Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018, 12-04 Study Session
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (with some action items) Tuesday, December 4, 2018 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION ITEM: 1. First Reading Ordinance 18-025, Open Space Code Text Amendment — Marty Palaniuk [public comment] NON -ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 2. Cary Driskell; and WCIA Representative 3. Bill Helbig, Ray Wright. Police Chief Werner 4. Gloria Mantz, Erica Amsden 5. Gloria Mantz 6. Gloria Mantz 7. Mayor Higgins 8. Mayor Higgins 9. Mark Calhoun ADJOURN Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) Briefing Ridgemont Neighborhood, 22nd Avenue Sullivan Bridge Project Completion Update Barker Road Grade Separation Project Update Pines Road Grade Separation Project Update Advance Agenda Council Check-in City Manager Comments Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda, December 4, 2018 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 4, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance #18-025, Open Space Code Text Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; 19.30.040; and RCW 36.70A.106 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin Report November 20, 2018 BACKGROUND: CTA -2018-0003 is a City -initiated code text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050 open space requirements in the mixed use zones and Appendix A - Definitions. The open space requirements have been a part of the SVMC since their initial adoption in 2007. The amendment seeks to encourage mixed use projects in Mixed Use (MU) zones and require open space for multi -family projects by adjusting the open space standards in the MU zones. If adopted the amendment will have the following effect in the mixed use zoning districts: 1. Require all multi -family projects to provide open space. 2. Add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development in order to be exempt from the open space requirement. 3. Specify that parking areas shall not be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of classifying a project as mixed use. 4. Eliminate the fee in lieu of open space land dedication. 5. Add a definition for "mixed use" to the definitions, and 6. Clean up and clarify some of the language. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2018 to consider the amendment. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that CTA -2018-0003 be approved. On October 11, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to City Council with a 5-2 vote. City Council received an administrative report on the amendment at the November 20, 2018 meeting and there was Council consensus 4-3 to advance the amendment to a first reading of the ordinance. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading with or without further amendments or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #18-025 to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. PowerPoint Presentation B. Proposed Ordinance 18-025 C. Planning Commission's Findings D. PC Meeting Minutes 3/8/2018 E. PC Meeting Minutes 3/22/2018 F. PC Meeting Minutes 4/26/2018 G. PC Meeting Minutes 6/14/2018 H. PC Meeting minutes 7/12/2018 I. PC Meeting Minutes 9/13/2018 J. PC Draft Meeting Minutes 9/27/2018 K. PC Draft Meeting Minutes 10/11/2018 L. Staff Report CTA -2018-0003 CTA -2018-0003 RCA for 1" Ordinance Reading page 1 Spokane Valley City Council Ordinance First Reading CTA -2018-0003 Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones December 4, 2018 CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS • • • • 44•'.., 4-4 z September 7, 2018 •V Study Session • September 13, 2018 E © Public Hearing tio September 27, 2018 Findings of Fact EY ivr A A A October 11, 2018 •!mil Administrative Report November 20, 2018 [Ai Ordinance 1St Reading December 4, 2018 Ordinance 2nd Reading December 11, 2018 Today Proposed Amendment - Overview SVMC Title 19.70.050(G) SVMC 19.70.050 (G) Additional Standards Requires 210 sq. ft. of open space for all Multi -Family projects Defines what form of mixed used development is exempt Removes "fee in lieu of land." D Specifies parking uses may not be considered non-residential uses v Minor language clean up Appendix A -Definitions D Add a definition for "mixed use." QUESTIONS 1 Exceptions to the open space requirement • MU and CMU zoned sites that lie within 1300' of public parks and trails ■■■ Euclid e rte. �fil t IOW mss•fIZA: W - t it �� MENi 24th Legend Parks 1300ft buffer Parks Appleway Trail Centennial Trail Zoning MU CMIJ DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-025 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 19.70 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MIXED USE ZONES, AND APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code relating to zoning regulations, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on September 7 and 14, 2018, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, Planning Commission findings, and Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2018 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Chapter 19.70 SVMC and Appendix A, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards, to require open space for multi -family development in mixed use zones; eliminate a fee in lieu of land dedication provision; stipulate that commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to be considered a mixed use per the definition; add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development to be exempt from the open space requirement; and add a definition for "mixed use" in Appendix A. Ordinance 18-025 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. Goal ED -G3: Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability; Goal LU -G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed —use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity; Goal LU -G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU -P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed use land. Policy LU -P13: Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects; Policy LU -P16: Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas; Goal P -G1: Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail, and open space system that enhances community character; Policy P -P8: Plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F). Section 3. Amendment. SVMC 19.70.050 is hereby amended as follows: 19.70.050 Additional standards. G. In mixed-use zoning districts, projects with multi -family residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided, that: 1. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; Ordinance 18-025 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT q1. Additional oOpen space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail; andor 42. Open space is not required for projects where all ground floor units, or an entire floor on any level within a building will be occupied by non-residential permitted uses, and residential uses are located in the remainder of the building; or where 25% or more of the total building area will be occupied by non- residential permitted uses, with the remainder occupied by residential uses; or where residential and non- residential permitted uses are combined on a parcel, or functionally integrated as part of a complex of related structures in a development where the non-residential uses equal 25% or more of the total development building areas. 3. A fcc in lieu of land dedication may be a„c„cd for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed use zoning districts. Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. 3. No parking areas, whether commercial, private, or public, covered or non -covered, may be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of being classified as a mixed use development as defined in Appendix A. Section 4. Amendment. SVMC Appendix A is hereby amended as follows: Appendix A: Definitions Mixed Use: Development with two or more different land uses combined in a single development project. Mixed-use development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses. Section 5. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 19 SVMC and Appendix A not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of , 20 . ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 18-025 Page 3 of 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2018-0003 — Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA -2018-0003 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix A. The proposed amendment will require all multi -family development in mixed use zones to provide open space regardless of the number of units; eliminate a fee in lieu of land dedication provision; add "public trail" to the exemption that if the development is located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail open space is not required; add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development to be exempt from the open space requirement; and stipulate that commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to meet the definition of a mixed use. Additionally, the amendment will add a definition for "mixed use" in Appendix A. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on September 27, 2018. The Commissioners voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment using the proposed language. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal ED -G3: Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability; Goal LU -G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed —use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity; Goal LU -G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU -P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed use land. Policy LU -P13: Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects; Policy LU -P16: Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas; Goal P -G1: Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail, and open space system that enhances community character; Policy P -P8: Plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2018-0003 Page 1 of 2 b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment will require open space for all development with a residential component in the mixed use zones regardless of how many dwelling units are included in the project unless they are within 1300 feet of a public park or trail. Access to the parks, trails, and open space systems that have been created as part of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan will serve the open space needs of a majority of the mixed use lands within the City. The proposed amendment continues to require open space for those lands that are not served by those systems. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2018- 0003 as proposed. Approved this 11th day of October, 2018 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2018-0003 Page 2 of 2 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall March 8, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m, Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant, Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kasclunitter, Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michelle Rasmussen Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Tim Kelley, was absent, was excused and entered Mary Moore, Office Assistant meeting at 6:43 pm, H. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 8, 2018 agenda as presented. The vole on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the February 8, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports, V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior. Planner, shared the appeal to of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA -2018-0003, is scheduled for March 15, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. The staff report has been forwarded to hearing examiner if there was an interest in reviewing it. The city of Spokane Hearing Examiner will review this case in order to avoid a conflict of interest. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session -- Open Space Requirements for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones: Sr. Planner, Lori Barlow gave the Commission a presentation regarding the open space requirements for residential projects in mixed use zones, She explained the council requested the Planning Commission review this requirement and provide a recommendation to Council. Ms. Barlow explained the code requirements. In mixed use zones there is an open space requirement for mixed use and multifamily residential projects, with certain exceptions. This requirement has been in the code since 2007. The regulation, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70,050(G), is any development in a mixed used zoning district with 10 or more residential units is to provide 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions: • If the project is less than 10 dwelling units. • If project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks or public trails. A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an annual basis. Ms. Barlow continued with background which included: • Multifamily is only allowed in Multifamily Residential zones and mixed use zones. • The locations of Mixed use zones. • Any development of 10 or more residential units being proposed in these mixed zones would require open space to be provided. 2018-03-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 • Single Family Residential does not trigger this requirement. • If a proposal is located within 1,300 feet from public parks or trails then it is not required to provide open space since access to alternative open space is close by. • Ninety percent of the City's mixed use zoned lands lie within 1,300 feet of a public park or trail primarily because of the proximity to the Centennial Trail. It is estimated over half of the Corridor Mixed Use zones lands properties lie within 1,300 feet of public parks or trails. This is primarily because the Appleway Trail runs east from University Road and once constructed will extend to Liberty Lake. Commissioner Johnson confirmed projects along Flora Road between Broadway and Mission would qualify for the exemption because part of the project was within the 1,300 foot distance of a public park, then those projects are not required to provide open space. Ms. Barlow discussed when a developer could request a fee in lieu of providing open space. The SVMC infers the City Council could determine a public project in a mixed use zone could request a contribution instead of providing open space. This caused concern to this council. This regulation has never been used, it is unclear what the City would do if the exception were requested. A comparison in the neighboring jurisdictions found that Spokane and Spokane County do not require any open space for residential projects within their mixed use zones. However, Spokane County incentivizes the development to provide different amenities by offering a density increase if various amenities are provided. Liberty Lake does require open space for every project in their mixed use zones that has four or more residential units. Their minimum open space requirement is 20% of the site. They also have private open space requirements for ground level balconies or patios. ' Planning Commission has been directed to discuss the regulation and send a recommendation to the City Council either to leaving it as is, modify it or deleted it. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the definition of `unit' meant dwelling unit as it is in the Appendix A of the SVMC and the regulation does not apply to single family residential projects. Commissioner Phillips stated he was concerned about what happens to the 210 square feet per unit, what is considered open space and who maintains it? Ms. Barlow responded that the open space requirement is the same as that of an apartment complex. Open space that is required to be on site is not public open space. It is open space that is private for that building. Commissioner Phillips asked does this open space have to be green or can it be asphalt? Can it be a secondary parking lot for the apartment complex or grass or a playground? Ms. Barlow explained SVMC 19.070.050 identifies what can and can't be used as open space, but generally it shall be accessible to all residential units and suitable for active and passive recreational purposes. Commissioner Walton confirmed the regulation allows for an extra 25% reduction if providing extra amenities. For example two swimming pools, a gazebo and a clubhouse. Commissioner Walton asked how the 210 square feet of open space of per dwelling was arrived at. Ms. Barlow responded it has been in the code since 2006 but she would try and research an answer. Commissioner Walton asked do we know how many of these are inixed use or commercial mixed use areas that are within that 1,300 square feet of public parks that have accessible sidewalks. Ms. Barlow responded when a proposal is brought in front of us for a multi -family project there would be improvements that would be required. Commissioner Walton asked if we are giving an exemption for developments within 1,300 square feet ofa public park or trail and they put a sidewalk in and the sidewalk goes nowhere and doesn't link up within that 1,300 square feet to the park does it serve a purpose in getting people that 'A of a mile to that destination? Ms. Barlow responded this code only speaks to providing the requirement to provide open space on the site for the projects that are being proposed. This doesn't exempt them from providing frontage improvements that are related to their project. Those are two separate issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if rooftop improvements considered open space. Ms. Barlow responded if they designed the rooftop to satisfy the intent, it would apply on a case by case basis. Further discussion regarding the intent for not requiring open space in mixed use zones continued. The intent behind mixed use zones is having a more livable environment with pedestrian oriented environment, Commissioner Johnson, asked how would the City come up with for an appropriate fee? Ms Barlow responded parks would identify future parks projects, develop costs and define a service area. It would 2016-03-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 (13 not be started with us. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb stated RCW 82.02.020 also proscribes how this is handled. The city went through a citywide park planning process to establish park needs and developed a fee per dwelling basis. Commissioner Phillips confirmed if this regulation were eliminated an apartment complex proposed in a mixed use zone would not be required to provide open space. Commissioner Phillips asked what the open space requirement is in the Multifamily zone versus the (nixed use zones, Ms. Barlow responded a multifamily project in the Multifamily Residential zone must provide open space equal to 10% of gross project area. The open space must be suitable for active or passive recreation and cannot be used for parking, setbacks or stormwater, etc. lithe project was 10 acres, then 1 acre would be required to be open space. However, if a pool and a gazebo were constructed as part of the project this requirement could be reduced to 75% of an acre. Commissioner Phillips calculated that the 10% of total area based on the density results in approximately 210 square feet per unit that is applied in the (nixed use zones. Ms. Barlow stated that intent appears to be to equalize the requirement in the mixed use and multifamily zone. Ms. Barlow suggested that the Planning Commission look at whether or not the requirement is appropriate in a zone where it is not predominantly focused on providing land for residential uses. Is it appropriate to require a project to provide the same amount of open space as for a multifamily residential project in lands that are designated for residential use? The residential uses in the mixed use zones are intended to be higher density uses. Commissioner Walton wanted to know the number of applications or units that would meet the 210 square foot/10 new dwelling units or more in the mixed use areas. Ms. Barlow replied she could bring back some information regarding how many projects have used regulation. Slie said even though a project might be proposed in a mixed use zone, they (night fall into a criteria where they don't have to provide open space, there is nothing that prevents them from providing it. If the project is large enough they would have to have some amenities in order to make it marketable. Chair Rasmussen asked if we don't have a process in place to assign a fee, then why we have the regulation. Mr. Lamb replied there was a significant amount of case law regarding fees in lieu of dedication in early 2000's, and he offered to provide more information. Ms. Rasmussen clarified if this requirement was removed it could also be brought back at a later date. . Mr. Lamb suggested the Planning Commission could open the subject up for public comment if they so desired to gather responses from industry partners and the public at the next meeting. He noted if the Commission then considered a code text amendment, there would be a formal public hearing involved in the process. There was consensus among the Commissioners to have public input. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m. The vole on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair V49-1(50 Deanna Horton, Secretary ,s7e,08 Date signed APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers— City flail March 22, 2018 I, Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m. Comtnissioncrs, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: Michelle Rasmussen Eric lamb, Deputy City Attorney James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Timothy Kelley l.nri Harlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschtnitter Micki Harnois, Planner Suzanne Stathos Matthew Walton Deanna !lotion, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Commissioner Johnson moved to excuse Commissioner Phillips from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. 11. Agenda: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 22, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six favor, zero against and the motion passecl. Minutes: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the February 22, 2018 and March 08, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was six in favor; zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: 'There were no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Ms, Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained that the appeal for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA -2018-0003 was scheduled with the hearing Examiner on March 15, 2018 but has been deferred to March 27, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments, VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: Review of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. Ms. Barlow stated that during the March 8, 20 18 meeting, the commissioners requested some additional information pertaining to the following: • Where did the 210 square feet per unit of open space come from? Ms. Barlow explained that staff could not find any information why 210 square feet per unit was selected but they did do an analysis and found. that multifamily zones have an area per unit that fluctuates dramatically but in Mixed Use zones it is a fixed number per unit. Multifamily residential area is always the same but the arca per unit goes up as the density goes down and in the Mixed Usc residential, the overall area goes up as the numbers go up and there is no density limit and the area goes clown as the number of units go down. • Multifamily projects located in Mixed Use zones and how many were providing open space? Ms. Barlow looked over the permits for the last five years and was able to find that of the 21 multifamily project's, all had provided some kind of open space. Commissioner Johnson confirmed there was no requirement for open space when a project was within 1,300 feet of a. public park or a trail, • The Commissioners asked for additional information on impact fees, Mr. Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney, shared that SVMC 19.70.050(G)(3) provides for a fee in lieu of land in the mixed-use zoning districts. Mr. Lamb said RCW 82.02.020 provides a voluntaty agreement for a payment of a fee in lieu of dedication but it must be reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or it must require to mediate the direct impact of the development. RCW 82.02.050 -82.08,090 allows for a more generalized impact fee. A study must be conducted, a needs assessment is produced and then a fee is assessed on each new development. This is an arduous prowess and fees are adopted by ordinance by the Council. These are the 03-22-18 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 nf 3 basis for SVMC 19.70.050(0)(3) Commissioner Walton confirmed there currently is no fee. if a developer wanted to exercise this, they would need to do their own study on the impacts. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if the regulation was eliminated could it be reinstated. Mr. Lamb replied it would he more work to bring it back. It would be a new regulation, which would start at the Planning Commission if the City Council decided they wanted to do that. Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed if the Commission recommended to leave it as is, the Council could change it. Mr. Lamb confirmed the Council has had discussions about impact fees and the direction has been consistently to not include them. Commissioner Walton confirmed that if SVMC 19.70.050(G)(3), a fee in lieu, were eliminated the open space requirement would be required of every development in a Mixed Use zone. The 210 square feet would be the requirement for all development with more than 10 dwelling units. The requirement could be waived if the development was located within 1,300 square feet of a park or trail, but there would be no other option. Chair Rasmussen opened the floor for public comment. Arthur Whitten, Government Affairs Director, Spokane Homeowner Builders Association: Mr. Whitten shared there is a shortage of buildable land and people in the skilled trades encourage the development of a variety of housing options, Ile said we should be looking at ways to maximize the number of units and maximize development around major transit corridors, transit centers and commercial areas. His organization feels open space requirements hinder development in a higher density, urban styles that today's market seeks. Mr. Whitten observed that the Comprehensive flan update incorporates language consistent with the proposal to remove this requirement, adopting development regulations are supportive of a variety of attainable housing options and the elimination would bring Spokane Valley, Spokane and Spokane County's development regulations some consistency. This code would not change onsite parking requirements, would not eliminate existing public open spaces and would not preclude a developer from providing innovative market driven amenities in mixed-use developments. Mr. Witten explained the Home i3uilders support the repeal of the open space requirement and encourage the support of the Commissioners.. Ms. Barlow commented this regulation is currently in the anunicipal code and Council requested the Commission review it and make a recommendation to modify, eliminate or leave it is. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the City docs not currently have impact fees. Commissioner Kelley also confirmed a developer could tttalce a payment instead of having open space. Commissioner Johnson shared that prior public comments stated concems about growth and building in mixed-use zones with offices, commercial and residential, which the City does not have a lot of. The current code prohibits this. Commissioner Johnson said he would strike aall of SVMC 19.70.050. Commissioner Walton said although he could agree with Commissioner Johnson, he was concerned builders would seek projects in this arca to avoid some of these requirements, feeling the open spaces in the residential zones would shrink. Mr. Walton said eliminating the requirement doesn't further the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kelly stated he would support taking the fee out and keeping the open space requirement. Commissioner Stathos wants to keep open space requirement. Commissioner Kaschmitter wants to keep green space requirement so children have places to play, and hesitates taking the fee away completely because of the process of trying to return it to the municipal code. Commissioner Rasmussen shared she is pro-greenspaee, supports mixed-use buildings that have a different clientele who want something walkable. She said for the sake of development of different types of affordable housing she would recommend removing the entire section. Commissioner Johnson said the lifestyle of the people moving into those residential uses is different. Ile said many people graduate from college and move somewhere else because the City doesn't have enough for the youth to do, for a good place to live or for jobs. There are a lot of people out there that have different needs for convenience and affordability. He believes in people promoting change and a quality of life, not industry and it doesn't make any sense to keep the regulation. Commissioner Kelley explained when living in Boise they had impact fees which over time he had seen theta pay Wand now the arca is screaming with development however, he supports the open spaces. Commissioner Walton feels we have to have a vision for what our city should look like in the future but in the meantime, we have to look at what the current population desires. 03-22-18 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of'3 Ms. Barlow stated there seemed to be differing opinions on nixed -use zones versus the corridor mixed zones. Ms. Barlow said the Commissioners could separate the uses or the zones. The subject is much broader than just if it should be required or not and to consider all the options. Ms. Barlow reminded the members Liberty Lake requires open space and requires private space in the form of balconies and patios. Commissioner Stathos said she supports keeping green space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if Spokane and Spokane County have this stipulation. Ms. Barlow explained Spokane does not require open space in their mixed use zone because in mixed use zones there is a design element which requires layer of activities for a live/work environment. Spokane County does not require open space for multifamily in their mixed zones. The City of Liberty Lake has a requirement of open space that is 20% of the lot size and they require a private space requirements. Commissioner Kelley said developers could decide to develop in another jurisdiction because they will not have the restrictions there that we are discussing. Ms. Barlow responded we have developments now on the borders of the City but in order to attract residents there has to he amenities. Ms. Barlow confirmed the Mixed Use and multifamily requirements could be treated differently in the code. Commissioner Walton moved to postpose further discussion of this topic to April 12, 2018. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Ms. Barlow asked if there is any more information she could provide the Coninmissioners to help them reach a recommendation. Chair Rasmussen asked fur options that they could consider and what entities can be involved in the mixed use and the commercial use zones. Commissioner Stathos asked for information on separating out multifamily from mixed use and a suggesting compromise. Ms. Barlow was requested to research other communities in Washington including, Tri -Cities, Vancouver, Yakima, and Federal Way regarding their regulations for open space in a mixed use zone. ii Study Session: CTA -2018-0001, Proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.65.020 Animal raising and keeping. Micki Harnois, Planner, gave a presentation regarding CTA -2018-0001 to revise animal keeping and minimum lot sizes from one acre to 40,000 square feet in the SVMC Section 19.65.020. The City incorporated in 2003 and adopted the Spokane County regulations as its interim zoning code did not allow animal keeping in residential zones. In 2004 the UR -1 resiclential zone was adopted and the minimum lot size was 40,000 square feet and allowed three large animals per acre. In 2007, the City adopted its own development regulations and kept the 40,000 square feet in residential zones still allowing three Targe animals per acre. During 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, the corresponding changes to the development regulations updated the minimum lot size to 43,560 square feel (one acre) and kept the three large animals per acre. This code text amendment would return the lot size fur keeping large animals to 40,000 square feet, and keep the same number of animals. it would also strike the words excluding swine wid chickens, as well. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any possibility for n litigation. Ms. Barlow interjected this was simply returning the minimum lot size to for keeping animals to what it was historically. This is the lot size which determines whether or not you can have animals on your lot.. Cotntnissionor Rasmussen confirmed someone who has a 40,000 square feet lot is allowed 2.6 animals. VIM GOOD OF THF. ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order. iX, ADJOURNMENT: Conunissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.in. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair &61100 (-4.7.(1/t7/e} Mary Moore, Sobtietary 4-iz Date signed I. Chair Rasmussen called the pledge of allegiance. present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschtnitter Titn Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City hall April 26, 2018 the meeting to order at 6:02 p.tn. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Marty Palaniuk, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission 1L AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the April 26, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the ,notion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the City had received the decision on the appeal of the SEPA decision for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2018-0003. The Hearing Examiner had upheld the City's determination and denied the applicant's appeal. There had not been enough time for staff to prepare for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Planning Commission packet for this meeting so staff will prepare materials for deliberations to continue on May 24, 2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA -2018-0002, A privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing for CTA -2018-0002 at 6:03 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented to the Commission an overview of the privately initiated code text amendment requesting to add hotel/motel as a supplemental use to the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained hotel/motel is a permitted use in the Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Industrial Mixed Use zones. The Industrial zone allows for all types of manufacturing and industrial type uses. The amendment proposes to allow hotels/motels along principal arterials on a parcel which has frontage along a principal arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said there are three areas in the City this proposal would apply to, Broadway Avenue west of the Interstate, north of Interstate 90 along Sullivan and north of the river along Barker. Barker is not currently classified as a principal arterial, but there are plans to reclassify it in the future. These are the areas along a principal arterial which are zoned Industrial. Much of the area along Broadway would be restricted because it falls under an airport hazard overlay zone (AHO) and high intensity uses like a hotel are those which draw and concentrate people into a certain areas and are not permitted in a AHO zone. There is a small area along Broadway which is outside of the AHO zone which would be available for this proposal. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the AHO was because of the proxirnity to Felts Field, but wanted to know why it didn't apply to the Spokane International Airport (SIA). Commissioner Kelley offered the hotels at SIA are not in the crash zone, and are allowed to build where they based on their location to those zones. The applicant's proposal requests to add a `P/C' in for permitted or conditional use permit in the supplemental language for the Industrial zone in the Permitted Use Matrix. Staff is recommending that an 'S' be placed in the Permitted Use Matrix which would reference the supplemental use 2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 regulations. Staff also made some suggests instead of placing the use in the Heavy Industrial section of the Use Matrix placing it in under the Lodging heading, along with some minor language changes to make sure it was in line with the way the rest of our code is written. Staff discussed requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and most of the conditions covered by a CUP would be handled by existing regulations from the Building Code, environmental regulations, SEPA, etc. Ms. Barlow stated although staff has made some minor changes to the language of the proposal in order to make the proposal more consistent with City code but staff did not made a recommendation on the proposal itself. lithe Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendtncnt staff would propose accepting the minor revisions as well. The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony Steve Sehntautz, Spokane WA: Mr. Schmautz stated he was the applicant for CTA-2018-0002 and principal on the project for the former ITRON site located on Sullivan Road. He stated they are working to develop the 12-acre site into a higher level use with 150,000 square feet of office space, 110,000 square feet of high cube warehouse space. The plan is to develop an extended-stay business type hotel similar to others in the area. He said has had studies done and there is a demand for this use. He said the product he would be offering would have a different price point, something complimenting the area which is growing northward. What they are considering putting on their site would be less than the footprint in their amendment, catering to sales/business people who service the area, convenient, affordable, more suites, and larger spaces, Commissioner Stathos inquired regarding the campus layout, and Mr. Schmautz stated it would have a bit of everything, office, commercial, warehouse and convenience in the same place on an arterial. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners this was not a project specific, and would affect more than this proposal. Commissioner Walton commented one arguments in the application for the proposal was to reduce trip generation. He wondered how it would do this when many of the other services which hotel patrons need are outside of the industrial areas. Mr. Schmautz said he has been doing this for a while and the trips would mostly concentrate where the work was near the offices and warehousing facilities. Dwight Hume, Mead, WA: Mr. flume said he represents the applicant for CTA-2018-0002. Mr. Hume stated he remembers when the hotel currently the Industrial Park was built. He commented the neat for it was created by the tenants of the park, He believed the Industrial Park had to have a change to the code at that time to allow the hotel, because the Industrial Park needed the facility, and it wasn't allowed until the code was corrected. Corporate visitors could be corning to visit or do training for businesses right in the general area and are less populated on the weekends. He said the hotel would be a convenience to the surrounding businesses which would use it services but the clients would use other services in the area such as restaurants and shopping. He commented that the proposal was requested to be on an arterial so it would handle trip generations and ingress/egress issues. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Hume to share his background with the Commission. Mr. Hume is currently a private land use consultant, but spent many years working for Spokane County as their planning director and as a zoning adjustor, which is like a hearing examiner now. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hume how he felt about changing the proposal to require the project to have frontage on a principal arterial instead of the parcel being on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about a structure being located deep inside a parcel where 1St responders would have trouble finding it. Mr. Hume responded the street system would feed to the arterial, but that would be specific to this site. Each site would be different and need its own ingress and egress onto the arterial. He felt there are enough performance standards and development reviews to be able to discover a problem before the doors are opened. Mr. Hume also said other jurisdictions have a CUP process when siting a hotel in an industrial area, Many times the criteria for a CUP has already been met, so he does not know why people should have to go through the process. Ms. Barlow commented the way the language is written a CUP would only be necessary of the proposal was for a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet. If they did not want to go through the CUP process, it would require the project to be designed to go vertical and protect the valuable industrial space. Mr. Hume stated he wasn't against thein, he just 2OI8-O4-26 Planning Commission Minutes Pagc 3 of 5 feels the criteria is covered in other ways. Commissioner Walton asked why the applicant did not rezone the property to Corridor Mixed Use with all of the allowed uses which would be allowed in the CMU zone. Mr. Hume replied the applicant is not trying to bring the CMU uses into the industrial area, they simply want to bring a hotel use into the industrial zone. There is a demand for it and they felt this would be an appropriate request. Ms, Barlow the intent of the Industrial zone is to provide for industrial uses and allow for some accessory uses, so environment is created where it thrives. The intent of the CMU zone is to allow for uses which are much less intensive. If it was rezoned, it would be stripped of one of the amenities the property offers. It could also be argued the property was spot zoned and surrounding properties have not been given the same rights to the uses allowed in the CMU zone. The proposal brings forward the hotel as an accessory to the Industrial zone instead of stripping those uses and adding uses which might not be compatible with the surrounding area. Chair Rasmussen seeing no one else who wished to testify closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Commissioner Walton asked Commissioner Johnson about his expressed concern regarding not having a hotel which fronted on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said it might be better, as Mr. Hume had stated, to have the access on a side road. The customers might be going out once or twice a day to somewhere up and down the arterial, but he feels the language should change in order to keep the project out on the arterial so first responders are not having to drive around in the Industrial Park, Commissioner Walton stated he was a bit concerned that this could amount to telling someone how to develop their property. Commissioner Phillips stated he felt having a having hotel in the industrial area was a good idea. He commented developers will build a hotel where it would be most advantageous to them and would not put it off the arterial unless they were catering to a select few clients. He is content with the language the way it is. Commissioner Kelley commented generating more trips are what we want because it means that people are coming to the City and spending money. There would revenue from the rooms, food and beverage, payroll, federal, state and Local taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, lodging taxes, jobs would be created from the construction, from the new business, more suppliers in the area would spend more money and the employees themselves there by increasing economic development. Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about making the hotel right on the arterial because it could be a security concern if it was too easy to get to from the street. Commissioner Rasmussen said previously she traveled for work and she appreciated having the hotel next door to where she was going to work in the morning so she did not have to deal with the traffic. She said she felt this amendment would fit the needs of the of the specific business people who visit the area and she supported the amendment. She would leave it to the developers to determine where to put the structure based on their needs. Commissioner Stathos stated the area is adding conveniences for the businesses in the area. She would like to protect the industrial areas for those industrial uses but this is a need which would be beneficial to many businesses in this zone, Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she would support the amendment because she felt it would be good for business and the visitors to have the option. Commissioner Johnson also feels the change would be good for the City. He felt it would be a good addition to the industrial zone, he wanted to make sure there was sufficient protection of the industrial land. He said he was not in favor of a CUP. He wanted to protect staff from having to make any interpretations of the code. He wants the language to be specific so there is no misunderstanding, Commissioner Walton said he agreed and specific language allows for less interpretation and would be important to him. He is concerned that allowing an expansion of a use to this zone when there are hotels in the surrounding area which are not at capacity. He wanted to make sure that the industrial land is protected. Commissioner Walton stated his concern with the CUP process and how the hotels could be allowed with little control except for the amount of square footage. Commissioner Rasmussen and Kelley talked about their experiences in being in a hotel in more industrial areas and how they found them beneficial and how the users of the hotels would benefit the area. Commissioner Kelley is in favor of allowing the hotels, but is not necessarily in favor of a larger hotel, 25,000 square 201$-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 feet, in the area. Commissioner Phillips said he was fine with a CUP for a hotel over 25,000 square feet footprint. Ms. Barlow wanted to remind the Commission when they made a recommendation, staff had made some suggested language to the amendment to make it more consistent with the way the Municipal Code is written. Commissioner Walton said his preference would be to eliminate a hotel greater than 25,000 would not be allowed in the industrial zone, so that it would preserve the most amount of land for those purposes. If someone wanted a larger hotel, then they would neat to go vertical instead of horizontal in order to increase the amount of rooms they could offer. This would eliminate the CUP process. Commissioner Walton moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0002 to the City Council with the proposed changes from staff, but modifying the language in SVMC 19.65.080(B)(1) to read 'A hotel/motel is allowed in the "1" zoning district on sites with frontage on a principal arterial provided hotel/motel use has a building footprint of 25,000 square feet or less.' Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0002 to the City Council as revised by staff. This motion was seconded. The vole on the motion by show of hands wasfive in favor, two against with Commissioners Johnson and Walton dissenting. ii. Study Session; Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Ms. Barlow gave a quick presentation to retnind the Commission the subject for discussion of the open space requirements in the mixed use zones. She also discussed that projects in mixed use zones which had been developed and stated all had provided some kind of open space. She also reviewed the requirements of other jurisdictions and most have some form open space requirements. She also shared several examples of mixed use development. The code currently requires any development, multifamily or mixed use, in a mixed use zone would require open space to be provided at a rate of 210 square feet per unit for any development which has more than 10 units. Options which could be considered are: • Separate vertical and horizontal developments • Separate Multifamily and mixed use • Separate Mixed Use zone from Corridor Mixed Use • Increase the distance from a public park or trail • Increase the unit threshold • Increase the amount of open space required per unit • Increase the amount of units required before the open space is required • Leave the requirements as they are currently written • Eliminate the requirements completely Commissioner Phillips confirmed the latest update to the development regulations there are no setback requirements in the mixed use zones. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Spokane does not have any open space requirements in a mixed use zone. Spokane County does not have a requirement but offers incentives if they are added to a mixed use development. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that about 90% of the areas being discussed would be except, but the rest of the areas he would not want to have some kind of open space requirements, Most of the areas are close to transit, places we want there to be vertical growth, and people who live in these places have a different lifestyle. He said he didn't think there should be a requirement in those cases. Commissioner Phillips' concern has been someone trying to build a multifamily project in the MU or CMU zone so they could get out of the open space requirement. After listening to some of the conversations, he thinks maybe this requirement would not be necessary in these zones and would make us more equal with the County and Spokane, Commissioner Walton feels that a dedicated multifamily development in these zones should have different requirements than a mixed use development. There was considerable discussion about why the City does not have mixed use development. Ms. Barlow shared a consultant for the City, at the time of the Comprehensive Plan 2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Update, said there is not enough density in the City to drive it right now. Discussion of how much commercial there should be required in order to consider the project as mixed use. Commissioner Rasmussen said she did not want to stand in the way of any mixed-use project which would want to build here. Commissioner Kelley said he supports no open space for a vertical environment, but for multifamily, open space should be required. Al the end of the discussion the consensus was to have staff separate the mixed use development from the multifamily, to define what would be a mixed-use development, look at whether or not the 1,300 foot requirement from a park or trail would still need to be included and remove the language regarding the "fee in lieu' altogether. VIII, GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton discussed when a motion is actually made, especially when the subject has had a bit of discussion back and forth and everyone might not be in agreement with the solution, there should be some extra discussion an the merits of the motion itself before taking a vote. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in. favor, the motion passed. Miche le Rasmussen, Chair Deanna Horton, secretary Date signed I. Chair Rasmussen called the pledge of allegiance were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschtnitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton, absent and excused. Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall June 14, 2018 the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for . Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official. Micki Harnois, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Walton was excused from the June 14, 2018 meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 14, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote an the motion was six in favor, zero against and the ,notion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 24, 2018 minutes as presented. There were two corrections noted on the meeting minutes. Commissioner Kelley did not attend the State of the City, it was Commissioner Phillips and the public hearing opened at 6:40 not 6:30. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments won't be going forward to the City Council until July 17, 2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact; CTA -2018-0001, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020. Planner Micki Harnois presented to the Commission an overview of the Findings of Fact to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020 changing the minimum lot area requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet for the keeping of poultry and livestock in residential and mixed use zones. A public hearing was held on May 24, 2018 and the vote to recommend approval to the City Council was five in favor, zero against. Connnissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for CTA -2018-0001. Six in favor and none against. ii. Discussion: Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. Ms. Barlow stated this is a continuation of the discussions regarding the open space requirement in mixed use zones. During the April 26, 2018 meeting the Planning Commission had directed staff develop draft language based an the following five guidelines referenced in the Request for Planning Commission Action: • Separating the multifamily uses from mixed use and regulated differently than a mixed use development • All multifamily uses should provide open space. • Mixed use should be defined • Non-residential uses in mixed use development should be significant enough in such a mixed use development doesn't become a loophole to eliminate the open space requirement 2018-06-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of3 • Eliminate "the fee in lieu" requirement Ms, Barlow said she used the current code as a foundation to draft the language requested by the Commission. Ms. Barlow explained the changes that were made to Open Space SVMC 19.70.050(G). • No changes were made to (G)(1) since it is consistent with commission's intent. • Line (G)(2) states, "Open Space is not required for development of less than 10 new dwelling units." The Commission should discuss this criteria, as staff did not clarify if the Commission wanted a change to the threshold number of dwelling units. • Item (G)(3) wwould be eliminated. It would no longer be possible for to request to pay a fee in lieu instead of providing open space. • The new (G)(3) reads: Open space is not required for a project where a residential use is combined with two or more non-residential permitted uses within a building, on a parcel, orfunctionally integrated as part of a complex of related structures in a development. Ms. Barlow noted that the intent of this language was to address the Commission's concern that a small business would be proposed to eliminate the open space requirement. Ms. Barlow explained the draft definition of Mixed Use was based on the intent of the Mixed Use Zoning District. Commissioner Johnson asked how a sloping grade would impact the ground floor of a non- residential use if on different levels, and if public parking would be considered a non-residential use. Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official explained the IRC has specific classifications of the first floor and the basement. Ms. Barlow explained if paid public parking was established on the lot it would be considered, unless certain uses were not allowed... Commissioner Phillips confirmed that two or more non-residential uses did not mean different non- residential such as one being an office use, and one a retail use. He indicated he would rather put a limit in the language such as 25% of the building or up to 500 square feet. Commissioner Johnson suggested the language read the first floor must be non-residential or a percentage of the first floor as an option. Commissioner Kelley replied the developer makes more money on the square footage on retail, therefore retail parking would be good, and it draws retail business, Open space with the retail parking should be part of the required space, Commissioner Johnson, stated that parking shouldn't be included as open space. Ms. Barlow clarified the amount of parking will be determined and calculated based on the area attributed to the applicable use and will be determined by the parking table in the SVMC, Commissioner Johnson stated that public parking if offered, shouldn't be considered a commercial use. Commissioner Rasmussen agreed she did not want commercial parking to be considered as a use when making the mixed use determination. Commissioner Johnson suggested to define how much nonresidential use is required to be a mixed use could be 50% of the first floor or the entire first floor. Commissioner Stathos said that storage units provided for tenants would not be a separate use. If they were proposing mini storage open to the public, then the mini storage would count as one nonresidential use. Commissioner Phillips asked if the 210 square feet per unit would be eliminated if it were mixed use. It was confirmed that the draft code stipulated that open space is not required if you have less than 10 units of multifamily but in a mixed use project open space is not required. Commissioner Phillips suggested that all multifamily projects should provide open space and that the exemption for multifamily with 10 or less dwellings be removed. Commissioner Kasclumitter agreed that the 10 or less dwelling units' exemption should be removed. Commissioner Kelley suggested the code should not say where the non-residential use should be located and was concerned for security, public and safety. He suggested it should be on the ground floor or have a separate entrance for the public. Commissioner Kaschmitter suggested to qualify as a nonresidential it must be one floor or 25% of the building. Ms. Barlow replied language can read the ground floor. Commissioner Johnson agrees with Commissioner Kaschrnitter that one floor should be dedicated to non-residential use or 25% of the building. 7:04 Meeting stopped for break. 7:09 Meeting called back to order. 2018-06-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 The discussion returned to whether multifatnily developments with 10 or less units should be exempt from providing open space, Commissioner Stathos' opinion was to strike the language. Commissioner Johnson responded that he didn't want to give the city of Spokane any more advantage and he wanted to have the city stay as attractive as possible. Commissioner Kelly was in favor of open spaces being provided. Commissioner Kaschmitter replied it is important to have open space no matter what size development it is and the exemption language should be deleted. Commissioner Phillips replied they (all multifamily developments) should have open space and to take it out. Chair Rasmussen agreed with Commissioner Johnson that there is a population out there where who don't care if open space is provided. The vote was four in favor and two against to delete the language that exempted multifamily developments with 10 or less units from providing open space. Ms. Barlow clarified that if the exemption is removed than all multifamily, which is by definition three or more units would have to provide open space. She further clarified the following directives provided by the Commission: • One entire floor can be dedicated to nonresidential use or 25% of structure. • A development could be vertical as well as horizontal with 25% of the development being considered rather than a building. • a development of three or more residential units will need open space, and if one -floor can be used for retail it can be divvied up to equal 25% of the building.. The Commission wanted wait to see the language again and to allow Commissioner Walton to give his vote. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 p.m, The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor; the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair zJ Mary Moore, Offic-'Assistant Date signed L Chair Rasmussen called the pledge of allegiance were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton n. III. IV. V. VI. VIL Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall • July 12, 2018 the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for . Office Assistant Maiy Moore took roll and the following members and staff Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the July 12, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. MINUTES: Commissioner Kelley moved to approve the June 14, 2018 minutes as presented. It was noted that Commissioners Phillips and Walton attended the State of the City. Commissioner Kelley noted that on page three, first paragraph, eighth line, a statement from Commissioner Rasmussen did not seem clear. The administrative staff stated they would go back and listen to the recording and work to clarify what was being said. The vote to accept amended minutes was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. ADMINIS'1'EATIVE REPORT: There was no report. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Discussion: Public Comment — Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the Planning Commission had previously discussed this subject on March 8, March 22, April 26, and June 14, 2018. The Commission had requested the proposed language return in order to confirm everyone was in agreement with the proposed changes. After much discussion, the Commission settled on the following changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19,70.050(G): • Any multifamily development in a mixed use zone must provide open space regardless of how many units; • The language regarding `a fee in lieu of land dedication' will be eliminated; • Commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to be considered a mixed-use per the definition; • Open space would not be required if the development was located within 1,300 feet of a public park or trail; • Open space would not be required where all ground floor units, or an entire floor on any level would be occupied by non-residential permitted uses, or where 25% or more of the building was occupied by a non-residential permitted uses, or where residential and non- residential uses are combined on a site. Ms. Barlow said she would draft the language and begin the formal process for a code text amendment. The Planning Commission would still have opportunity to review, but through the public review process. 2018-07-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 ii. Discussion: SmaII Animal Keeping Regulations Ms. Barlow explained the City Council had received a comment regarding rabbit keeping. She noted that as a result of that comment management made an interpretation that the section of the code speaking to small animals was not intended to only be allowed on Tots one acre or greater, but in fact was intended to be allowed on any residential lot subject to the standards of the code. She stated staff was processing a code text amendment to clarify this regulation. The previous update to SVMC 19.65.020 changing the required lot size froth `one gross acre' to the previous '40,000 square feet,' had been paused until it was determined if this change could be included. Deputy City Attorney, Eric Lamb clarified that the change to the code would likely be to SVMC 19.65.020(A)(1)(a) which references minimum lot sizes for animal keeping and currently says `except as set forth iir SVMC 19.65.020(4)(7) and (9), would be amended to react `except as set forth in SVMC 19.65.020(4)(6), (7) and (9).' Ms. Barlow commented this meeting would serve as a study session for the amendment. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. Ili. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned al 7:33 p.m. 1/(t, Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Offt Assistant 1. Chair Rasmussen called the pledge of allegiance. were present: Michelle Rasmussen James Johnson Timothy Kelley Danielle Kaschmitter Michelle Rasmussen, Matthew Walton Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Clambers -- City Hall September 13, 2018 the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Commissioner Rasmussen moved to excuse Commissioner Stathos from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the September 13, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the July 12, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he attended all but three City Council meetings during the summer. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained that the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were passed during the summer. The recommendations of the Planning Commission were adopted by the City Council. Ms. Barlow stated the City has begun its 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Staff will be accepting applications until October 3151, 2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 Study Session: CTA -2018-0003 A city -initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(G) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Planner Marty Palaniuk informed the Commissioners there was an error in the staff report. The staff report should state the public hearing will be held on September 27, 2018 not on September 20, 2018. Mr. Palaniuk stated the recommended language changes came from the discussions that the commissioners had in previous meetings. These changes will only apply to the Mixed -Use zone and the Corridor Mixed Use zone. The proposed changes to SVMC 19.70.050(G) are as follows: • Eliminate the open space exemption for multi -family or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; • Include "public trail" when exempting the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; • Define what form of mixed used development is exempt from providing open space • Remove "fee in lieu of land" option. • Specify that parking areas shall not be considered as non-residential uses for the purpose of classifying the project as mixed use. • Add a definition for "mixed use" to Appendix A — Definitions which is proposed as "A development with two or more different land uses 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 combined in a single development project. Mixed-use development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses." VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. t—� Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Office Assistant I. Chair Rasmussen called the pledge of allegiance were present: Michelle Rasmussen James Johnson Timothy Kelley Suzanne Stathos Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Phillips Matthew Walton Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall September 27, 2018 the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for . Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Mary Moore, Office Assistant II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the September 27, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed, III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the September 13, 2018 minutes. He noted Commissioner Philips had attended the meeting. The vote to approve the amended minutes was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he attended Valleyfest over the weekend and attended the City Council meetings. He reported that at the September 25, 2018 council meeting Mayor Higgins appointed him to the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA -2018-0003 A city -initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(0) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Commissioner Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:05. Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation regarding a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(0) open space requirements in mixed use zones. Mr. Palaniuk stated the amendment was in the public hearing stage of the process. If the amendment is recommended at this meeting, then at the next meeting staff will return with the Planning Commission's findings of fact and recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Kelley clarified there are two mixed use zones within the City's zoning districts which allow residential development, Corridor Use zone and the Mixed Use zones, Mr. Palaniuk said in the Mixed Use zone 85% of the properties and in Corridor Mixed Use 50%, are within the 1300 square foot of a public park or trail. Mr. Palaniuk also explained the use of the words "mixed use" in the sentence referred to both of the mixed use zones, MU and CMU. Mr. Palaniuk reviewed the proposed changes to SVMC 19.70.050(G) which are as follows: • Eliminate the open space exemption for multifamily or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; • Include "public trail" when exempting the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; • Define what form of mixed used development is exempt from providing open space; • Remove "fee in lieu of land" option; • Specify that parking areas shall not be considered as non-residential uses for the purpose of classifying the project as mixed use; • Add a definition for "mixed use" to Appendix A — Definitions, "A development ivith two or more different land uses combined in a single development project. Mixed-use 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses." Chair Rasmussen invited the public to testify. Arthur Witten, Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA): Mr. Whitten stated the Home Builders Association is in support of the removal of the fee in lieu regulation. He urged planning commission to reinstate the open space exemption for projects with 10 dwelling units or less. He said it builds a strong neighborhood when there are varieties of businesses and residences, whether renter or owner occupied, in mixed use zone. He said he felt the intent of that language was to allow the small-scale multifamily development to accompany these mixed use structures that are allowed in the zones. The SHBA believes the Planning Commission stepped outside of the City Council's intent when directing staff to review this provision and should keep the language. Commissioner Kelley asked if Mr. Whitten meant removing the requirement for 10 units or less in only the Mixed Use zone and not the Corridor Mixed Use zone. Mr. Witten stated he meant in both zones and it should stay in the code. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. Commission Johnson moved to accept CTA -2018-0003 with a change to reinstate the open space exemption for developments of I0 units or less. Commissioner Johnson agreed with all of Mr. Whitten's comments and added the exemption would apply to a very small percentage ofthe overall mixed use zoned lands. Commissioner Kelley asked if the discussion was about Corridor Mixed Use or Mixed Use zone. Commissioner Kelley stated we don't see sidewalks or any way for people to move back and forth safely from building to building. Corridor mixed or mixed use zones supplies that open space to have common areas to socialize. Commissioner Kelly did not support reinstating the open space exemption. Commissioner Phillips supported leave it as proposed and does not support reinstating the exemptions. He stated the open space requirement is only 210 square feet for each dwelling unit and the maximum area that would require dedication would be 2,100 square feet. He said that much area is equal to approximately half of his front yard. He did not feel that was too much to ask a developer. Commissioner Phillips supported the amendment as originally proposed. Commissioner Walton stated he struggled with eliminating the exemptions. He has been a proponent of eliminating this exemption. He does not believe in excessive regulations. Mr. Walton stated the purpose of the change is to support and promote true mixed-use developments and felt that the amendment, as written, does that. He did not support the motion. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification on the motion and Chair Rasmussen said that the motion on the table was to approve the language as presented with a modification to reinstate the open space exemption for 10 dwelling units or less. Commissioner Kelley stated that those in favor of the motion are in favor of eliminating open space. Commissioner Walton said the motion is to reinstate the stricken requirement for open space for projects with 10 or less dwelling units and to reinstate the language rather than have it remain stricken. Commissioner Stathos did not have any comment. Commissioner Kaschmitter wanted to see open space required for multifamily projects. Commissioner Walton clarified the open space requirement only applies to multifamily projects and not mixed use projects. Commissioner Rasmussen shared support for both sides but feels reinstating the exemption will stimulate economic development, reduce costs, and support more affordable housing. Commissioner Kelley stated that commissioners in favor of open space should vote against the motion on the floor and those not in favor of open space should vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought the amount of open space that would be required for a project with 10 dwelling units or less will not be a sufficiently usable area. Residents will meet their open space needs by going elsewhere. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the concept of focusing development in areas where it fits, but also wants to support infill type projects that fit. Commissioner Kelley referenced the planning goals within Washington State Growth Management Act and said not supporting the motion aligns with the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Walton restated that he supports focusing and supporting mixed-use projects in areas designated 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 for mixed use. He pointed out that the City has designated lands for multifamily development, and there is opportunity for multifamily development in those areas. The Commission should support regulations that encourage mixed-use projects in the land designated for mixed use and feels the amendment, as written, provides that support. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff had any comment. Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested the Commissioners make a decision and move the amendment forward. Commissioner Rasmussen ask for clarification on voting on the motion and whether a subsequent motion could be brought forward. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided clarification on voting on the motion and stated that subsequent motions could be made and voted on. Chair Rasmussen called the vote and the motion on the floor, which would require multifamily developments of I 0 units or less to provide open space. The vote on this motion was two in favor and five against with Commissioners Kelley, Kaschrnitter, Phillips, Stathos, and Walton dissenting. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amendment as presented by staff. Chair Rasmussen called for the vote with five in favor and two against, Commissioners Johnson and Rasmussen dissenting. The motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton congratulated Commissioner Johnson on his appointment as the City's representative on the Human Rights Commission. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Corrunissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Office Assistant Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall October 11, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 pan. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson, absent - excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Suzanne Stathos, absent excused Mary Moore, Office Assistant Matt Walton Hearing no objections, Commissioners Johnson and Stathos were excused from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the October 11, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported staff made a presentation to the Council on October 2, 2018 regarding density and duplexes. Staff reported that in two instances the density had been exceeded, when duplexes were built following the platting process. Council stated they would like to monitor the situation and follow the County's review of their density and duplex development regulations prior to taking any action. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA -2018-0003 A city -initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(G) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Ms. Barlow explained the findings of fact which reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding CTA -2018-0003 which is a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(G) amending the open space requirements in mixed use zones. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the findings of fact for CTA -2018-0003 as presented. Commissioner Rasmussen stated the reason she voted against the amendment as proposed was she believes there is a population which does not care about green space and the potential for development to be a little less costly were her concerns. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed 2018-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Deanna Horton, Secretary Spokane .Valleyk COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2018-0003 STAFF REPORT DATE: September 6, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 20, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendment is a City -initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix A. The proposed amendment will require any multi -family development in mixed use zones to provide open space regardless of the number of units; eliminate a fee in lieu of land dedication provision; add "public trail" to the exemption that if the development is located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail open space is not required; add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development to be exempt from the open space requirement; and stipulate that commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to be considered a mixed use. Additionally, the amendment will add a definition for "mixed use" in Appendix A. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30,040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix. A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner and Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendment Language Exhibit 2: Presentation BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment August 10, 2018 SEPA — DNS Issued August 24, 2018 Published Notice of Public Hearing: August 31 & September 8, 2018 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley City Council referred the Mixed Use Zone open space requirements to the Planning Commission to review. City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider whether the open space requirements are necessary and whether properties in mixed use zones are disadvantaged by the requirements. These open space requirements have been a part of the SVMC since Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0003 their initial adoption in 2007. In March 2018, the Planning Commission began discussion on the open space requirements and the possible changes to the requirements. The current requirement for open space in a mixed use zone is that any development with residential units shall provide 210 square feet per unit except when the following conditions are present: • If the project is less than 10 dwelling units. • If the project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks ; or • A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an annual basis. The Commission considered the mixed use zone open space requirements during a series of five meetings prior to developing the draft language proposed. Discussion of the requirements considered where the current 210 square feet open space requirement originated, what is the City process for collecting and administering fees in lieu of open space, whether recent projects have provided open space when it wasn't required, and the open space requirements of surrounding jurisdictions. After lengthy discussion and consideration the Planning Commission directed staff to develop language that would: 1. Eliminate the open space exemption for multi -family or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; 2. Include "public trail" when eliminating the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; 3. Add the following languageto identify what form mixed use must take within a development in order to be exempt from the open space requirement: Open space is not required for multi -family development where all ground floor units, or an entire floor will be occupied by non-residential uses, or where 25 percent or more of the total building area will be non-residential uses, or where non-residential uses are 25 percent or more of the total building area of an integrated development. 4. Specify that parking areas shall not be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of classifying a project as mixed use; 5. Eliminate the fee in lieu of open space land dedication; and 6. Add a definition for "Mixed use" to the defmitions. Staff has developed the attached draft language for the open space requirements per the Planning Commission direction. Analysis: The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted thirteen planning goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations. Among the goals is the open space and recreation goal to retain open spaces, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. To further that goal, GMA requires all City's planning under the act to include a Land Use element as part of its comprehensive plan. The land use element must designate the proposed general distribution, the location, and the extent of the uses of land including open spaces. The City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive plan addresses open spaces in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element of the comprehensive plan. Among the goals for this element is to plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. The City does that through the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP). A number of studies have shown that open spaces within and in close proximity to urban centers increases livability and enhances property values. According to multiple published articles on green space and health, the mental and physical health benefits of parks and open spaces have been demonstrated to impact positively on health care. Studies have also shown that urban green spaces can offset the effect of air pollution by providing cooler, cleaner air. Open space is essential to lei sure activities, organized sports and cultural endeavors. Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0003 In addition to providing for open space through the PRMP, the City provides for open space through the application of development regulations. SVMC Title 19 is the primary development regulation. Open space in single-family neighborhoods is generally provided through the application of mandatory building. setbacks which create private open space areas or yards. Multi -family residential development in a Multi -family Residential (MFR) zone is treated differently than single-family development when it comes to the open space needs and setback requirements. Multi -family residential development is defined as three or more dwellings within a single structure. Multi -family development is typically vertical in nature and usually includes stacked dwellings. The yards that are created through the application of setbacks do not provide the usable open space needs required for the number of people residing in the building. Open spaces, such as recreational facilities, play areas, and swimming pools provide a health benefit to the residents, particularly children. Common areas provide an opportunity for social interaction with neighbors. To provide those open space needs multi -family development is required to dedicate 10 percent of the gross area to open space. Multi -family residential development is also a permitted use in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and Mixed Use (MU) zones. However, mixed use development with residential components in these zones is subject to a different open space requirement than in the MFR zone. Mixed use development is much different in form than single-family and multi -family residential development. As defined by the MRSC of Washington, mixed-use development is characterized as pedestrian -friendly development that blends two or more residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, and/or industrial uses. Mixed use development fosters integration, density, and compatibility of land uses, and creates a walkable community with uninterrupted pedestrian connections. Commercial, residential, and in some instances, light industrial fit together to help create built environments where residents can live, work, and play. By its nature, the open space needs for the residents within a mixed use development are accommodated by the development itself. Within Spokane Valley the mixed use zones are generally found along the major transit corridors. The open space standards for residential development in mixed use zones are different than the standards for residential development in the multi -family zone. Under the current regulation, any project in a mixed use zone with a multi -family component must provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. The open space requirement does not apply to developments with less than ten new dwelling units or for developments that are within 1,300 feet of a public park. In addition to those exceptions, a development may pay a fee in lieu of dedicating the required open space. Note: the fee in lieu of dedication exception has never been utilized. The proposed amendment considers that the open space needs within a mixed use development are different than in a residential development. Open space needs in mixed use developments are generally market- driven and depend on the needs and the nature of the mix of uses within the project. Private developers must respond to the needs of the consumers who will work and live in the mixed use development. The open space needs in a mixed use development can often be met through the use of public parks and open space systems located within the vicinity. This access to parks and trails can be included in the design of the mixed use project to serve the open space needs of the residents. In Spokane Valley, access to a public park or trail is nearby in the majority of the mixed use zones. Approximately 60 percent of the lands that are zoned mixed use and allow multi -family development are located within 1300 feet of a park or a trail; fifty percent of the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and eighty-five percent of the Mixed Use (MU) lands. Generally, the CMU lands have been designated along Sprague Avenue and the major north/south arterials such as Argonne Road and Pines Road. These arterial corridors have historically developed with commercial uses and are served by major transportation and infrastructure amenities. The MU lands are generally located along the Spokane River in the Mirabeau Park and Coyote Rock areas. Centennial Trail lies adjacent to the Spokane River and traverses from the east boundary of the City to the west boundary. Combined, Mirabeau Park and Centennial Trail are within 1300 feet of all the MU zoned property within the City with the exception of approximately 40 acres located at 8th Avenue and Carnahan Road. Appleway Trail is located one block south of Sprague Avenue and traverses from Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0003 University Road to the east boundary of the City. All of the CMU property located along Sprague Avenue from University Road to Hodges Road is with 1300 feet of the Appleway Trail. Access to open space is available within 1,300 feet for a majority of the lands that have been zoned for mixed use development in Spokane Valley. The proposed change to the open space requirement responds to the availability of open space through the park and trail systems, and to the differing open space needs for mixed use development. Access to existing public trails and public parks will serve to meet the open space needs of a mixed use project in the MU and CMU zones. The open space needs of a mixed use land use are different than the needs of a residential land use and eliminating the open space requirements for projects with a residential and non-residential component is appropriate in these zones. Parking areas do not meet the open space needs of mixed use developments and should not be considered a non-residential use for the sake of classifying a project as mixed use. The proposed change recognizes that the open space needs in a mixed use environment are development driven and are already adequately served by existing facilities in the mixed use zones. The amendment will properly provide for open space needs in the instances where that need is not properly served by the development or by existing open space facilities. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal ED -G3: Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability; Goal LU -G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed —use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity; Goal LU -G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU -P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed use land. Policy LU -P13: Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects; Policy LU -P16: Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas; Goal P -G1: Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail, and open space system that enhances community character; Policy P -P8: Plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment hears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment will require open space Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2018-0003 for all development with a residential component in the mixed use zones regardless of how many dwelling units are included in the project unless they are within 1300 feet of a public park or trail. Access to the parks, trails, and open space systems that have been created as part of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan will serve the open space needs of a majority of the mixed use lands within the City. The proposed amendment continues to require open space for those lands that are not served by those systems. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA -2018-0003 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments, no concerns were noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to change the open space requirements for mixed use development in the Mixed Use and Corridor Mixed Use zones is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 4, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) training — pedestrian and traffic safety issues. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Not applicable. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council received training on some similar issues on March 28, 2017 from Ann Bennett of WCIA. BACKGROUND: WCIA provides training to member cities regarding a wide variety of issues where there may be potential liability. Attorney Andy Cooley from the law firm Keating Bucklin & McCormack, will provide the training this evening. The City Council has received a number of comments at Council meetings recently regarding various intersections and roadways in the City. These comments often suggest proposed actions by the Council to address real or perceived deficiencies. As will be discussed, any discussions and/or decisions on proposed actions should involve the appropriate professional staff members. Mr. Cooley's presentation will focus on the types of issues that have resulted in expensive liability for cities around the state. Staff and Mr. Cooley will answer any questions Council may have following the presentation. OPTIONS: Not applicable. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Not applicable. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Andy Cooley, Keating, Bucklin & McCormack. ATTACHMENTS: Mr. Cooley's PowerPoint presentation. Road Design Risk Management: The Relationship Between Elected Officials and Public Works Andy Cooley acooL, Kbmlawyers.com 206.499.5439 Take Awav - To Reduce Risk Understan Understand Understand Use Understand the important obligation that elected officials have to their constituency. Understand the degree of science and professionalism that goes into public works and traffic engineering. Understand where elected officials and public works can collaborate Understand when you can act in a way that is unhelpful Develop a plan for your City for improved collaboration Use MUTCD Use Crosswalk cases Verdict and Settlement Research Crosswalk Cases 1992 - 2017 (25 years) 16 verdicts or settlements involving government in pedestrian crossing cases. n Total of settlements and verdicts: $34,994,000 Average: $2,187,125 What's The Difference? A 2008 Marked Crosswalk installed with Advance Warning Signs and W11-2. All FYG. Xu v. City of Issaquah 2010 Edge Lit LED W11-2 installed due to neighbor i concerns. 2012 Second Edge Lit LED W11-2 installed due to dogs killed. lip HOA Meetings and complaints 395 Feet From Crosswalk Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) _ 305 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AHEAD SIGN ILLUMINATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK EDGE LIT LED 2015 4 year old is killed in front of his mother ► Strong mayor city. ► HOA Petition ► Speed Limit 40-30 ► Moved radar sign Edge Lit replaced ► With RRFB $20 Million Dollar Lawsuit ► One month trial. ► Settled during deliberations for $4M 10 A Primer on Joint Ft Several Liability Basic Explanation No damages cap. Washington - Joint and Several Liability for Fault Free Plaintiff (encourages suits against government) No sovereign immunity. 2009 MUTC Manual Ott Unffortn Traffic Control Devices LOCAL TRAFFI C ONLY Potential Council Member Liability? "The council members ignored clearly established law and their attorney's advice. They are not shielded from personal liability." ► Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 968, 954 P.2d 250, 260 (1998) What have we learned so far? Crosswalk accidents are a high risk area. The engineering is very complicated - despite what drivers believe Changes after an high profile accident are very risky. Changes based on "political engineering" are especially dangerous - possible liability. What is a healthy collaborative relationsnin t tir IMPORTANT ROLE FOR IMPORTANT ROLE FOR IMPORTANT ROLE FOR IMPORTANT ROLE FOR IMPORTANT ROLE FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS: GET ELECTED OFFICIALS: PUBLIC WORKS: RECEIVE PUBLIC WORKS: BOTH: INVOLVE THE CONCERNS/ REPORT EMPHASIZE THE CONCERNS AND ACT EMPHASIZE THE POLICE IN A CONCERNS IMPORTANCE OF WHERE APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. ENGINEERING Communication Dos and Don'ts ► Do communicate in person ► Do communicate by phone ► Don't say "act or someone will die" 16 Understand Understand Understand Understand Act 5 •Understand the •Understand the •Understand where •Understand when •Call for meeting important degree of science elected officials you can act in a with Elected obligation that and professionalism and public works way that is Officials, Public elected officials that goes into can collaborate unhelpful Works and Police to have to their public works and confirm that there constituency. traffic engineering. is a healthy relationship that will reduce risk. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 12/04/2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ridgemont Neighborhood — 22nd Avenue Traffic Briefing GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report — June 19, 2018 BACKGROUND: Over the last 12 months, residents along East 22nd Avenue have been concerned about the increase in speed and traffic volume on their roadway. In response to their concerns, City staff evaluated the conditions and reported those findings back to the residents. East 22nd Avenue is located in the southeast area of the City, adjacent to the city/county border. This area of the City, platted as Ridgemont Estates, was developed in the mid 1970's and was considered the outskirts of county development. Approximately ten years after our City's incorporation, on July 18, 2013, Spokane County expanded the urban growth area (UGA) to the east and south of Ridgemont Estates and the area was quickly platted. With the recent economic surge in the region over the last few years, the newly platted UGA is being developed. This new development has increased traffic in the existing neighborhoods, causing the concern of the 22nd Avenue residents. Beginning in 2017, a developer came to the City to begin the approval process for building a 226 home subdivision named the Vistas at Belleaire. The new subdivision will reside inside the City, within a parcel just north of the south City limits, located east and north of Ridgemont Estates. The development has the potential to add to the already growing traffic on the City's roadways, which includes the County's rapid residential growth between Sullivan and Barker Roads. Since beginning the permitting process, the Ridgemont Estates residents have been active to ensure that this new growth will have minimal traffic impacts on their streets. The residents of the area have written numerous emails and made several phone calls expressing their traffic concerns. They fear that if the City were to allow the new Vistas at Belleaire subdivision to move forward, along with the continued County development in the area, their lifestyle will be significantly impacted as a result of traffic congestion. First, the neighborhood is concerned about safety due to the speeds on the roadway and the lack of pedestrian facilities. Second, they are concerned about the increase in traffic volumes and its impacts on existing residential roadway facilities. Finally, they are concerned that their residential roadway is not suited for the increase in traffic from a design standpoint. Brainstorming by the residents has resulted in their requests for various measures including the installation of speed bumps/humps, stop controlled intersections, and traffic restrictions to their neig hborhood. Over the last 12 months City staff coordinated efforts with the neighborhood and evaluated traffic in the area and have reached several conclusions: • Traffic and Speed Studies conducted by the Traffic Department in November 2017 and November 2018 indicate that traffic volumes and speeds fall within established standards for the residential roadway. • A Speed Study conducted by the Spokane Valley Police Department in November 2018 indicates that speeds fall within established standards for the residential roadway. • Enforcement Measures conducted by the Spokane Valley Police Department in October and November 2018 indicate driver behavior in the area is within established guidelines. • Installation of stop -controlled intersections is not warranted by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). • Installation of speed humps for speed control lies outside guidelines established by many other jurisdictions and agencies. OPTIONS: Discussion Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Final impact yet to be determined. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer Mark Werner, Spokane Valley Chief of Police Ray Wright, PE, Sr. Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Presentation i.dgemont Neighborhood 22nd Avenue Traffic December 4. 2018 Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer Mark Werner, Chief of Polic right, PE, Senior Traffic Enginee Presentation Outline December 4, 2018 Ridgemont Neighborhood Neighborhood Ideas Investigations City Findings Enforcement Efforts Staff Recommendations Questions Ridgemont Neighborhood December 4, 2018 Southeast Area of City First Phase Platted in 1975 2013 Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansion 90% of UGA Expansion Platted Vistas at Bellaire within City Traffic Contribution to 22nd Avenue 3 PE Ridgemont Neighborhood Vistas at Bellaire UGA Expansion Ridgemont Neighborhood December 4, 2018 Neighborhood Concerns Safety Traffic Speeds No Pedestrian Facilities Traffic Volume Increase New Developments Existing Residents Road Design Road Grades Pavement Design 4 Ridgemont Neighborhood December 4, 2018 Numerous E -Mail Correspondences Neighborhood Meeting 16 Attended Gathering of Information Exchange of Ideas Documentation Exchanged Individual Discussions 5 Neighborhood Ideas December 4, 2018 Safety Radar Speed Signs Stop Control Intersections Utilize Speed Bumps/Humps Continued Enforcement Traffic Volume Increase Traffic Flow Deterrents Restrict Access to Area Road Design Restrict Access to Area Neighborhood Proposed Stop Sign &/or Speed Hump - °° 7 Investigations December 4, 2018 Speed Studies Speeds shown are 85th percentile statistic. Posted speed limit is 25 mph. Standards indicate 85th percentile to be within 5 mph of posted limit (30 mph). Location Traffic Department Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Police Department Fall 2018 * 22nd Avenue Conklin Rd 29 mph 29 mph 25 mph 26 mph Volume Studies Volumes shown are Average Daily Traffic (ADT). * Note: Only 1 Direction of Travel Data Available Location Fall 2017 Fall 2018 22nd Avenue Conklin Rd 1,643 1,665 1,548 Spokane .0.10Valley Investigations December 4, 2018 SCOPE Radar Trailer 3 Different Locations, 2 Consecutive Days at Each Location Data Gathered Morning (6:00 am — 9:00 am) Data Gathered Evening (4:00 pm — 7:00 pm) Exceedance of 25 mph Location Morning Evening 2223 S Conklin Rd Conklin Rd Near 22nd Ave 16306 E 22nd Ave 10% 18% 21% * Note: Only 1 Morning of Data Available 8 {[1, I11 o. Spokane ii Valley City Findings December 4, 2018 New Development Anticipated Traffic Increase to Ridgemont Approximately 20% Existing Roadway Geometrics Existing Slope ±81/2% Standards Allow for 8% Deviations Allow for 10% Maximum with Limitations New Roadway Opportunities No Opportunities for New Arterials Existing Roadways Planned and Constructed Decades Ago Northern Route from Vistas at Bellaire Not Likely to meet Standards (Slope) 11° Ridgemont ra Neighborhood Its It° E#2 E 2nd Ave mr.Fisa gym City Findings December 4, 2018 Stop Sign Installation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) — National Standard Purpose is to Assign Right of Way Signs Not Warranted Speed Bumps / Humps No Documented Speed Issues to Mitigate Road Maintenance / Snow Removal Not Appropriate using Established Criteria Vehicle Restrictions Public Roadway Area Designated "No Trucks" with 10 "Local Delivery Only" PE Ridgemont Neighborhood Vistas at Bellaire UGA Expansion E 22nd. Ave City Findings December 4, 2018 No Accident History Radar Speed Signs Studies Support Effectiveness in Reducing Speeds Vistas at Bellaire — Traffic Mitigation Requires 2 Signs Location of Signs — Yet to be Determined PE Ridgemont Neighborhood Vistas at Bellaire UGA Expansion E 22nd Ave Enforcement Measures December 4, 2018 Speed Enforcement 28 Man -Hours of Enforcement 2 Vehicles in Excess of 35 mph Median Speed of 27 mph "No Trucks" Enforcement November 12th & 13th 22 Trucks Observed in Excess of Weight Limit 1 Violation of "No Trucks" Ordinance 12 Staff Recommendations December 4, 2018 Continue Implementing and Enforcing Truck Restrictions Study Potential Locations for Proposed Radar Speed Signs Continue Monitoring Area to Determine if Problems Develop 13 Questions December 4, 2018 1 Ridgemont Neighborhood CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 4, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project #0155 Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • Administrative Report to discuss Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) - May 25, 2010 • Admin Report - March 8, 2011 • Admin Report on Sullivan bridge condition - August 23, 2011 • Admin Report on Temporary Repairs - September 20, 2011 • Info Report on TIGER III Grant Application - September 27, 2011 • Motion Consideration for approval of surveying and topographic mapping contract with CH2M HILL - November 1, 2011 • Info Report on TIGER IV Grant Application - February 14, 2012 • Info Report discussing Supplemental Agreement Number 1 with CH2M HILL for Preliminary Design services and Info RCA regarding the Final Design Scope of Work - July 24, 2012 • Motion Consideration for approval of Final Design Phase Contract with CH2M HILL - July 31, 2012 • Info RCA - November 6, 2012 • Motion Consideration for approval the De Minimus Determination on Impacts to Sullivan Park and Centennial Trail - November 13, 2012 • Motion Consideration to award the contract award of Sullivan Park Improvements project, Phase 1 -Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement - August 27, 2013 • Info RCA - February 25, 2014 • Motion Consideration to award the Phase 2 construction contract - July 22, 2014 • Admin report on revised De Minimis determination on impact to the Centennial Trail related to Trail realignment work - October 6, 2015 • Motion to Approve on revised De Minimis Determination on Impacts to the Centennial Trail - October 13, 2015 • City Manager comments and Council agreement on for City Manager to execute Centennial Trail realignment change order based on Finance Committee approval - October 20, 2015; • Information Report to discuss Centennial Trail realignment change order for soldier piles (Change order No. 7) - November 10, 2015 • Admin report to discuss Centennial Trail realignment change order (Change Order No. 11) - June 28, 2016, • Information Report to discuss project status - October 25, 2016 • Administration Report to discuss project status - December 6, 2016 • Admin report to discuss project status - April 4, 2017, BACKGROUND: The Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project was conducted in two phases. The Phase 1 - Sullivan Park Improvements Project enlarged the usable space in the park to provide the same function and continued public use of the park while a portion of the park was occupied by the bridge contractor for construction of the new bridge. The Phase 2 - Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project replaced the existing two-lane southbound Sullivan Road Bridge over the Spokane River with a new four -lane bridge. Preliminary engineering for Phase 2 began in 2011 and the project was advertised for construction in 2014. Construction of Phase 2 began September 2014. Physical completion of Phase 2 was achieved in September 2017. WSDOT completed a Project Management Review (PMR) of this project in 2017. According to the PMR findings, the project files were missing a significant number of documents or records required by federal grants. Staff worked diligently in file cleanup over the past 12 months. Project closeout was achieved in September 2018. The following table provides a summary of the final revenues and expenditures for this project. Budget FHWA Bridge Grant TIB Grant FMSIB Grant Utility Reimbursement City Funds Project Bid Documents Total $8,000,000 $ 3,500,000 $1,583,333 $ 430,000 $2,320,000 $15,833,333 Budget Revenues $7,986,331 $3,499,901 $1,560,000 $367,681 $2,079,185 $150 $15,493,248 Expenditures Preliminary Engineering $1,694,500 $1,824,835 Right of Way $289,258 $81,503 Phase 1 Construction (Park) $195, 508 $181,145 Bridge Construction $13,654,067 $13,405,765 Total $15,833,333 $15,493,248 OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, P.E. — Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation S`"P oka e�R l�Valley Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project December 4, 2018 Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager Discussion Items December 4, 2018 Purpose Project Schedule Change Order Summary Budget Status Project Successes Purpose December 4, 2018 Steady Decline in Condition Weight Restrictions Required Temporary Repairs Sufficient Rating = 24 (1-100 Scale) Structurally Deficient ilmemssausThum- CRACK EXTENDS UP INTO WALKWAY. Spokane .000 Valley Overall Project Schedule December 4, 2018 Bridge Inspection 2009 Secured Project Funding 2010 — 2012 Imposed Weight Restrictions June 2011 — February 2012 Engineering Design 2011 — 2014 Construction September 2014 — September 2017 Project Closeout September 2018 Spokane _ Valley Change Order Summary December 4, 2018 viRmirp! Flora Pit Road Sewer Connection (100% funded by Spokane County) Centennial Trail Realignment (4 Change Orders, $86,197 Reimbursed by Consultant) NB Sullivan Road Street Preservation (Fully funded by Fund 311) Deletion of Water Main Equitable Adjustment for Decreased Concrete/Increased Flagging Combined Other 16 Change Orders Total of 21 Executed Change Orders 5 $51,343.36 $509,937.79 $54,436.30 -$142,530.50 $54,087.58 $26,595.42 $553,869.95 Spokane ii Valley Final Budget / Revenues December 4, 2018 1 FHWA Bridge Grant $8,000,000 $7,986,331 TIB Grant $ 3,500,000 $3,499,901 FMSIB Grant $1,583,333 $1,560,000 Utility Reimbursement $ 430,000 $367,681 City Funds $2,320,000 $2,079,185 Project Bid Documents $150 Total $15,833,333 $15,493,248 6 Spokane .0.10Valley Expenditures Final Budget / Expenditures December 4, 2018 Preliminary Engineering $1,694,500 Right of Way $289,258 Phase 1 Construction (Park) $195, 508 Bridge Construction $13,654,067 Total $15,833,333 7 $1,824,835 $81,503 $181,145 $13,405,765 $15,493,248 Spokane .0.10Valley Project Successes December 4, 2018 Before After Project Successes December 4, 2018 New Bridge with 75 Year Life 9 Additional Capacity 10 Project Successes December 4, 2018 Improved River Access Viewing Platforms Spokane �s Valley Questions? December 4, 2018 11 �<<�,o�ane P Va11ey �s CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 4, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information Department Director Approval: ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Barker Road/BSNF Grade Separation Project Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • May 7, 2013 — Administrative Report, Bridging the Valley • June 23, 2015 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included both the Barker Road and the Pines Road Grade Separation Projects (GSP) • April 5, 2016 — Admin Report for use of federal earmark funds • November 8, 2016 — Information Report on the status of the Barker GSP • November 15, 2016 — Administrative Report on the Barker GSP status • November 22, 2016 — Informational RCA • December 6, 2016 — Administrative Report • December 20, 2016 — Administrative Report • January 10, 2017 — Motion failed to contract with DEA for project design services • February 21, 2017 — Administrative Report • February 28, 2017 — Passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 TIP • May 23, 2017 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2018-2023 Six -Year TIP, which included the Grade Separation Project • August 22, 2017 — Passed motion to enter into contract with DEA for the project's Phase 1 • October 24, 2017 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • January 30, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives with Council consensus to move the project forward with Alternative 5 • March 2, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • March 13, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss history and alternatives • March 16, 2018 — Administrative Report for Council and Chamber of Commerce • March 27, 2018 — Passed motion to select preferred alternative for advancing project • April 10, 2018 — Passed motion to execute supplemental agreement with DEA for the project's Phase 2 design BACKGROUND: The City previously received a federal earmark grant of $719,921 and a $1.5M state legislative appropriation for the Barker Road GSP. These grant funds can be used for the design, right -of way and construction phases of the project. The City has also received a grant from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Fund (FMSIB) for up to 20 percent of total project cost, not to exceed $10M, which can be used in the construction phase only. In October 2017, the City applied for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant and also applied for the National Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) program in November 2017. In December 2017, the City was notified that it has been awarded $6.0M from the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). This award requires the state legislature to appropriate the funds in the 2019-2020 biennium. The City must advertise bids no later than September of 2020 to qualify for the NHFP funds. On March 6, 2018, the City received preliminary confirmation that it has been awarded $9,020,149 from the TIGER 2017 program. Staff has been working with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to develop a TIGER Agreement for the funding, which is anticipated to be executed in the Spring of 2019. Following is a table that reflects a summary of financing sources: Barker Grade Separation Project Financing Sources City of Spokane Valley General Fund reserves Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Total from Spokane Valley Federal Earmark 2017 WA Legislature appropriation National Highway Freight Program TIGER 9 FMSIB (20% of total) (assume $19.0 million) $ 1,421,000 2,209,000 $ 3,630,000 719,921 1,500,000 6,000,000 9,020,149 3,800,000 $ 24,670,070 A diamond interchange was originally proposed for the Barker GSP by SRTC's (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) 2004 Bridging the Valley Evaluation and Study. The high cost of this concept, estimated at $36 million in 2016, made it difficult to obtain support from our regional funding partners. A current cost estimate for the interchange concept is in excess of $45 million. City Council chose not to move forward with the original proposal in early 2017. Throughout 2017, City staff worked closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation to develop alternatives to the interchange design in order to implement a practical solution for the intersection. An RFQ was issued for planning and design of the Barker Road GSP in March 2017. David Evans & Associates (DEA) was selected as the most highly qualified firm. Council passed a motion on August 22, 2017 to move forward with the project design in two phases, and awarded the contract to DEA. In the first phase of the project, the Consultant analyzed and compared six alternatives in terms of cost, right-of-way needs, impacts to existing properties, constructability, safety, and other pertinent project elements, so the City could select the preferred alternative. The alternatives evaluation, which resulted in a WSDOT required Basis of Design and Alternatives Report for 6 alternatives, the preferred alternative was identified as Alternative 5. On March 27, 2018, the City Council passed a formal motion identifying Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative for advancing the project into design and construction. On April 10, 2018, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a supplemental agreement with DEA for the final design of Alternative 5. The following major milestones are currently ongoing or have been completed: • The project area was surveyed • 60 percent roadway horizontal and vertical alignment are expected to be completed in December 2019 • NEPA is expected to be approved in December 2018 • SEPA was initiated in November 2018 and expected to be approved in January 2019 • Tiger IX Agreement is being negotiated with USDOT • ROW plans are expected to be finalized in January 2019 • Right-of-way plans are expected to be approved by WSDOT in March 2019, and then the ROW plans will be initiated OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: To date, the City has secured funding in excess of $24,000,000 for the project from seven sources. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE — Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Barker Road Grade aration ProjectUpdate Spokane Valle Agenda Summary of Financing Sources Major Milestones ROW Acquisitions Next Steps Spokane .000 Valley Summary of Financing Sources Barker Grade Separation Project Financing Sources City of Spokane Valley General Fund reserves Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Total from Spokane Valley Federal Earmark 2017 WA Legislature appropriation National Highway Freight Program TIGER 9 FMSIB (20% of total) (assume $19.0 million) $ 1,421,000 2.209.000 $ 3,630,000 719,921 1,500,000 6,000,000 9,020,149 3.800.000 $ 24, 670, 070 3 Spokane .000 Valley Major Milestones Survey and Basemap Completed Initiated Environmental Review Started NEPA Process and its Required Discipline Reports in August 2018 Expect to have NEPA Approved in December 2018 Started SEPA Process in November 2018 Expect to have SEPA Approved in January 2019 Finalizing 60% Roadway Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Profiles Held Several Coordination Meetings/Reviews with WSDOT Design Staff Expect to be Completed by December 2018 Spokane 4 4,1000 Valley Major Milestones Utility Coordination Meetings Avista and Yellowstone/Phillips Located in Vicinity of South Abutment Overhead Power and Communication Lines will Need to be Relocated on Barker Negotiating TIGER IX Agreement with USDOT Advance Funds to Design and Right -of -Way Phases Expected to Take 3-4 Months for Approval Documentation Requirements More Stringent Than Other Federal Grants Project is a "Project of Division Interest" Additional FHWA Oversight and Audits 5 4000 Valley 6 ROW Acquisitions Spokane _ Valley Barker Rd Flora Rd Parcels Affected 13 2 Property Owners 8 2 Potential Full Acquisitions 4 1 Relocation Relocation) 0 Potential Partial Acquisitions 9 2 Spokane _ Valley Next Steps Prepare Right -of -Way Plans by February 2019 Develop Preliminary Bridge Plans for Package B BSNF Submittal Obligate ROW Funds to Begin Negotiations with Property Owners by March 2019 Finalize Tiger IX Base Agreement Spokane .000 Valley Questions? 8 Spokane .000 Valley CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 4, 2018 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Pines Grade Separation Project Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • Administrative report, Bridging the Valley, May 7, 2013 • Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included both the Barker Road and the Pines Road Grade Separation Projects (GSP) — June 23, 2015 • Adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included the Pines Road Grade Separation Project (GSP) — • Motion to acquire Pinecroft property - January 10, 2017 • Council passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 TIP, February 28, 2017. • Administrative report seeking Council consensus to move forward with project design - March 28, 2017 • Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2018-2023 Six -Year TIP, which included the Grade Road GSP - May 23, 2017 • Motion passed to select a Consultant for Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project, Phase 1 Design Contract - July 11, 2017. • Admin Report on Design Alternatives — October 17, 2017. • Motion consideration to apply for Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) federal grants, March 27, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, FY2017, (CRISI #1) grant, May 22, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant, June 5, 2018. • Motion consideration to apply for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, FY2018, (CRISI #2) grant, August 21, 2018. BACKGROUND: Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for engineering design services for the Pines Road GSP in 2016. HDR Engineering and DEA (Consultants) were selected to design the project in May 2017. On July 11, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award an engineering services contract to the Consultants. The design will be completed in two phases. In the first phase, the Consultant will analyze and compare two alternatives in terms of cost, right-of-way needs, impacts to existing properties, constructability, safety, and other pertinent project elements so the City can select the preferred alternative. In the second phase, the Consultant will complete the preliminary engineering design of the selected alternative. The Consultant is evaluating two alternatives as part of the Phase I design. Staff provided an overview of the alternatives to council on October 17, 2017. In January 2018, BNSF met with the City to discuss the Otis Orchards to Irvin Double Track Project that will construct a second mainline track from just east of Barker Road to just west of Pines Road (SR -27) in Spokane Valley. In this meeting, BNSF indicated that the track separation at Pines Road was depending on ongoing geotechnical work related to their project. BNSF provided their project design information to the City in September 2018. Since receiving the information from BNSF, staff has been progressing with the Alternatives Analysis. A "re -kickoff' meeting was held with the Consultant, WSDOT, and staff in October 2018. The Basis of Design for the alternatives has been submitted to WSDOT for review. The attached presentation provides pros and cons for each design alternative. Additional public outreach will be conducted prior to staff recommending a preferred alternative to Council. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Varies as presented in the attached presentation. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE — Engineering Manager Erica Amsden, PE — Senior Project Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Pines d/BNSF Grade Pioject Upda Spokane Valle Gloria Martz, PE, Engineering Manager Erica Amsden, PE, Sr. Project Engineer Presentation Agenda December 4, 2018 Project Location Existing Conditions Project Timeline Alternative Analysis Project Cost & Funding Next Steps Spokane .000 Valley 3 Project Location December 4, 2018 1 11 Spokane Existing Conditions December 4, 2018 Project Detail Existing Trains per Day 56 Vehicle ADT at Crossing 16,400 Existing Level of Service E Daily Train Whistles 112 Total Vehicle Accidents Since 2012 59 Injury Accidents Since 2012 22 Property Damage Accidents Since 2012 37 4 Spokane .000 Valley Project Timeline December 4, 2018 Summer 2017 — City Retained HDR to Begin Design October 2017 — Public Meeting to Look at Design Alternatives October 2017 - City Council Administrative Report January 2018 — Staff meets with BNSF to Get Information Critical to Design BNSF Consultants Working on Design of Double Track GSP Project on Hold Until BNSF provides Track Spacing Information April 2018 — Staff Submits Concept Submittal to BNSF June 2018 — Staff Resubmits Concept Submittal per BNSF Request August/September 2018 — BNSF provides track spacing information & 60% Design Plans 5 September 2018 — Project Re -Kickoff Meeting with WSDOT Alternative Analysis —Alternative 1 December 4, 2018 Lowers Trent 10 to 12 feet Causes Access Issues for Several Surrounding Properties Requires Greater Amount of ROW Acquisition Probable Cost - $29M (Assumes 2023 CN) Larger Impacts to Traffic During Construction Lowest Score in WSDOT Cost Benefit Analysis Alignment Can Accommodate 4 Tracks per BNSF Roundabout or Signal 6 Alternative Analysis —Alternative 2 December 4, 2018 Connects to Trent Avenue at Grade Less ROW Acquisition from Private Property Owners Requires More ROW Acquisition from BNSF Probable Cost - $26M (Assumes 2023 CN) Less Impacts to Traffic During Construction Highest Score in WSDOT Cost Benefit Analysis Alignment Can Accommodate 4 Tracks per BNSF Roundabout or Signal 7 Alternative Analysis — WSDOT Coordination December 4, 2018 Basis of Design Submitted to WSDOT Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) After Preferred Alternative is Selected Signal or Roundabout 8 Budget and Funding December 4, 2018 Current Funding City Funded PE (Including 2019 Funds) STBG Grant -Partial ROW Funding Secured Funding Inactive Grants FMSIB Grant from 2000 (WSDOT Application) Funding Gap Highest Project Cost (Assume Alternative 1) Secured Funding Inactive Grants Funding Gap $ 3.2M $ 1.9M $ 5.1M $ 3.3M $ 29.0M $ 5.1M $ 3.3M $2O.6M Spokane .000 Valley Next Steps and Questions December 4, 2018 Additional Public Outreach Public Meeting Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Meeting Motion Consideration to Select Preferred Alternative Begin Preliminary Engineering of Preferred Alternative Submit ICA to WSDOT Continue Pursuing Grant Funding 10 Spokane .000 Valley DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of November 29, 2018; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Dec 11, 2018, 4-5 pm Special Meeting with 4th District Legislators: Council Chambers Dec 11, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance #18-025 Open Space Code Text Amendment — Marty Palaniuk 3. 1St Read (possibly suspend rules & approve) Ordinance #18-_ amends City Logo provisions 4. Resolution 18-009 Amending City Logo Style and Standards Guide — Erik Lamb 5. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2019 — Chelsie Taylor 6. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2019 — Chelsie Taylor 7. Motion Consideration: Aging & Long Term of Eastern Wa. Interlocal — Mark Calhoun 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [due Tue Dec 41 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) — Lamb (10 min) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) Dec 18, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution 18-010 Amending Governance Manual — Chris Bainbridge 2. Motion Consideration: Contract Approval, Acceptance of Art Pieces — Mike Stone 3. Motion Consideration: AAA Street Sweeping Contract Renewal — Bill Helbig 4. Motion Consideration: Storm Drain Cleaning Services — Bill Helbig 5. Motion Consideration: Street & Stormwater Maint repair Contract Renewal — Bill Helbig Public Comment Opportunity NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 7. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 75 mins] [due Tue Dec 11] No Meeting: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] January 2, 2019, Study Session 6:00 pm (Jan 1 is a holiday, so this will be a `regular' 1. Advance Agenda Jan 8, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners — Mayor Higgins 3. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Higgins 4. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Higgins 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Jan 15, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda Jan 22, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Police Dept Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Reports Draft Advance Agenda 11/29/2018 11:17:42 AM mtg) due Wed Dec 19 (5 minutes) [due Wed Jan 2] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] [due Tue Jan 8] [due Tue Jan 151 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: mins] Page 1 of 2 Jan 29, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 22] 1. Advance Agenda Feb 5, 2019, Study Session 6:00 pm 1. Advance Agenda Feb 12, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda City Action Days, Olympia Feb 13-14 [due Tue Jan 29] (5 minutes) [due Tue Feb 51 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Feb 19, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 12] 1. Advance Agenda Feb 26, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Police Dept Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Reports [due Tue Feb 191 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) March 5, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 26] 1. Advance Agenda March 12, 2019, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 51 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Animal Control Regulations (SVMC 7.30) Camping in RVs Donation Recognition Electrical Inspections Gambling Tax Health District Re SV Stats Land Use Notice Requirements Legislative Delegation Meeting Legislative Remote Testimony (Chambers) Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Park Lighting Park Regulations Ordinance Amendments Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt (April, July, Oct, Jan) Sign Ordinance St. Illumination (ownership, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Studded Snow Tires TPA Utility Facilities in ROW Draft Advance Agenda 11/29/2018 11:17:42 AM Page 2 of 2