130 Duties of Alarm Instaiiatlon Company and/or Monitoring Company A. All alarm insbllatlon and,/or monftoring oompanles shall ensure that tfieir customer information is updated wtth the alarm adminfs[rator or designee at least monthly. This inbrmatlon shall inctude: 1. ausbDmer name and oDntad Infomtatlon (i.e., all phone numbers); 2. alarm stte addres3 and billing address; http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smclprint/default.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 8 of 16 3. monftoNng mmpany name and oonbd informatfon; and 4. (nstallation date or date the alarm monitoring ended. 8. All alarm instailatlon arxi/or mon)toring oompanles shall ensure that an on-site inspection of the operating sysLems tor the alarm system shall oaur at {east once every three years. The records of these Irispectbns shall be made avaaable to the alarm adminlstrabor upon request. , C. The alarm instaliation company shall provide wrltten and oral instructions to each at its atarm users in the proper use and aperadon of thefr alaRn systems. Such instructions wlll spedficaily inciude ali Insbvctlons necessary to tum tfie alarm system on and off and to prevent false alarms. D. Effecttve January 1, 2006, and thereafter, alarm installatfon companies shafl not program alarm systems so that they are capabie of sendfig one-plus duress alamns. 1. MoniGoring companies may contlnue to report one-plus duress atamns received from alarnn systems programmed wlth one-plus duress alarms prior to ]anuary 1, 2006. 2. Effec#fve )anuary 1, 2006, and tfiereafter, when a takeover or vomrersion occurs or if an atarm user requests an alartn sysbem inspection or modificatlon pursuant to SMC 10.48,074, an alamn installation company must remove the one-plus duress alarm capability fi^am such alarm systems. E. Etfeciive 7anuary 1, 2006, and thereafter, alarm installabon companles shail not instail a device to activate a holdup alarm, which ks a singie adion, non-reoessed button. F. Effective April 1, 2006, the alarm Installation companies shall, on new instailatforts, use only alarm oontrol panel(s) whkh meet SIA Control Panel Standard CP-01. G. An alarm company shall not use automatic voice dialers which call 911 or the police department. H. After completion oF the installation of an alarm system, an alarm installatlon company empioyee shaA rev(ew with the alarm user tfie custDmer fialse alarm prevendon chedclist establtshed by department polic.y. ' 1. The monltoring company shall make an atarm dispatch request for a police offioer response to a burglar alarm signal, induding panlc, duress and hoid-up signals. 1. A residenttal alarrn user [s provided one false alarm response during the flrst sbciy days following an alarm system ins[allation wtthout arry charge. J. A monitoring company shall: I i. report aiarm adivatbns or signals by using the belephone numbers designated by tfie alarm adminisbator, 2. attempt to vertfy every burgtar alarm signal prbor to requesting a polke dispaUch by making at least two phone catls tn the • responsible party or partles. ~ a. This pnooedure does not appFy to duress or hold-up signats; 3. communkate alarm dlspatch requests to tfie Spokane polke In a manner and form determined by the alarm adrnlnfstrator, 4. mmmunkate canceltations to tfie Spokane polioe in a manner and form determined by the alarm adminlstrator, 5. ensure that ail alaRn users of alarm systems equipped with duress, hoki-up or pank alarm(s) are given adequabe training as to ~ the pmper use of the duress, hold-up or pank alarm(s). I a. A{ann sys0em train(ng should be provided to every alarrn user and/or addiUonal trafning provtded in situatlons where the alarm user has estabttshed a hfgh tnddent rake of faise alarms resutUng from uninteritional or aaldental adlvatbn; 6. mmrnunicate arry available information (north, south, front, badc, floor, etc.) about the lotadon on all alarm signals retated to http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/prinVdefault.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane N'Iunicipal Code Pa2e 9 of 16 the alarm dispatctt request; 7. communkate type of alarm activatlon (si{ent or aexllble, interior or perimeter); 8. provide an alarm user registradon number when requesUng an officer clfspatch; 9. aPoer an alarm dispatch request, prumptly advise the Spokane polke ff the monltoring aompany krows that tfie alarm user or the respondef !s on the way to the alarm site; 10. attempt to contact the alarm user or responder within twenty-four hours via mail, fax, telephone or other electronic means when an alarm dfspabch request is made; and 11. effectlve January 1, 2006, monitoring compaNes mLLSt mafntaln for a periad of at least one year from the date of the alarm dispatch request, records re{ating to alarm dispabch requests. a. Recorcis must lndude the: i, name, address and telephone number of the alarm user; U. alarm sysbem zone(s) adivated; Ili. thne of alarm dLspatch request; a nd tv. evidenoe af an atternpt bo verify. b. The alarm adminfstrator may request copies of such records for Individuatly named alarm users. c. If the request Is made within sixty days of an alarm dFspatch request, the monitoring company shali furntsh requested reconds wRhin three business days of receivtng the request. d. If the records are requested between stxty days to one year aRer an alarm dispatch request„ the monitoring campany shail furnfsh the requested records within thirty days of retefiving the request. K. An alarm Instailatlon company and/or moniboring company that purchases alarm system accounts from another person shall notify the alarm adminEstrator oF such purchase and provide detalls as may be reasonably requested by the alarm admhlstrator. Dabe Passed: Monday, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sedion 7 Settion 10.48.140 Complianoe wfth Monftorhp Sbndards Requhbd AU alarm buslnesses engaged in monRorfng alarm systiems in tlhe Ciiy of Spokane shall camply with the monitoring standards set forth in ~lC ~ 10,48.130. I Dete Passed: Monday, lune 4, 2007 ORD C34041 Secdon i (Reooditicatlon) . Section 10.48.150 Alarm Diapatch Request Canoeltatlons A. An alamn d{spatch request may be canceled only by tfie alarm business Inltiatlng tfie request prior to tfie point tfie responding polioe offioer repons arrivai at the alarm stte. B. Alarm dispatch requests may be canoeled In accordanoe with the procedures establlshed by the alarm adrNnisirator and approved by 911, popoe dlspatch and by the alarm business making the orlginal request. C. Alarm dispatch reques#s canoeted prbr Oo the polioe offioers arrival on nene are not subfed to false alarm 9ervke fees. DaUe Pas9ed: Monday, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectton 8 Section 10.48.160 Prohibited Devkes http://vvww.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/default.aspx 2I24/2009 , Spokane Municipal Code Page 10 of 16 A. Effective January 1, 2006, and thereafter, no person shall operate a security alarm system in the Qty of Spokane tfiat has a siren, bell or other signal audible from any property adjacent to the alarm site that sounds for longer than five oonsecuthre minuUes afber the alarm Is acttvabed, or that repeats the flve-minute alarnn cycle more than three consecutivve tlmes without resetting. B. Effective January 1, 2006, and thm-eafter, no person shall operate a security alarm system In the Gty of Spokane tliat Is programmed tor "one-plus" duress alarms. Date Passed; Monday, )une 4, 2007 ORD C34041 Settion 1 (Recodification) Section 10.48.170 Viotations A. The foibwing adions oonstitute uniawful use of a security alarrn system: 1. Any person who activates a security alarm system with the Intent to report; a. suspfcfous circumstances, or b. any non-aiminal inddent, or c. a need for flre, medkai or other non-polloe services; or 2. Any person who vblates the pravtsions ot SMC 10.48.110(g) or (B) or SMC 10.4$.1600), fBl is subject to oost recovery fee tor the Improper adivation of the seturity alarm sysiem. B. Notfiing in this sectbn shap prevent the instaliation of a single reporting devke for both types of security alarms, fire a{arms and medical alarms, provfded that such device complles wtth SMC 10,48.110 and flre code requlrements. Date Passed: Monday, Apri 28, 2008 I ORD C34223 Section 9 Section 10.48.180 Appropriating Pubik Police Servicea for Privabe Purposes Subjed bo Cost Recovery Fees A. Causing polfce to engage in a false alarm response constltutes an approprfation of pubik police services for private purposes and Is subject tn a cost recovery fee. B. The alarm user is responsible for payment of his regtstraUon and cost recovery fees. C. When, in the opinion of tfie responding officer(s), an alarm dispatch request can be reasonably assoGated wfth an actual or attempted aiminal offense at the Invo#ved alarm site, the alarm Is va11d and the response Is considered a basic poUoe servke not subject to cost recovery fees. D. When, In the opinlon of ttie respanding oPfioeKs), an alarm dlspatch request can be reasonaby attributed tD an earthquake, hurricane, tomado or other unusually vio{ent act of nature, no cost recovery fee shall be assessed. ~ i E. When, in the opinion of the responding officer(s), an alarm dispatcti request cannat be reasonably attributed bo the condftlons described tn subsecdon (C) or (D) of thts sedJon, the inddent Is a false alarm and the police officer response Is considered an appropriatlon of pubfk , police services for private purposes that Is subject ta cost recavery. F. When the responding otfker(s) Is (are) unable to determine if an alarm Is valld or fafse betause of inacoessibility of the atarm site, the response Is presumed to be a false alarm re.sponse, and Is subject to cost recovery fees. (See SMC 10.48.020(Ol) Date Passed: M0ndaY, ApTil 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sedion 10 Sectbn 10.48.190 Fees br Appropriating Public Police Servioes br Privabe Purposes A. The cosi recovery fees for appropriating public poI'ice services for prfvate purposes are In SMC 8.0Z.Q$$. httpJ/www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/printldefault.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 11 of 16 1. SeparaGe rates may be estabUshed for commerdal properties and resldential propertfes responses to false burglary/propertyrmtruslon alarms and to false robbery/hold•up/pank/duress alaRns. 2. The estabilshed rates shail assvre that the full cost ot police resporse to false seturity alarms Is reoDvered by the City. B. Cost reoovery fees are assessed based on the response requested. An alarm dispatch request reporting a robbery alarm, for exampie, !s subjed to the fatse alarm penalty fee applipble to mbbery faise alarm resporises, even if the alarm acttvadon should properfy have been reported as a burglary alarm. Dabe Passed: Monday, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 SeCtbn i l Sedion 10.48.200 Authorizatbn to Lssue Citations and Assess Servke Fees A. The alarm admfnistraGor !s granted a specEa! commissfon by the chief of po(fce to fssue citations pursuant to this chapter. B. The alarm adminWatDr is authorfzed tiy the clty oQUndl to as.sess oosts pursuant ta SMC 10.48.190. Date Rassed: Monday, Aprii 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectlon 12 Section 10.48.210 Fee Procening , A. Inftlal RegistraUon Fees. AlaRn businesses contracting wlth aistomers tD pmvide monitoring serokes (or tneir agents) shail assure that asiomers residing In the Qty oomplete initial registradon forms and remit the required registratlon fee to tfie Ctty (or its designee) prfor to attivatbn of monitAring service. B. All fees are due and payable on receipt 1. Fees that are unpaki for tfiirty days or more after the date of inltlal Invoke are considered past due for purposes of thls chapter. C. A{ate fee of ten doliars per monih or ben peroent of the outstanding balance per montfi, whichever is greater, may be imposed on past cue aaxwMs Go cover the oost of prooessing and oollecUon. Date Passed: Monday, APrN 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectlon 13 Section 10.48.220 Suspension of Registradon A. Any alarm user having more than three false alarm responses in any calendar year may, on the event of the fourtfi such incident, have his alarm regishatlon wspended for nlnety days or the balance of the year for whicfi the registratbn is valid, whkhever is greater. I B. Any alarm user having annual registratlon and/or false alarm cosi recov+ery tees past due tn any year sha8 have his reglstratlon suspended ' uniii all outstanding fees have been pafd fn fufl. C. Fumishing false informatbn on an alarm registratbn apptkatlon is prohlbited. i. Ort tlie flrs# offense, the alarm administrator shall suspend the alarm users registratlon tor thirty days. 2. On the seoDnd otfense, the alarm administrabor sfiall suspend the alarm users reglstrati~on for tt►e remainder of the registratian Pe+iod• Dabe Passed: Monday, APtiI 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sed3on 14 http://www,spokanecity.org/services/documentslsmc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 . Spokane Municipal Code Page 12 of 16 Settion 10.48.230 Falsa Alarnt Awareness Clasaes A. The alarm administrabor shall ensure that the on-Iine false alarm awareness dass Ls available tor those abrm users having four or more false alarm activations In any calendar year. i. Eadh alarm user eligible for the dass shall by conbcted by mal) or by phone and asked to take the dass. 2. The letter sent in these case.s wO spedfy the web page address and the user password to be used that wiil show that the user has ~ read and passed the dass. ~ B. Compietion vf the false alarm awarenes class conducted by the alarm admintstrator by an alarm user (I.e., the person responsibie fer operatlon of a registered a{arm system) may serve in Ileu of a regLstraGon suspension one ame per regtstered alarm site. This shall apply only In cases of the number of false alarm actNaUons, not for non-payment of any assessed registration fees or cast reoovery fees for polioe response to a false alarm. • Date Passed: MondaY, Aprii 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectlon 15 Sectlon 10.48.240 Appeals Cost recovery fees may be appealed to tfie aiarm appeats officer, as follows: A. The appeal process is initiated by the alaRn user sending a letter to the alarm appeals officer requesting ((an appeal canference)) that the cost recovery fee be waived, and spedfying the reasons (or the appeal and submRUng the scheduled appeai fee. 1. This letter and appeal fee must be received by the alarm appeals on`icer wRhin thirty working days after maiting of the initfal Irnroice to the alarm owner. B. Service fees may be appealed only on the grounds that the inddent cited as ttte basis tor the servke fee was, in fact, not a false alarm response. 1. The alarm user must, in hls letter requesting an appeal, describe detailed, credible evidence in his possessfon that supporks the wntention that tfie invalved inddent was a valid alarm, as described In SMC 10.48.180(Dl. C. The alarm appeals officer may rejed requests for appeals that are not supported by detailed, aedibie evidence of crimtnal activity of for one of the listed reasons in the C1ty of Spokane fafse alarm appeal guideline form by the appellant 1. Notioe of rejection of a request for this Inroal appeal shall be sent bo tfie appeltant in writing within ten worlcing days follawing receipt of the appeal request by the alarm appeals ofiicer. D. Whenever the flrst appeal !s denled, the alaRn user may then file a seoond written appeal requesting an In-person hearfng. 1. This request must be recelved withtn thlity days from the mal(ing of tfie denial of the flrst level of appeaL 2. Ail hearings shail be heard by an appeals otflcer appolnted by the chief of polke. . 3. The alenm administrabor shail serve as the City's representntnre in these hearings. The flling ot a request for an appeal oonference with an alarm appeals offioer sets aside any pending servke fee or related servloe suspension/revocadon untll the alann appeais officer either rejects the appeal request„ as described in subsection (A) of this sectlon, or renders a final decision. ~ E The alarm appeals offioer, on recetpt of a request for a heartng, shall conduct an appeal conference in Spokane wthin ttiirty working days after recelving the appeal request The alarm administrator may also corrtad tfie appeliant and ofFer a resolutbn or modlficatbn of the cost rewvery fees prior to the scheduled hearing. F. At the oonference, tfie alarm admintstrator shall present evidenoe of ihe City's behalf supporting the case that the apptkable ooA recavery fees are based on potke response to an acbuat false alarm. The alarm appeats officer shall consider this evidence and arry i http:l/vwvw.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 13 of 16 InformaUon presented by any interested person(s). 1. Because false atarm responses are based on the professfonal judgment of the responding otflcer using the facts known to the ofTicef at the tlme of the incldent, the burden of proof in appeals is on the appeltant 2. The appeAant must establtsh witfi credible evidertce that tacts not considered by the offloer existed at the time of the inddent lead to the reasonabie oanclusion that tfie InUdent InwNed was a va(id alarm, as descrlbed In SMG 10,48.180(D). 3. The alarm appeals ofl9cer shall make his dedsion based on the presence of such facts and conclusions. G. The alarm appeals offioer shall render a decision and nottfy the appellant and the alarm administrator thereof in writing within Mrenty work)ng days after the appeal oorrterence is held. The alamn appeais ofrioer may: 1. afflRn, 2. waive, 3. cancel, or ~ 4. modify ~ the penairy fees or adbns that are the subject of the appeal. H. It the alarm appeaEs offioer afTirms or modifies the amount of a service fee due, tfiat amount becomes imrnedtabely due and payable. I. Appeal decisions are reviewed and approved by the chief of poike prior to beoDming offidal. The official decision of dte alann appeals offker Is final, and no further appeals or remedies are avaflable. Daie Passed: MOnday, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Settion 16 Section 10.48.250 Authority of IUann Appeal OttHoers The following cases shail be within the jurtsdkUon of the alarm administrator and the alanm appeals officer(s) under tlhe bertms and prooedures ; of this diapter: A. Any and al false atarm appeals govemed by tfifs chapber. B. Alarm Iloense suspensfon of any system located wtthin the City of Spokane or its jurisdktion govemed by this cfiapter. Administration of servioe fees and/or Rnes related to Qr appikable to any security atarm system authodzed by thls chapter. i C. Any and al other administratlve alarm appeals as they may pertain to security atarm sysbems bcated witfiin tfie City of Spokane, induding appeals as set fortfi in SMC 10.48.240. j QaDe Pdssed: Monday, APriI 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Section 17 ~ Sectfon 10.48.260 Alarm Appeals Officer Selection - Quafification and Removai A. The alaRn appeaFs officer(s) shall be appolnted by tfie chfef of poGoe. 6. The alarms appeals offker(s) shap be appointed soiely wtth regard to tfielr qualiflcations tor the dutles of the oftke and wql have such training and experience as will quaUfjr them to conduct adminfstrathre or quasi-judicial hearings on reguiatory enactments and to discharge any other conferred fundions. C. The alarm appeals offoer(s) may be removed from office by the dhlef of polke. Dabe Passed: Monday, Aprfl 28, 2008 ' ORD C34223 Seciion 18 http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/defaultaspx 2124/2009 , Spokane Municipal Code Page 14 of 16 Sectlon 10.48.270 Improper Irtfluence, Conflict of Inberest and Appearance of Fafrness A. No qty of'fidal, elecctivve or appolntNe, shall attempt bu Influence the alarm appeats oftlcer in arry matter offidaDy befiore him so as to constitute mtscondud d a public office under chapter 42.20 RCW or a violation of the appearance of faimess doctrine. B. The alarm appeals offloer(s) shall oondud all proceedings in a manner to avoid confllcts of interest or other misconduct and to avold vblatbns of the appearance of fairness doctrine. 1. If such cDnficts or vblations pnnot be avoided in a partkular case, the alarm appeals offlcer shall asslgn an alarm appeals ofificer as a pro tem to act in his absence. Date Passed: Monday, Apr1128, 2008 ORD C34223 Sectivn 19 5ection 10.48.280 Organization - Rules A. The aiarm appeal offlcer(s) shall be empowered to adopt rules tor the schedu0ng and condud of hearings and other procedural matters related to the dutles of his of°ftce. i. Such rules may provlde for uoss examtnatton of wltnesses. , 2. Further, such rules shati provide for recording of the proceetiings and far compliance witfi the state, federal and Gty laws whkh may govern such a proceeding. B. In rendering a decision, the alarm appeals offfoer(s) ls hereby authorized to take f udldal notice of ail duly-adopted rules, ordinances, standards, plans, regulatlons and polkies of the Gty of Spokane and other pubifc agencies. Date Pas.4ed: Monday, June a, 2007 ORD C34041 Sectlon 1 (Recodification) Section 10.48.290 Exceptions A. The provisions of this chapber shall not apply to temporary alarm sysiems used by the departrnent or other public law enforcement agencies for Investlgatlve of protective purposes. B. Govemment Facilities. 1. Govemment faciiitte.s as deflned in SMC 10.48.O20(Rl are subfect to the following spedal rules: a. Fee SUucture: i. Govemment facflittes are subject to annual regtstratbn rules (f.e., providfng oontact InformaUon tor the alarm system), but are exempt from payment of the annual registration fees described (n SMC 10.48.Ub0. U. No oost reoovery fees shall be charged for pol'Ke response(s) to false alarms at government faalitles. b. Government facilties are exempt from having police response suspended. 2. To qualify for the special rules and exemptions under this section, an alarm sibe must meet the folbwing criteria: a. The site Is bcated wlthln the muntdpal boundarles of the Cfty of Spokane; and b. The site meets the uiteria as defined In SMC 10.48.024(R). 3. Upon the fourth respon5e to a false alarm in any calendar year, a responsiWe party for dhe govemment alarm site shaq meet with the alarm and administrabor and present a false alarm abatement plan. 4. The alarm admtnlstratar may make any ott►er spedaf rules and exceptlons as are deemed necessary Lo assure that appropriate protectlon and acoountabiNty Is maintalned at government sites. http://wm-w.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 Spokane Municipal Code Page 15 of 16 DaDe Passed: MorMay, April 28, 2008 ORD C34223 Sedion 20 Section 10.48.300 Special Rules Applicable to Public Schools A. Public schools are subjed to the following speciai rules: 1. Publk schoals are subjed to the following service fee -structure: a. Public sd»oois are subyed to annual registration ru{es (i.e., provlding fnformatbn on the alarm sysbem and contad informatlon)f but are exempt from paying the annual regisiratfan fees appikabbe to govemment fadfides, as desciibed in SMC 10.48.060. b. No fee Es charged for tfie flrst false alaRn in arry calendar year. c The fee for the second false alarm In any calendar year is waived, provided the site administrator (or deslgnee) wcoessfulty complebes the on-Bne false atarm awareness dm. d. The tfiird and ap subsequent fatse alarms in any calendar year are charged at the sbndard servke fee rate. 2. Publk sdhools sites are exempt frvm reglstradon fees ar suspenslon. B. To quatiiy for the special nules and exemptlons under thts section, an alarm sibe must meet the foliowing critterla: i. The siGe ts bcabed within the munidpal boundarie.s of the Gity of Spokane; and , 2. The sibe is a publk scfiool servfng chtidren In one or more of grades K-12, owned and aperabed by Spokane School Dlstrid 81; or 3. The site Is a pubilc school site serving chitdren In one or more ot grades K-12, owned and operated by School DfsUict 81. C. The alarm administrator may make any other spedal nules and exoeptions as are deemed necessary to assure that approprfate probecdon and aaountability Is mafnbined at pubik schooks. Date Passed: Monday, Apr1128, 2008 . ORD (34223 Section 21 Section 10.48.310 ConfidendaNty cf Alarnn Information I A. A1 Informatlon gatfiered througfi: 1. alarm regisiratbns; and/or 2. adivations of fal9e atamns; and/or 3. submission of austamer lists by alaRn sales, irstaltatbn or monttoring oompanies; and/or 4. through the appeals process must be held h confidenoe by all empioyees of the qty of Spokane and tts tfiird party administrator If applicable. Suth tnfonnation is pmpriebry and Is hereby dec{ared cortfldenUal. A disdosur+e of such informadon would viotabe the aLsWmei's right bD privacy and couid endanger tfiat person's right bo safety. ~ B. Absent spetlal drcumstanoes or couK order, aN such lnformatiort must not be released to the publk or any other pe►son. G This Mformation may be released by the alarm adminls&-ator bo another law enforcemerrt agency, the appttcable atamn user and/ or hls tnstatlatbon or monitoring company. Date Passed: Monday, Aprl 28, 2008 http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/sme/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 ~ Spokane Municipal Code Page 16 of 16 ORD 04223 Section 22 Section 10.48320 Scope of Police Duty - Immunities Presenred A. The Issuance of an alarm registratton does not create a contract between the City of Spokane and any afarm user, alaRn Instaqation company or monitoring oDmpany, nor does It create any duty or obligatlon, either expressed or impifed, on the polioe departrnent to respond to any alarm acttvation. B. Any and ap Ilability and/or consequentfai damage or loss resulting from the faUure of the police departrnent ta respond to an alarm dispaLch request is hereby disdaimed and govemmental (mrnunfty as provided by law If fuily retalned. C. By applying for an alarm regtstration, tfie alarm user adcnowledges that polke response to an alarm activatbn Is inftuenced by the ~ ava8abiltry ot otflcers, priortty of cuRent calis for service, traffic and/or weather condttions and staffing levets. Date Passed: MondaY, APril 28, 2008 • ORD C34223 Sedion 23 , http:/hwww.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/print/default.aspx 2/24/2009 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off ttem: Check all that apply. ❑ Consent Z Old business❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Information ❑ Admin. Report ❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Deliberations GOVERNING LEGISLATIQN: The Subarea Plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTtON TAKEN: None BACKGROUND Council continues deliberations on the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Final discussion items include Book III. City Actions and a discussion on phasing the SARP OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Subarea Plan deliberations will continue as directed by Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS N/A STAFF CONTACT, Scott Kuhta, Senior Pianner DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 25, 2009; 12:00 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Wednesdav, March 4. 2009: Mayor's State of t6e City Address 5:30 p.m. CenterPlace, 2426 N Discovery Rd March 10, 2009, Regular Meeting 6:00 Q.m. [due date Monday, Marc6 21 Proclamation: National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Proposed Second Reading Ordinance Regarding Speed Limits- Neil Kersten [10 minutes] 3. Proposed First Reading False Alarm Ordinance - Rick VanLeuven [10 minutes] 4. Proposed Resolution Regarding Speed Limits - Neil Kersten [5 minutes] 5. Motion Consideration: Indiana Ave EYtension Project - TIB Grant - Steve Worley [5 minutes] b. Motion Consideration: MOU w/Spakane County for 2009 STEP Steve Worley _ [10 minutes] 7. Motion Consideration: City Hnll Design Services - Neil Kersten [10 minutes] 8. Admin Rcport: STA Fare Increase - Citizen Advisory Committee Chair David Swalling, and Steve Blaska, Director of Operations (confrrmed) [20 minutes] 9. Admin Report; Amended Fee Resolution - Cary Driskell [10 minutes] 10. Road Winter Weather Assessment -Neil Kersten [15 minutes] 11. Hearin-, I~.xaminer Rules - Mike Co»nellv [20 f11i1?lltt'sl .P neli _ i CO~Kuht~'t [teI7lCJllve: us tinie ol1ow.s] [l20 in inutesl ~ "estiiuatecl uieeiiu~: 2-~U niinutes] March 17, 2009: No Meeting Council aitends Nat'1 League of Cities, Congressional Conf. Wash D.C. 3/14-18 Saturday, March 21, 2009: Mayor's Ball March 24, 2009 Regular Meeting 6:00 Q.m. [due Mon, Marc6 161 Proclamation: National Parliamentary Law Month 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Second Reading Proposed False Atarm Ordinance - Rick Vanl.euven [10 minutes] 3. Proposed Amended Fee Resolution - Cary Driskell [10 minutes] 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Mission Park - Mike Stone [10 ciii[Iutc4] , ninutes] 6. Info Only: Department Reports; Splashdown Update [*estimated meeting: 155 minutes] March 31, 2009, Studv Session, 6:00 Q.m. [due date Monday, Marc6 231 1. Admin Report: Comp Plan Amendments - Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 2. WCIA Lew's "Do's and Don'ts training" - Lew Leigh (60 minutes) 3. Sp(ashdown Discussion - Mike Stone (20 minutes) 4. Computer Tablet Training - Greg Bingaman (30 minutes) [Total Meeting: 140 minutes] I Draft Advance Agenda 2125/2009 11:49:09 AM Yage 1 of 1 A-ril 7, 2009, Studv Session, 6:00 p.m. (due date Monday, Marc6 301 1. Tentative: Studded Snow Tires Presentation (confirmed) (15 minutes) 2. Resolution Amending Resolution 03-040, Banking Authority - Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. Community Survey Results - Mike Jackson (15 minutes) -1. C011;j, Plan Quarterly Update - Gre McCormick (10 minutes) F.:~; 5. SAHI' I)eliberatian/I~iscssion 6. Infc) UIIIN : Par}.s & Recreation Maintenance Renewal Contract - Mike Stone 7. Info Only: Parks & Recreation Aquatics Contract Renewal - Mike Stone 8. Council External Committee Reports - Councilmembers [Total Meeting: 170 minutes] :1 ril 14 2009 Itc uiar Meeting 6:00 v.ni. CENTERPLACE 2426 N UiSrove Rd due date Mon, A ri16] 1_.=PIS~~~:RING: SARP-=Kuhfa~:--_~r_ 2. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Airport Overlay - Karen Kendall [30 minutes] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan - Mike Basinger [20 minutes] 5. Motion Consideration: Approval of Splashdown Contract - Mike Stone [10 minutes] [*estimated meeting: 155 minutes] Apri121, 2009: NO MEETING Council Attends NLC Green Cities Conference, Portland, Oregon April 18-22 Apri128, 2009, Regular Meeting,. 6:00 p.m. [dne date Monday, April 201 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Airport Overlay - Karen Kendall [20 minutes] 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan - Mike Basinger [15 minutes] 4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] May S 2009, Studv Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Apri127J 1. Cable Franchise Update - Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 2. Council Externat Committee Reports - Councilmembers Mav 12, 2009. Regular Meeting, 6:00 Q.m. [due date Monday, May 4] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Cable Franchise - Morgan Koudelka [ 15 minutes] 2. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] Aclmin R.eport: Street ",tanclarclti !',chedule - .Tohn Ilohnian (20 minutesl 4. }-irst fZeading Propcisecl Orciitaan4e to Amem1 Cr~r~ip Plan (SA(Zl' I3uok ll - N9il;e Coilncllv [220 mini►tes] 5. First Rcadin4 o I'roposed Urciinancc tu.Arilericl IJUC'/l'1dopt 5uhareii Plan c~ Map (Boal; II} - Scott ku}ita [30 mm J*estimated meeting: 75 minutesJ Mav 19. 2009, Studv Scssion, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, May 11 J 1. Street Standards Update - John HohmanlGloria Mantz (20 minutes) 2. Solid Waste System - Deputy Mayor Denenny/Councilmember Schimmels (20 minutes) Mav 26, 2009, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, May 18] l. Conscnt Agenda: Pi,,ToII. Claim-,. Nlinutes [5 minutesI 2. Second Reading Proposeci C)rciinailce to An3end Corn}) I'lan (Sr1I:11 I3ook 1) -N'like C:i?nnill}' 1.15 minutes] t~ 3. Second 1Zeailitit; ['rap6 8d ()s-dinance to Amencl l:?1_/fldopi. Suhat-i-a Plaii & Map (Eiook II) - S Kuftta [30 t►,~ [Ilfl illlllll(c;~] es0luticin Adopting Siil)arca Plan Bot►k Ill: Cit}' Artions- ivlike Cailncll}' [20.mintite.s] 6. lnfo Onl}': Dc:l)iiI'iillC(11 I'\tpoI'tS CStiiiiatecl iiieeting: ?U minutesj Draft Advancc Agenda 2/25/2009 1 1:49:09 AM Page 2 of 3 June 2. 2009, Studv Session. 6:00 p.m. [dae date Monday, May 261 1. Council External Committee Reports - Councilmembers June 9, 2009. Regular Meeting, 6:00 Q.m. [due date Monday, June 11 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2010 - 2015 TIP - Steve Worley (tentative) 2. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 3. Second Reading Proposed Franchise Ordinance, Cable - Morgan Koudelka [5 minutes] June 16, 2009, Studv Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Jnne 81 1. Surplus Items - Ken Thompson (20 minutes) Juae 23, 2009, r'o Meetia&_Council attends AWC Conference June 23-26 in Spokane Saturdav. Jane 27. 2009: CounciUStaff Summer Retreat 9:00 - 3:00 (confumea) Terrtative Topics: financirtl forecast; review 2009 Council goals; proposed 2010 Council gouls; Brainstorming June 30. 2009 Special Re ular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, June 221 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Info Only: Department Reports OTHF,R PFNDING AND/OR UPCONIING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Accessory Dwelling Units (Ord 08-006 modification) Batch Code Amendments - Christina Janssen City Center Report to Council City Hall Sales Purchase Agreement Comp Plan Qrtriy Update (July, Oct, Jan, April) Comp Plan Update/UGA/JPA Concurrency Contracts - 7 year renewals (pros/cons) Court Services Alternative Analysis East Gateway Monument Structure # Governance Manual Impact Fee Request Central Valley Sctiool District IT Specialist Classification Resolution Joint Mtg wBoard of County Commissioners (May?) Joint Mtg w/City of Spokane Council (possrble topics: waste water challenges; municipal court chullenges; regional transporlation planning/solutions; GMA policies & implementotion) Master License Service (NII,S)Agrmt (exp 6/30/09) Northeast Housing Solutions City Membership # Overweighdover size vehicle ordinance (2009) Panhandling Ordinance Residential Lighting Rite Aid Proposal - Inga Note Strategic Transp. Financial Plan - Dave Mercier Transportation Benefit Dist (2009) a. Estnblish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot lcmguage Transportation Impacts UDC Code Amendments Titte 24 Grading Use Agreement (Cary Driskell) Water rights = Awaiting action by others; doesn't allow for time for public comments] Draft Advance Agenda 2/2512009 11:49:09 AM Page 3 of 3 ` Comm u nity Development ~ Monthly Report January 2009 PERMIT CENTER Revenue Permits Permit revenues for the month of January 2009 were $63,886 and revenues for January last year were $71,343. This is a 10.45% decrease from the previous year. Thefe was a 20.61% decrease from the December 2008 amount of $80,470. 2009 Permit Revenues ~ saso,ooo W,ooo ~ owwo s",aoo ".ooo szW,ooo ' - ~ Vso,ooo a,oo.oao sso 000 - : ~ sa' fEr-- ,len Feb Iler Apr Atay ,lune .Ay I►uG Sept Oct Nw Oec ' 10 2009 Reverwes o 2008 Reverwes Land Use Land Use revenues for the month of January were $8,341. December 2008, revenue was $24,559 this is a 66% decrease. Comparing 2009 to 2008 indicates a 53.25% decrease between the two years. 2009 Land Use Revenues sso,ooo Wooo s3o.aoo - , . szo.ooo - - - s`1o.ooo w iar, Fae Mir ~pri Mey A.w x*r Aw sep au Ncw oa p Reuenue2009 c Revenue 20081 Page 1 of 5 _ , _ ~ 00119001~ Community Development ~ Monthly Report January 2009 Valuation The reported value of construction, including new structures and add it io ns/alte rations is shown in the following chart, comparing these values with 2008. The valuation for January 2009 is $1,908,412. 2009 Valuation of Construction $SO,ooo,ooo 545,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 _ $30,000,000 - , ; 20091fakiation $25.000.000 - $20.000,000 v 2008 Valuation i $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec , I Permit Activitv Certjficate of Occupancy The Community Development staff issued X;XXX certificate of occupancy's for the month af January including XXX. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 159 permits in January, 2008, compared with 242 for the same period last year. The total perCentage of change for permits issued for the year is a 34.30°/u decrease. 2009 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS aso ~ 4W i i 350 ~ 300 _i 750 Z°° 150 100 F 50 0 Jan Pab Mar Apr INsy .kme .fL/y Atg Sept Od Nov Oec 0 2009 Permits 159 2008 Pertr*s 242 211 323 353 296 311 411 284 381 318 238 166 Page 2 of 5 Community Development Monthly Report ,;o*VaW January 2009 Major Applications Received Community Development staff received the following major application(s) for the month of January: Granite Pointe Apartmerrts, Phase 2(12925 E Mansfield) which includes 11 apartment buildings and 7 garage buildings. Land Use Applications In the month of January, Community Development staff accepted one boundary line adjustrnent and one temporary sign application. The Department also completed two final short subdivisions, and one preliminary subdivision. Commercial Pre-application Meetings During the month of January, Community Development staff held 4 commercial pre-application meetings and 22 oommercial permit applications were submitted. SEPA Determinations SEPA determinations were issued for a 66 unit apartment project at 2602 N Sullivan; an expansion at Spalding Auto Parts and the Streei Standards manual. Hearing Examiner There were two public hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner in the month of January which included a rezone/plat for 181ots (Ponderosa East) and a plat modification for Ponderosa East. Business Licenses Staff reviewed 150 business license applications for zoning and zoning compliance for January. Home Occupation Permits In the month of January staff approved 27 home occupation applications. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 5 Adult Entertainment licenses for the month of January. Customer Service The Permit Center staff assisted 366 customers at the counter and handled 387 customers' inquires by phone in the permit center. Staff provided an average target date of 20 working days for Commercial projects, five working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential Un-platted. This target date is ihe time to fist comments issued to the applicant. Community Development staff received three letters/emails from customers for their awesome customer service in the Permit Center for the month of January. Tavis Schmidt was specifically mentioned twice as well as Tricia Prince. lnspectfons Right of Way One hundred sixty-four Right-of-Way inspections were performed for the month of January. Building In January 2009, building inspectors performed 797 inspections in 21 days which is an average of 38 inspections per day. Plans Examiners reviewed 41 projects and 21 projects were awaiting review at the end of month. Staff also issued four over-the-counter permits for the month of January. Page 3 of 5 wl-dolgool Community Development vaw Monthly Report January 2009 2009 8ufiding Inspecdons ' I 1500 ~ 1000 ~ . 500 0 Jar► I Feb Mar Apr ~ May ^Jurie .kAy _l Au9 ~ Sept Oct Nov ! Dec p 2009 tnapeclions ~ 797 M lnspecbons ~ 824 924 ~ 816 964 1 942 1038 1204 1149 ' 1162 1212 905 ` 738 Development Engineering During the month of January, there were no commercial or residential inspections by the Development Engineering inspector. UPDATES PlannJnq Planning Commission The Spokane Valley Planning Commission met fin►ice during the month of January. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing during the January 8'" meeting for a street vacation. At their second meeting, the City hosted a Planning Short Course which was sponsored by Community Trade 8 Economic Development and the Planning Association of Washington. The Short Course was attended by approximately 30 Planning Commission and elected officials from nearby communities and some citizens. Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Council continued with deliberations on the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Ptan focusing on Book II, Development Regulations. Staff worked in conjunction with Public Works and the Legal Department to formulate a streei recommendation for the Plan. City Center Project City Hall property negotiations continued during the month of January. City Center Environmental Impact Statemerrt and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) The project will be moving forward starting with a project kick-oTf ineeting in February. CTED Regional Collaboration Grant Project Brett Scheckler, a consultant for the Collaborative Grant, met with elected officials throughout the metropolitan area to discuss Spokane County's approach to service delivery and potential revenue solutions. In addition, the Collaborative Committee decided to use the West Plains Annexation as a model to identify local and regional services provided by Spokane County. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials The Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) met on January 21, 2009. Greg McCormick presented the framework for a regional work plan to complete the required 10 year review of the regional urban growth area. Page 4 of 5 , I Community Development „ Monthly Report January 2009 2009 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentslUpdates A Planning Commission study session is scheduled for February 26. The largest piece of the amendments will be to re-assign zoning designations for the properties currentty zoned "Community Facility." Meeting with City of Spokane Planning Staff Kathy McClung, Greg McCormick and Mike Basinger met with Director, LeRoy Eadie and discussed annexation issues, Shoreline Master Program, 2010 Census, Planning Commission collaboration and staff training. Code Amendments Airport Overlay - The City Council has scheduled a study session on this amendment on March 3, 2009. Title 20 (Subdivision) - The Council had a study session on these amendments in January and will have the first and second readings in February. Residential Lighting Standands - This amendment was referred back to the staff and Planning Commission for additional worlc. Staff is conducting research and anticipates a new draft in March. Batch Amendments - A draft staff report has been completed for some housekeeping items. It has not been scheduled for the Planning Commission at this time. Development Enqineerinq Street Standards Development Engineering completed their draft 'Street Standards" document and has solicited comments from the development community. On January 23, 2009, the division presented the document to about 40 interested citizens in a Developer's Forum. Overall comments were positive on the draft. The document is scheduled for a Planning Commission study session in March. UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST - - February 12 Presentation on Draft Street Standards at Government Affairs meeting of Spokane Homebuilders February 16 President's Day - City Hall Closed February 26 Planning commission study session on a batch of Code Amendments and Comprehensive Plan Updates Code Compliance Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 33 Citizen Action requests for the month of January. Total year-to- date reported violations are 33 compared to 25 for the same period last year. Page 5 of 5 J CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ~ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Traffic signal operation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Council has requested information on signal operation and coordination. The City's traffic signals operate in different modes depending on the time of day. During the peak travel times many of the signals run in a coordinated mode, which allows the main street traffic to move down the corridor with minimal stopping and delay. At off-peak times of the day they operate in an on-demand mode where they serve the minor movements more quickly yet main street traffic is more likely to get stopped. The Sprague-Appleway couplet runs in coordination from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm during the week. The coordination allows drivers in both directions to go from University to Fancher with maybe one or two short stops, if at all. The longest cycle we run on the couplet is 100 seconds, which means the side street traffic might be kept waiting a minute or longer at times. Achieving good coordination with minimal delay on one-way streets is relatively easy to do. Public Works receives many positive comments on the couplet's traffic flow. Coordination on twaway arterials is significantly more complicated. You can often see a great improvement in the "bandwidth" (a fixed window of green time for the main street), and a reduction in stop and go traffic by changing the order of the movements. There are many corridors in the city where we change the signal's pattem throughout the day to address specific operational concems. One of the common changes is the order of the left tum movements from before the opposing through movement to after. This is called "lagging" the left tum. T ical operation , aad'ing 1 N2 s3 U_Zfing o4 ~E 611Wr5 1 06 ~ 07 O eration lavLns NB and EB left turn 01 01 1,3 I Y4 M3 , t+ t' r ~ a5 t r ~ At Trent/Argonne we tested several signal pattems to address the blocking and queuing ftom the short northbound left tum lanes. Last year we implemented a pattem from 3:30 to 6:00 pm that serves the northbound left twice in the cycle, and that has made a significant difference in moving the through traffic and reducing congestion from backups. The diagram below shows the order and duration of each movement in the 150 second cycle. The left tums are circled. Trent/Argonae oQeration from 3:30 to 6:00 P13 m t p, r ~ 1 e8 09 _ a s .7 ~ r5 On Sprague between Pines and Sullivan we run coordination from 11:30 am to 6:00 pm. The diagram below shows the movement of eastbound and westbound vehicles. Because drivers are more used to the left tums going before the opposing through movement, we tried to make the corridor work without modifying the signal pattem. However, there was a significant benefit to both eastbound and westbound traffic to lagging the eastbound 1eft tum at SpraguelPines. Now drivers can get a green at Pines or Sullivan, and travel the whole corridor in either direction with only a short stop at Evergreen, or without stopping at all. Travel time comparisons from driving the corridor before and after it goes into coordination at 11:30 am show a 24% reduction in travel ti,me from.4 55 to 3:44 minutes. fj GA 1cY4r4+~.~t3VC':<r! sp«yti~-- ti t t/ ' tYt'' ~z Q ~ - ~r!% \ 1 ;5~,` ' 1 / i.;'_.i_, •i . ~,llJllt ~ - Lb unJ :~pr:~gue Eastbound Sprague idth firom bandwidCi~ from 11 tn F vc'rc~rc'r 'Il FvPrPrl:P.II tll IgIIlIIVA11 ( t' \ ~ ~ • 1 r~~ 1 ``1~ ^ ` ir/ ~`~l` 4 % ~ ~~,A ir l ~ , ,l '!1 Sprague Avenue 1y`1` ' ~ ;¢reen time . YX `hy,ti ~ '..•.r' 1J ~•,}S t;plequv , i J f ! \ ~ ~ ~ 1 \ 1 ~ , rrr X l '4 y t,.;~''~~ .jl.~r) 1 ` `\~~.:r • . lo ' ,,F, , ,1'~.1~~'``.?'•k,~Y~tii . . „'Ii Ir ~ Y. . . , , r ► A{so last year we developed coordination plans for Pines from Sprague to I-90 as part of our SR-27 Corridor Safety Project with WSDOT. During this process we found it was advantageous to traffic flow to lag the northbound left tum at Sprague/Pines, Broadway/Pines, and Mission/Pines. This project has improved the traffic flow on SR-27 and we expect it is reducing the rear end collision problem that was occurring at Mission/Pines. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None ~ CITY OF SPQKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: P,,rarch 1-3, 2009 City Maciager Sign-a' Item: Check all that apply:❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business L-i puu~ii, nearl: ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation Z Executivc JC66IVII '3ENDA ITFM TITt_F' EXECUT[VE SFSSlCaN' Ppnr±+nri Ii-~~? PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTiON TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we adjourn into Executive Session for approximately minutes to discuss Pending Litigation and Land Acquisition, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. BUDGET/FINANCiAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT; ATTACHMENTS: