The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 04-12 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday,April 12,2011 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Steve Williams,New Life Assembly of God PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/18/2011 3476, 3478, 3479, 3480 $57,446.05 03/18/2011 22395-22416 (-22405) $21,960.52 03/25/2011 22417-22478 $171,965.63 03/25/2011 22479-22504 $153,843.12 03/29/2011 22505-22506 $60.00 03/31/2011 5221-5225 $689.50 03/31/2011 22506-22531, 331110017 $1,530,345.24 04/01/2011 22532-22552 $41,724.59 04/05/2011 22554, 1026910 $854,066.51 GRAND TOTAL $2,832,101.16 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending March 31, 2011: $358,603.28 c. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 22, 2011 Special Meeting, Executive Session d. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 22, 2011 Formal Meeting Format e. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 28, 2011 Special Joint Meeting f. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 29, 2011 Study Session Format g. Approval of City Council Minutes of April 5, 2011 Special Meeting, Executive Session h. Approval of City Council Minutes of April 5, 2011 Study Session Format Council Agenda 04-12-2011 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-006 Livestock in Mixed Use -Christina Janssen [public comment] ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Street Vacation Procedure, STV 01-11 — Scott Kuhta 4. Broadway Avenue Stormwater Drainage Project—Neil Kersten 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger 6. Advance Agenda ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 3rd and sometimes 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 04-12-2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 04-12- 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/18/2011 3476, 3478, 3479, 3480 $57,446.05 03/18/2011 22395-22416(-22405) $21,960.52 03/25/2011 22417-22478 $171,965.63 03/25/2011 22479-22504 $153,843.12 03/29/2011 22505-22506 $60.00 03/31/2011 5221-5225 $689.50 03/31/2011 22506-22531, 331110017 $1,530,345.24 _ 04/01/2011 22532-22552 $41,724.59 04/05/2011 22554, 1026910 $854,066,51 GRAND TOTAL $2,832,101.16 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/18/2011 9:29:03AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 3476 3/18/2011 000682 EFTPS Ben37366 001.231.11. FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 29,141.46 Total: 29,141.46 3478 3/18/2011 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben37368 308.231.14. 401A:Payment 22,048.58 Total: 22,048.58 3479 3/18/2011 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL Ben37370 001.231.18. 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payn 5,229.34 Total: 5,229.34 3480 3/18/2011 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC P Ben37372 001.231.14. 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,026.67 Total: 1,026.67 4 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 57,446.05 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 57,446.05 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty cf perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 vchlist 03/18/2011 2:52:01 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 22395 3/18/2011 001081 ALSCO February 2011 LSP0931836 22396 3/18/2011 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV005870 22397 3/18/2011 001117 BASINGER,MICHAEL Expenses 22398 3/18/2011 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9205597 22399 3/18/2011 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY March 2011 March 2011 22400 22401 22402 22403 22404 3/18/2011 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT&COATINGS 3/18/2011 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 3/18/2011 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 3/18/2011 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 3/18/2011 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES -RN.ELEC A 5943-6 8557 069081 February 2011 24954 25011 -1 I. i 'AI - FundlDept Description/Account 001.016.000 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 001.090.000 FLOOR MATS FOR THE CITY HALL Total: 001.016.000 JANITORIAL SVCS: FEB 2011 PREC Total : 001.058.056 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY:CP Total: 001.058.056 PETTY CASH:9210,9212,9213,921 001.058.056 PETTY CASH:9206,9207, 9208 Total : 001.016.000 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total: 001.090.000 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 001.076.300 UTILITIES: PARKS 001.076.305 EVENT SVCS:CP 001.076.305 MARCH 2011 1.1 II. Bill Total : Total: Total : Total: Amount 39.52 28.88 68.40 2,165.23 2,165.23 45.90 45.90 140.50 140.50 11.50 8.50 20.00 159.19 159.19 341.64 341.64 181.15 181.15 166.00 166.00 39.40 7,136.00 7,175.40 III S: rw T , Page: 1 vchlist 03/18/2011 2:52:01 PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22406 3/18/2011 001844 NIMRI, RABA Expenses 001.018.014 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 50.71 Total: 50.71 22407 3/18/2011 000283 NRPA 2011 001.076.000 NATIONAL REC& PARK ASSOC ME 348.00 Total : 348.00 22408 3/18/2011 001860 PLATT 9128749 001.076,305 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 132.07 9165933 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 135.04 9165956 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 70.57 Total: 337.68 22409 3/18/2011 000041 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2011-2895 001.013.000 FINANCE DIRECTOR SEARCH 5,500.00 Total: 5,500.00 22410 3/18/2011 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 5917 001.076.305 SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 213.90 Total: 213.90 22411 3/18/2011 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS 20507 001.011.000 ENGRAVING AND PLAQUES 156.53 Total: 156.53 22412 3/18/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 4145850 001.016.000 CONTRACT MAINT:FEB 2011 PREC 261.43 4145953 001.016.000 CONTRACT MAINT: PRECINCT SNC 923.95 Total: 1,185.38 22413 3/18/2011 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110453899 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 1,538.02 Total: 1,538.02 22414 3/18/2011 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES March 2011 001.076.302 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,751.24 Total: 1,751.24 22415 3/18/2011 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION CP203 001.076.305 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI 97.01 Total: 97.01 22416 3/18/2011 001074 ZEE MEDICAL 0161454684 001.076.301 MEDICAL SUPPLIES:PARKS 318.64 Total: 318.64 22 Vouchers For bank code: apbank Bank total: f 7( a Page: 2 vchlist 03/25/2011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 22417 22418 22419 22420 22421 22422 22423 22424 22425 22426 22427 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 3/25/2011 001715 AMERICAN RED CROSS 3/25/2011 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 3/25/2011 001017 AVTECH SOFTWARE INC 3/25/2011 001816 BENTHIN&ASSOCIATES 3/25/2011 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 3/25/2011 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 3/25/2011 000904 BRANCH, CAROLBELLE 3/25/2011 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC February 2011 472493 472567 M011031425 1742 CELL ALLOWANCE SPO-010577 SPO-010578 CELL ALLOWANCE 76942 77015 3/25/2011 002544 CAR QUEST AUTO PARTS STORES FEBRUARY 2011 3/25/2011 002562 CD'A METALS 3/25/2011 001780 CLC ASSOCIATES, INC 300224 301191 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.076.301 BABYSITTERS TRAINING CLASS Total: 001.013.015 COPIER COSTS: LEGAL 001.058.050 COPIER COSTS:CD 001.090.000 AVTECH TEMPAGER ANNUAL MAIN Total : Total : 402.402.150 0150 ON CALL PRFOESSIONAL SEE Total: 001.018.014 1ST QUARTER CELLALLOWANCE:: Total : 001.090.000 SERVICE CALL 001.090.000 SERVICE CALL 001.018.013 1ST QUARTER C ELL ALLOWANCE:: Total : Total: 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT TOOLS AND EQUIPME Total : Total : 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW Total : 32336 303.303.112 SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT Total : Amount 210.00 210.00 103.73 601.94 705.67 80.00 80.00 6,474.00 6,474.00 135.00 135.00 382.63 145.67 528.30 135.00 135.00 47.22 12.07 59.29 133.47 133.47 1,016.12 430.98 1,447.10 3,156.00 3,156.00 Page: 1 vchlist 0312512011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher ,Date Vendor Invoice 22428 22429 22430 22431 22432 22433 22434 22435 22436 22437 22438 3/25/2011 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 3/25/2011 001888 COMCAST 3/25/2011 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 3/25/2011 001926 DAVENPORT, SARAH 3/25/2011 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 3/25/2011 000425 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 3/25/2011 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING 3/25/2011 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC, INC 47787 47789 37505 APRIL 2011 25406332 EXPENSES 302946 102825 00003561 3/25/2011 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES 3/25/2011 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 3/25/2011 001794 GOLD SEAL PLUMBING March 2011 35898 35899 35900 35901 35928 35929 786651 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.013.000 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE 101.042.000 HIGH SPEED INTERNET:MAINT FA' Total : Total : 001.058.057 FEBRUARY 2011: FLEET FUEL BILL Total : 001.018.014 BANK MILEAGE&EDEN USER GRO Total : 101.042.000 2011 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERI. Total : 101.042.000 VEHICULAR CHARGER Total: 001.090.000 4TH QTR 2011:MLS CREDIT CARD Total : 001.013.015 LEGAL SERVICES 001.013.015 LEGAL SERVICES 101.042.000 ICE SLICER 101.042.133 308.308.003 001.013.000 001.058.056 001.013.000 001.013.000 LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total Total Total : 101.042.000 EYE WASH DRAIN REPAIRED: PW Amount 136.96 136.96 64.90 64.90 1,687.00 1,687.00 142.11 142.11 1,526.25 1,526.25 198.93 198.93 300.75 300.75 53.00 40.00 93.00 24,020.78 24,020.78 148.80 67.20 25.00 82.45 25.00 28.05 376.50 264.49 Page: 2 vchlist 03/25/2011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22438 22439 22440 22441 22442 22443 22444 22445 3/25/2011 001794 001794 GOLD SEAL PLUMBING 3/25/2011 001009 GOTHMANN,WILLIAM 3/25/2011 002235 GRAFOS,DEAN 3/25/2011 000007 GRAINGER 3/25/2011 002568 GRANICUS INC 3/25/2011 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA 3/25/2011 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 3/25/2011 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO (Continued) CELL ALLOWANCE CELL ALLOWANCE 9483440039 25038 CELL ALLOWANCE February 2011 600283847 22446 3/25/2011 002624 INLAND CABLE CONSTRUCITON, INC 2540 22447 3/25/2011 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 22448 3/25/2011 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 22449 3/25/2011 001439 K&L GATES LOCKHART 22450 3/25/2011 000275 KERSTEN, NEIL 001,011.000 001.011.000 101.042.000 001.090.000 001.011.000 001.058.057 001.090.000 001.018.013 APRIL 2011 001.013.000 CELL ALLOWANCE 001.016.000 0068803 101.042.000 0069027 101.042.000 2331832 001.013.015 CELL ALLOWANCE 001.016.000 Total ; 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:: Total : 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:: Total: SMALL TOOLS&EQUIPMENT Total : BROADCASTING SERVICES Total: 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:: Total : COPIER COST COMPUTER LEASE OUTLET INSTALLATION Total : Total : Total : MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:: Total : PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPD, Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 264.49 135.00 135.00 135.00 135.00 65.35 65.35 4,008.31 4,008.31 135.00 135.00 2,246.18 2,246.18 550.02 550.02 163.05 163,05 300.00 135.00 435.00 4,867.82 1,204.95 6,072.77 1,775.00 1,775.00 1ST QUARTER CELLALLOWANCE:: 135.00 Page: 3 vch list 03125/2011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22450 3/25/2011 000275 000275 KERSTEN, NEIL 22451 3/25/2011 002522 KOEGEN EDWARDS LLP 22452 3/25/2011 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS 1418 1419 1421 1422 1425 1426 499 511 22453 3/25/2011 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 19503 22454 3/25/2011 000616 NEW HORIZONS INC. 22455 3/25/2011 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL SUPPLY INC. 22456 3/25/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 22457 3/25/2011 002243 ORBITCOM 22458 3/25/2011 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 22459 3/25/2011 000119 PLESE PRINTING 22460 3/25/2011 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. (Continued) 30381 100025048 553207603001 00436552 1428301-MR11 1330048154 43419 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.090.000 001.018.014 101.042.000 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.013.000 101.042.000 Total : 135.00 PROFESSIONAL SVCS:SARP ADVI, PROFESSIONAL SVCS: LUPA(1) PROFESSIONAL SVCS:SOLID WAS' PROFESSIONAL SVCS:SHORELINE PROFESSIONAL SVCS:GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SVCS:ENFORCEN Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SPOKANE VALLEY/MONTGOMERY Total : FEBRUARY 2011:SYSTEM MAINTEI 1,678.90 835.20 958.70 1,351.00 1,527.90 275.44 6,627.14 600.00 330.40 930.40 5,940.00 Total : 5,940.00 WINDOWS TRAINGING: BING 2,500.00 Total : 2,500.00 ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING ETHERNET:MARCH 2011 2,000.00 Total : 2,000.00 Total : Total : MARCH 2011: POSTAGE METER RE 20.39 20.39 590.00 590.00 275.00 Total : 275.00 PRINTING-BUSINESS CARDS 110.80 Total: 110.80 2011 PHASE 2 SNOW REMOVAL 24,584.46 Total: 24,584.46 Page: 4 vchlist 03/25/2011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Page: 5 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 22461 3/25/2011 000322 QWEST MARCH 2011 001.076.302 MARCH 2011: PHONE SERVICE 430.35 Total : 430.35 22462 3/25/2011 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 27001 101.042.000 BRIDGE AND STRUCTURAL CONS'. 2,958.67 Total : 2,958.67 22463 3/25/2011 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY CELL ALLOWANCE 001.011.000 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:: 135.00 Total : 135.00 22464 3/25/2011 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-593299 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES 60.98 Total : 60.98 22465 3/25/2011 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 7126 101.042.153 ON CALL ACQUISITION&APPRAIS, 3,142.99 Total : 3,142.99 22466 3/25/2011 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER VLY1102 101.042.000 COUNTY SERVICES 27,604.63 Total : 27,604.63 22467 3/25/2011 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50306666 001.018.013 COUNTY IT SUPPORT 15,640.16 Total: 15,640.16 22468 3/25/2011 000311 SPRINT 329088106-040 001.090.000 WAPS FOR LAPTOPS 44289 959698810-040 001.032.000 SPRINT CELL PHONES 954.09 Total: 1,396.98 22469 3/25/2011 001250 SYTE NET SERVICES 7089 001.090.000 CABLES AND PATCH PANELS 758.00 Total:. 758.00 22470 3/25/2011 002254 TOWEY,TOM CELL ALLOWANCE 001.011.000 1ST QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE:; 135.00 Total: 135.00 22471 3/25/2011 001464 TIN TELECOM 04096028 001.076.305 INTERNET/DATA LINES/PHONE LINI 1,275.27 Total: 1,276.27 22472 3/25/2011 000014 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 38998 001.090.000 WEB LICENSE FEE(TAX) 261.00 Total: 261.00 22473 3/25/2011 000167 VERA WATER&POWER 0000200 307.307.088 BROADWAY CONNECTION FEE 199.00 Page: 5 vchlist 0312512011 10:55:30AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 22473 3/25/2011 000167 VERA WATER&POWER 22474 3/25/2011 000087 VER1ZON WIRELESS 22475 22476 22477 22478 3/25/2011 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 3/25/2011 001797 VPCI 3/25/2011 000676 WEST 3/25/2011 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC 62 Vouchers for bank code: 62 Vouchers in this report apbank Invoice (Continued) 0000209 6543591522 24608621 24648810 Fund/Dept Description/Account MARCH 2011 822384832 March 2011 307.307.088 METER FEE&CAPACITY CHARGE: Total: 101.042.000 AIR CARDS FOR ST MAINT BLDG. Total : 001.018.014 STAFFING SVCS:IT 001.018.014 Jesse Worley 001.090.000 USE TAX DUE 001.013.015 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 001.090.000 DARK FIBER LEASE Total : Total: Total: Total : Bank total : Total vouchers: Amount 1,126.00 1,325.00 215.05 215.05 334.80 372.00 706.80 13,737.30 13,737.30 644.81 644.81 228.27 228.27 171,965.63 171,965.63 Page: 6 vchlist 0312512011 1:15:14PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22479 3/25/2011 001081 ALSCO LSP0938285 001.090.000 FLOOR MATS FOR CITY HALL 28.88 Total : 28.88 22480 3/25/2011 000030 AVISTA February 2011 001.076.300 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,236.55 FEBRUARY 2011 101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 23,471.53 Total : 31,708.08 22481 3/25/2011 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9207860 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 160.92 59208839 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 12.54 Total : 173.46 22482 3/25/2011 002469 COMMUNITY MINDED ENTERPRISES 3526 001.090.000 JANUARY AND FEBRUARY BROAD. 6,000.00 Total: 6,000.00 22483 3/25/2011 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST March 2011 001.076.304 ADVERTISING: SENIOR CENTER 38.10 Total: 38.10 22484 3/25/2011 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 47835 001.013.015 LEGAL SERVICES 53.00 47981 001.013.015 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00 Total : 93.00 22485 3/25/2011 002308 FINKE, MELISSA MARCH 2011 001.076.301 DANCE LESSONS INSTRUCTOR PA 1,660.00 Total : 1,660.00 22486 3/25/2011 002196 HOLTEN,MELISSA Expenses 001.018.014 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 85.44 Total : 85.44 22487 3/25/2011 002607 HUB SPORTS CENTER 1021 105.105.004 JANUARY 2011 -LODGING TAX RE 11,603.00 Total : 11,603.00 22488 3/25/2011 000437 LIBERTY LAKE SPLASH 2011 001.011.000 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION: COI. 50.00 Total: 50.00 22489 3/25/2011 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO February 2011 101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW 8,840.98 Total: 8,840.98 22490 3/25/2011 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC April 2011 001.090.000 CITY HALL RENT 38,416.84 Page: 1 vch l ist 03/25/2011 1:15:14PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 22490 3/25/2011 000193 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (Continued) 22491 3/25/2011 001860 PLATT 22492 3/25/2011 000291 PROJECT ACCESS, INC. 22493 3/25/2011 000256 RAINBOW ELECTRIC INC 22494 3/25/2011 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY 22495 3/25/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 22496 3/25/2011 002621 SIGNS FOR SUCCESS, INC. 22497 3/25/2011 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 2557 2597 22498 3/25/2011 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 29266 22499 3/25/2011 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS 22500 3/25/2011 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 22501 3/25/2011 002576 TUNE TALES MUSIC, INC 22502 3/25/2011 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 9150309 107 126492 Expenses 4152692 SFSQ16957 8114535 50371 MARCH 2011 06515 001.076.305 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.011.000 001.016.000 001.016.000 105.105.001 105.105.001 001.016.000 001.016.000 001.018.016 001.076.301 001.076.305 Total : SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : 1ST QTR 2011:OUTSIDE AGENCY t Total : CIRCUIT INSTALLATION EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total Total : CONTRACT MAINT: PRECINCT SNC Total : INSTALLATION OF SIGN AT PREC1P Total : JANUARY 201t LODGING TAX GRI FEBRUARY 2011:LODGING TAX GE Total: FEBRUARY 2011 MONTHLY MAINT Total: Total : Total : MOnitoring&Maintenance PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT:ALLEGRC Total : SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : Amount 38,416.84 299.22 299.22 5,000.00 5,000.00 724.01 724.01 121.98 121.98 190.23 190.23 2,345.78 2,345.78 20,833.37 20,833.33 41,666.70 521.83 521.83 81.53 81.53 200.00 200.00 691.20 691.20 701.04 701.04 Page: 2 vchlist 03/25/2011 1:15:14PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22503 3/25/2011 000167 VERA WATER&POWER FEBRUARY 2011 101.042.000 UTILITIES: FEB 2011 2,476.82 Total : 2,476.82 22504 3/25/2011 002625 WA STATE PARKS&REC COMM, LAND; March 2011 402.402.150 EASEMENT APP FEE: PROJECT#0 125,00 Total : 125.00 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 153,843.12 26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 153,843.12 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 3 vchlist 03/29/2011 7:50:26AM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22505 3/29/2011 002622 DOMME, DWINA CRYWOLF 001.016.000 CRYWOLF REFUND 25.00 Total : 25.00 22506 3/29/2011 002623 TRANS PRO INC CRYWOLF 001.016.000 CRYWOLF REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 60.00 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 60.00 1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 vchlist 03/31/2011 11:04:57AM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5221 3/31/2011 002776 CENTRAL PREMIX REFUND 001.237,10, DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5772 3/31/2011 002627 DIXIE, INC. REFUND 001.237.10. DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOMS 109&'; 52.00 Total : 52.00 5223 3/31/2011 002629 SPOKANE OUTREACH CENTER REFUND 001.237.10_ DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 202.00 Total : 202.00 5224 3/31/2011 002412 VALLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD REFUND 001.076.303 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIOI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5225 3/31/2011 002628 WSU ONLINE REFUND 001.076.305 DEPOSIT REFUND: 108,110,111,&f 173.50 Total: 173.50 5 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 689.50 5 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 689.50 Page: 1 vchlist 03/31/2011 3:36:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 22507 3/31/2011 001107 ADVANCEDTRAFFIC PRODUCTIONS 3194 22508 3/31/2011 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 22509 3/31/2011 002562 CD'A METALS 22510 3/31/2011 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 22511 3/31/2011 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 22512 3/31/2011 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 22513 3/31/2011 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES 22514 3/31/2011 001232 FASTENAL CO PURCHASING 22515 3/31/2011 002507 FASTENERS, INC 77210 77262 301451 301607 303150 303865 306575 232241 RE-313-ATB10315048 RE-313-ATB 10315053 RE-313-ATB10315063 MARCH 2011 CD201110925 IDLEW73814 IDLEW73895 53000875.001 S3002792.001 S3004041.001 53007997.001 Fund/Dept 101.042.136 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 Description/Account 303.303.063 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.076.305 ADVERTISING:CP TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Total : SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW Total : Total : 10-011 DESIGN ROW CIP 0063 Total: STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL&ILLUMINATION MAIN INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS Total : 101.042.000 ICE SLICER 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total: Total : Amount 5,012.74 5,012.74 292.13 231.90 524.03 1,830.81 652.20 201.02 273.38 32.91 2,990.32 1,415.20 1,415.20 4,405.04 4,280.14 977.69 9,662.87 229.70 22970 4,819.87 4,819.87 18.71 60.61 79.32 94.07 206.95 4.79 30.48 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List 03/31/2011 3:36:36PM Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 22515 3/31/2011 002507 002507 FASTENERS, INC 22516 3/31/2011 002365 GENERAL DYNAMICS ITRONIX CORP 22517 3/31/2011 000007 GRAINGER 22518 3/3112011 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITINGS 22519 3/31/2011 002364 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 22520 3/31/2011 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL SUPPLY INC. 22521 3/31/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 22522 3/31/2011 000881 OXARC 22523 3/31/2011 000041 PROTHMAN COMPANY 22524 3/31/2011 000322 QWEST 22525 3/31/2011 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 22526 3/31/2011 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS 22527 3/31/2011 000335 TIRE-RAMA (Continued) S0008054 9488165508 450671 1024903 100025055 555776942001 5503476 2011-2908 FEB 2011 58969 INVC053178 1NVC053215 8080009907 8080010316 001.016.000 101.042.000 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIPMENT Total: RUGGED NOTEBOOKS FOR SVPD Total: 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000 REF."V' HOPPER SANDER BODYP 101.042.000 001.076.000 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP Total : Total : Total NWS P-CABINET ENCLOSURE TO F Total : Total 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 001.018.016 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: CITY, Tonal: Total : 001.076.000 CENTERPLACE PHONE SERVICE Tonal 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES 101.042.000 STREET PATCH MIX 101.042.000 STREET PATCH MIX 101.042.000 001.032.000 Total : Tonal: OIL CHANGE:40206D OIL CHANGE/NEW BATTERY:3551 Amount 336.29 74,778.65 74,778.65 116.87 116.87 165.39 165.39 68,075.55 68,075.55 2,695.76 2,695.76 79.03 79.03 211.50 211.50 705.71 705.71 41.93 41.93 52.39 52.39 872.25 872.25 1,744.50 33.09 127.11 Page: 2 vchlist 03/31/2011 3:36:36PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22527 3/31/2011 000335 000335 TIRE-RAMA (Continued) Total : 160.20 22528 3/31/2011 000717 TRANSPO GROUP, INC. 13732 101.042.133 0133 SPRAGUE ITS CONSULTANT/ 37,051.59 13749 101.042133 0133 SPRAGUE ITS CONSULTANT/ 24,307.80 Total : 61,359.39 22529 3/31/2011 000014 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 43643 001.090.000 HR WEB EXTENSION SOFTWARE 375.00 Total: 375.00 22530 3/31/2011 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 0960445531 001.016.000 AIR CARD FOR SHERIFF 43.01 0960446323 001.016.000 AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTIV 860.40 Total : 903.41 22531 3/31/2011 002158 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 5277395 101.042.000 MELTSOWN:AP 11,436.81 Total : 11,436.81 331110017 3/31/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290200137 001.016.000 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,282,372.81 Total : 1,282,372.81 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 1,530,345.24 26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,530,345.24 Page: 3 vch list 04/01/2011 2:39:11 PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22532 4/1/2011 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY 215854 001.076.305 LOCKS AND KEYS FOR CENTERPL 42.82 Total: 42.82 22533 4/1/2011 001606 BANNER BANK 0618 001.011.000 MARCH 2011:0618 379.60 0638 001.011.000 MARCH 2011:0638 95.00 4375 001.011.000 MARCH 2011:4375 407.96 4458 001.013.000 MARCH 2011:4458 1,058.80 4474 001.090.000 MARCH 2011:4474 119.55 4720 001.090.000 MARCH 2011:4720 2,B44.33 6527 001.058.056 MARCH 2011:6527 699.94 8861 001.076.305 MARCH 2011:8861 1,716.87 Total: 7,122.05 22534 4/1/2011 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9210166 001.076.305 LINEN SUPPLY FOR CENTERPLAC! 142.64 S9211139 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY:CEh 33.10 Total : 175.74 22535 4/1/2011 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 March 2011 001.076.305 UTILITIES; PARKS 65.38 Total : 65.38 22536 4/1/2011 002626 ELECTRIC CITY, INC. C11-6249 001.016.000 LIGHTING FOR OUTDOOR SIGN:PF 1,059.83 Total : 1,059.83 22537 4/1/2011 002308 F1NKE, MELISSA MARCH 2011 001.076.301 DANCE LESSONS INSTRUCTOR PI1 91.30 Total : 91.30 22538 4/1/2011 001009 GOTHMANN,WILLIAM Expenses 001.011.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 384.54 Total : 384.54 22539 4/1/2011 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 78704 001.076.305 AFTER HOURS HOST SPONSER Mr 250.00 Total : 250.00 22540 4/1/2011 000353 INTL TRADE ALLIANCE 2011-087 001.090.000 1ST QTR 2011 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3,375.00 Total : 3,375.00 22541 4/1/2011 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 25099 001.076.305 EVENT SVCS:CENTERPLACE 66.98 Page: 1 vchlist 04/01/2011 2:39:11 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 22541 4/1/2011 001635 001635 !SS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES (Continued) 22542 22543 22544 22545 22546 22547 22548 22549 4/1/2011 000265 JACKSON,MIKE 4/1/2011 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 4/1/2011 001832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS 4/1/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 4/1/2011 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Expenses March 2011 0755443 4159521 March 2011 4/1/2011 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 11-19 4/1/2011 002306 TERRELL,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,MIC 582 588 4/1/2011 002254 TOWEY,TOM Expenses 22550 4/1/2011 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2901011-2681-8 2901012-2681-6 11 0301 280 11-195 22551 4/1/2011 001409 WORLD CLASS COMMUNICATIONS 22552 4/1/2011 000129 WRPA 21 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 001.013.000 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.300 101.042.000 105.105.005 309.309.079 309.309.144 001.011.000 001.076.305 001.016.000 001.076.305 001.076.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT OPERATING SUPPLIES:CP SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE GRAFFITI REMOVAL WATER CHARGES: PW Total: Total : Total : Total : Total : Total: LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBURSE Total : GREENACRES PARK PHASE I DES TERRACE VIEW SHELTER ARCHITI Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: WASTE MGMT:CENTERPLACE WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT ANSWERING SERVICE:CP Total: Total : SPOTLIGHT MEDIA AWARDS Total : Bank total : Amount 66.98 299.03 299.03 143.45 143.45 382.41 382.41 133.16 133.16 141.54 141.54 153.00 153.00 23,206.47 3,500.00 26,706.47 52.53 52.53 737.09 285.27 1,022.36 22.00 22.00 35.00 35.00 41,724.59 Page: 2 vchlist 04/05/2011 3:08:07PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 22554 4/5/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51500560 001.016.000 FEBRUARY 2011 HOUSING INVOICI 101,23026 Total : 101,230.26 1026910 4/4/2011 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO APRIL 2011 402.402.000 MAINTENANCE FACILITY BUILDING 752,83625 Total : 752,836.25 2 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 854,066.51 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 854,066.51 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 04-12-11 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending March 31, 2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $ 234,288.54 Benefits: $ 124,314.74 Total payroll $ 358,603.28 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Executive Session Tuesday,March 22 2011 Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Dean Grafos, Councilmember Brenda Grassel, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I t was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)J, and that action is anticipated thereafter during the regular 6:00 p.m. council meeting. Council adjourned into executive session at 5:01 p.m. At approximately 5:58 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session and it was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes:03-22-2011 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTE S City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 22, 2011 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Lori Barlow,Associate Planner Christina Janssen,Assistant Planner Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden of the Intersection Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he was gone for a week in Hawaii; but upon his return attended the Edgecliff fundraiser breakfast. Councilmember Grafos: attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) meeting and said a decision is scheduled for next month concerning service reductions, which could include reductions in Spokane Valley; met with this City's Finance Committee where they discussed some options available from a funding standpoint to see if they can move the City out of the economic doldrums it is in presently. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he also participated in the Finance Committee meeting; and along with numerous entities through the county, attended the first meeting of the Solid Waste Task Force with the waste and energy situation and said those meetings are slated to continue twice a month or possibly more frequently; and said he and Mayor Towey had a good week in Washington, D.C. Councilmember Grassel: reported that last week she attended the Spokane Regional Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting where they discussed a possible name change, mentioned they are seeing additional conferences being booked, and that they continue to work with cities outside Spokane as well to be sure they get included as part of the regional economic development program. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting where attendees were introduced to Mako, a Labrador retriever certified to "sniff'out flammable liquids such as gasoline and kerosene that arsonists use to start fires, and said that the dog will be at this Saturday's Greenacres Fire Station Open House; said he attended the County's State of the County address; traveled to Washington, D.0 and met with staff and representatives from Senator Murray's and Cantwell's office as well as Representative McMorris Rogers, and said he wanted to impress upon them that what they do in D.C. has an impact on cities like Spokane Valley. Mayor Towey also reported he served pancakes at the Edgecliff Pancake feed; and meet with the City's Finance Committee yesterday. Proclamations: Mayor Towey read a proclamation honoring Councilmember McCaslin, which was accepted by Mr. McCaslin's son; and then read a proclamation for March for Meals, which was accepted by Pam Almedia of Meals on Wheels. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments and explained that this is the opportunity for citizens to speak on any topic not on the agenda for action, and he explained the difference between the action and non-action items. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin: extended compliments to City Manager Jackson in his dealing with community members, and to Parks and Recreation Director Stone. Ms. Pollard said she would like to see the City Council provide public policy in order to allow a public works department to have an early and continued process of jobs that affect regional transportation and impact people, by putting up signs at the design stage and not at the end; she said that the kind of work load and the amount of staff precludes really wanting to be engaged with the public; and said putting this into policy takes care of a lot of problems we have been having since the inception of the city; she said she can no longer tolerate being the "last one at the table" and said that Skilling Connelly is doing acquisition services and property real estate things, and said the woman who works that in their neighborhood lives in Montana, and that Skillings Connelly's headquarters is in Latah and different places, and said we are paying a $34,000 budget that public works had, and said it seems when we have local real estate people here we should be providing local jobs for our local economy. Clyde Cordero, 6526 E 17th: said he is one of the applicants for the vacant council position and he wanted to introduce himself to council and the public. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan— Steve Worley Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Engineer Worley explained that this is an annual process; that the information in the packet is mostly identical to that from last week, with a few additions to the list as staff learned last week that we have been awarded funding for those projects identified on the Request for Council Action form, that of the Sidewalk Infill Project, the Mansfield Extension, and the Sprague/Sullivan ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) project, which runs fiber through the street conduits. Mayor Towey opened the floor for public comments; no comments were received and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/04/2011 22289-22313 $72,126.42 03/04/2011 22314-22339; 228110020; 304110010 $1,737,451.44 03/09/3011 3463-3466, 3474, 22340-22344 $203,140.11 03/11/2011 22345-22394; 309110167 $382,802.13 GRAND TOTAL $2,395,520.10 Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 2 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending March 15, 2011: $254,851.82 c. Approval of City Council Study Session Format Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 d. Approval of City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2011 e. Approval of City Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes of March 8,2011 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-004 Animal Raising and Keeping— Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 11-004 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150. Assistant Planner Janssen explained the difference between the current regulations for keeping chickens and the proposed changes and added that staff listened to the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting and that the intent of the Planning Commission was to make sure the birds were contained on the property where they belong, and suggested council might want to consider changing the verbiage. After brief discussion that the main issue when this ordinance was first passed was on noise complaints rather than sanitation complaints, Attorney Driskell suggested if council wanted to change that language,to change it to "contained within the subject property" in place of "rendered incapable of flight." Mayor Towey invited public comment. Grant Rice, E 16620 Valleyway: thanked council for taking this seriously and said allowing this change will help people trying to feed their families; and said keeping goats and rabbits should also be considered. Lynda Hurt, 9802 E Sharp: said chickens are wonderful productive creatures, they bring joy, are easy to raise, are healthy food and a good natural resource. Said we hear more about food shortages and higher food prices; there is a "call to go green and get back to our roots, becoming more self-sufficient and contributing to a healthier society, and more sustainable community." She said the cost of a dozen organic chicken eggs ranges from $4.00 and up; and she referenced her written statement and attachment, [which the clerk did not receive], and said people have control over what they feed their own chickens and said eggs from well-tended backyards are healthier; and said that "factory-farmed chickens live their lives without ever touching the soil or being allowed to hunt and peck for bugs and that they are feed unnatural and unvaried diets;" these environmental conditions are designed to produce eggs quickly and cheaply but she explained that the result is an egg less nutritious; and said that eggs from backyard chickens have 25% vitamin E and a third more Vitamin A, and 75% more beta-carotene; and more omega-3 fatty acids then farmed eggs, and said they are also better tasting; and backyard chickens provide insect control, wonderful compost, soil aeration, and food abundance and that she favors changing the verbiage to "contained on the property." Mel Jones, 1404 N Hodges Road: said he wanted to understand the process about adopting this ordinance; and it was confirmed by the Mayor that if council accepts the motion, this will be in effect. Mr. Jones asked when the ordinance would be effective, and the City Clerk said the ordinance is effective five days after a summary of the ordinance is published in the newspaper, which will be April 1. Mr. Jones commended council on their far-reaching and wise choices in this matter. Bridget Jackson 708 S Progress Road: agreed that the verbiage should be changed from "rendering chickens incapable of flight" as that appears to be a little dramatic; said she didn't hear anything about roosters; and said she understood that Code Enforcement only received one to two complains a month; and asked if there was something to do for the roosters; and said she doesn't even know why we are here as she hasn't seen anyone comment that they are opposed to chickens. There were no further comments. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT After brief discussion about past noise issues, mention that roosters are not required to produce eggs and roosters are prohibited in areas such as Millwood, Seattle and Vancouver, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to add the amendment to strike the language "rendered incapable of flight" and insert "contained within the subject property." Vote by acclamation on the amended motion to approve ordinance 11-004 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150 with the amendment to strike the language "rendered incapable of flight" and insert "contained within the subject property." In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-005 Amending Adult Entertainment — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 11-005 amending the definition of adult retail use establishment as drafted. It was also confirmed that the current wording in the draft ordinance is the staff recommendation. After Associate Planner explained the proposal, Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bruce Wakeman, 7616 E. Baldwin Avenue said the Erotic Boutique is why we need this ordinance tightened and when this passes it looks like they plan to continue acting like an entertainment establishment like Déjà Vu with the viewing booths; and said he doesn't know if this will bring about a lawsuit or not; that he watched the City of Spokane's process for their ordinance, which he said went to the courts where the courts made some decisions and the City of Spokane did not do well in having good representation in the courts, and the matter ended with a consent decree; and said he'd like to see our city do better in court, if it comes to that; he said courts don't decide the laws but interpret the laws; and he reminded City Council that the Supreme Court in 1973 in Miller vs. California said that pornography is not protected free speech under the First Amendment and said pornography is a harmful not a helpful speech, and our city should have good moral standards that are helpful to families. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Grassel said she will support this wording but it is her preference to go with the Planning Commission's recommended stronger language; and suggested we implement this and if it doesn't correct some of the issues, that this matter be addressed again and change the wording; and said she wants assurance from staff that if this does not correct the problem,we will address it again. Mayor Towey said that issue was discussed at the first reading and it was Council's consensus that this would be a two-tiered ordinance in that if passed, it would be passed with the understanding that if it did not affect anything, we would go to the stricter language; and said there is no Washington State ordinance which has the more strict language and that he doesn't want to risk the taxpayer's money on a test case for the state; and said he feels this ordinance is the right step to take; and if it doesn't help, this council can strengthen that if necessary. Councilmember Gothmann agreed and said by doing this step first, if it doesn't work we have built a court case for stricter enforcement. Councilmember Grafos said this is just the first step and it makes sense to go in steps and he feels this is the right approach. Attorney Driskell stated that this is potentially a two-tiered approach, and it is the desire of staff that this will represent the only tier necessary as it will be effective in addressing a potential loophole within the definition of adult retail facility; and that staff will enforce the new language once adopted and staff and the code enforcement and police officers will work together on how to implement this; and added that the proposed ordinance does not apply to one facility although that reference has been made several times, but this would have uniform application to any business that qualifies as adult retail within the city, and is not aimed at one business. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Indiana Avenue Extension— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the bid for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project#0112 to Spokane Rock Products, Inc., in the amount of$1,049,282.20 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained that this is the bid award for the construction of the Indiana Avenue Extension project; that eight very favorable bids were received, with the bids coming in about$.5 million less than the engineer's estimate. Councilmember Grassel brought attention to additional materials on this subject, supplied at the dias Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT tonight, and mentioned the letter dated December 27 to Mr. Lewis which letter discusses sidewalks, but said their prior letters show a main concern about Mission becoming one-way going west; and said they have signed the revised temporary access permit for their property, but it doesn't address that; and she asked how they went from being adamantly opposed to this to signing off on a sidewalk adjustment to their property. Mr. Worley explained that after we received the letters, we invited the people from Appleway Florist to meet with staff to discuss the project; that five members of their business came, and he referenced the conversation meeting log dated December 15, contained in those materials Ms. Grassel mentioned, in which they described what was discussed during the meeting, and according to the log,the meeting ended with the agreement that the family was supportive of the project, and we would work toward getting the temporary access and construction permit signed. Mr. Worley said there is a revised permit because they had asked about relocating some driveway entrances to a more beneficial location; so the plan was revised to accommodate that, and a revised access permit was agreed to and signed by them. Councilmember Grassel said she has been at the site at least three times and went out there today, and in talking with the property owners, they don't want a one-way road in front of their house; she said staff can write that"the family agreed to support the project"but said she doesn't see anything in writing from them stating that; and said in her conversations with the family,that she doesn't feel that is their intention. Councilmember Grassel said she also called the property owner's legal party and said they are not aware of requesting Mission being one-way and they are researching that; and said the original drawings showed one road intersecting the middle of the property and that Mission wasn't affected at that time; and now we get the bid and we see the actual drawing and the whole design has been transformed; and she said it appears the city has not been responsible in addressing all the issues brought before us, before we allow the bid to go through, and said there are apparently some design issues and concerns. Mr. Worley said in the presentation he gave a few weeks ago, he walked through the process on how we got to the current design; because the majority of the right-of-way was being donated by the property owner, staff worked with them to determine how they thought they would like to develop their property based on it being a mixed use zone, and they came up with an initial idea; they met with staff in Public Works and in Community Development to make sure it met all the requirements; and everyone was in agreement so we moved ahead; we put the engineering standards we needed in order to design the road to make it safe for the public; so the design of the road got refined. Mr. Worley said as we moved toward acquiring the necessary right-of-way and the access permits, we contacted each of the property owners that were affected; and in this particular project there weren't that many who were affected; that staff met with each property owner including those at Appleway, and said there were five people who met with us; that staff received the letters and understood there were some concerns; we discussed it and the project design, and Mr. Worley said the biggest concern they had was at least two members of the family were concerned about the ability to come out of their business and go east. Mr. Worley said staff described the turn-around at the west end of the proposed project, and while a little more inconvenient to go west and then do the turn-around and come back east on the one-way in order for them to go east on Mission or to get back to Flora, but the other members of the family felt that the road as proposed with the ability for future economic development in that area, was a more positive project for even their business, and they thought it was a more positive impact to the community in that area; and he said the ability to be able to access Sullivan Road, the Mall and I-90 quicker by going westbound then the current method of going east to Flora, down to Broadway and over to Sullivan then back over the freeway, would be a benefit as well; so he said there was a recognition that it would be a little more inconvenient to use the turnaround, but that was outweighed by the other members of the family with all the positive economic benefits; and said staff did not follow up with any formal letter; that when the meeting ended with the majority in agreement, staff understood they were in agreement with the project even though they had some concerns, they were willing to move ahead on granting access to build the improvements in front of their property; so they agreed and signed the access permit. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Grafos said he thinks this is a good project but he too has some concerns; he said he met with the property owners and visited the site several times; that this only impacts two or three people; but said if you look at this on a long-range basis; assuming that Centennial Properties owns the properties on the north side of the Old Mission Avenue, which Mr. Worley confirmed they do, Mr. Grafos said the drawing shows where they are going to build condos on the north side; so the big parcel now vacant will have people living there; and said the present property owners, since there are only two or three which are impacted by that one-way now, eventually you could have 40, 50 or 100 people that would have to go west on the new Mission Parkway, then come around and go back to Flora. Mr. Grafos said if we were designing this, wouldn't it make sense in the long-term to modify this proposal a little and since we have $600,000 to deal with, and run another road just to the north of that or maybe move the Mission Parkway just enough, 25 feet so we can get a two-way access that goes directly to Flora; and said he feels that would help the project and also give access from people coming from Montgomery on Flora that might want to go to the trailhead then come back the other way,without having to go all the way around. Mr. Worley said staff looked at issues like that; and one of the things discussed was that there would be some additional changes and additions to this road when those other properties develop; and as mentioned last time this was discussed,the City will not be responsible for any additional roads; but as that property develops with either condos or apartments or houses, then the transportation relative to that new development would also be a part of it; so any additional lanes or roads would have to be addressed as development occurs. Mr. Worley said staff spoke with the property owner about the possible need to provide a cross-street right in the middle of that divided area; and said staff was going to wait and let the development happen based on the proposals coming through the normal public process, and said that staff doesn't know what will happen in the future as those were just concepts from the property owner and Mr. Worley stressed that there has been nothing formally submitted; but when that happens, it would have to go through all the normal platting, binding site plan, public hearing process that every development must go through; and the transportation relative to that would be part of that process. Councilmember Grafos asked if the city couldn't be proactive; that there is an entire neighborhood on the other side of Flora that wants access to that trailhead; and the inconvenience of having to go all the way around that development for maybe the next ten or fifteen years until that is developed, perhaps we should examine that now. Mr. Worley said one of the things staff will look at, which was brought to our attention by Parks and Recreation Director Stone, is that the sidewalk that is proposed on the north side of the road should be wider to accommodate the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the Centennial Trail to Flora Road; and staff and the TIB are reviewing that to try to add that to this project; bicycles technically are not supposed to use the sidewalks, and to encourage more use of the Centennial Trail, we want to make a wider, safer pathway between Flora Road and the Centennial Trail Trailhead. As far as car traffic, Mr. Worley said this is not yet a developed trailhead, but is an undeveloped right-of-way, a gravel road with a little turnaround; there is no formal parking so it is somewhat limited in how many people can park there; he said he is aware there are a lot of people who use the river in that area; but that those are things to look at as the project develops. One of the biggest things we are trying to do with this project, Mr. Worley explained, is make that connection between Flora and the end of Indiana Avenue so it's easier to get to the Mall area without having to go to the south side of I-90. Councilmember Grafos asked since there is already the trail on the north side of Mission,how much more additional ground would be needed; and Mr. Worley said all of it would fit within the right-of-way. Councilmember Grafos asked Council if Council would want to have the Public Works Department examine that now. Mayor Towey said we are in the question stage now; and if this Council wants to change or delay for more information,then that could be done at the motion. City Manager Jackson said Mr. Worley was talking about increasing the width of the sidewalk from six to ten feet; and Councilmember Grafos was talking about the roadway; so when you talk about additional right-of-way, he said he wants to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Mr. Grafos concurred, and said his question to Mr. Worley was since we have ten feet there already, how much more additional would be Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT needed to maybe put that road in there. Mr. Worley said the design was very tight and to design it with the opening in the center to allow for commercial development, staff wasn't able to make the curves any tighter than they are in order to meet the design standards; based on a 35-mile-per-hour speed,there must be a minimum 500 foot curve radius, and that is exactly how that road is designed so he said there isn't a way for us to alter those curves and bring a two-lane road into Mission Avenue; that staff tried it and looked at whether that could be done and it could not be done based on the layout and the design standards staff was trying to meet. Councilmember Grafos asked how that might be accomplished in the future, and Mr. Worley said the future would look at whether or not there could be a cross street through the center, or another lane in the middle, or some other way around depending on how the other properties develop. Mayor Towey asked if Council could mandated that in the permit process, and Mr. Worley said he doesn't go through the development process. Councilmember Gothmann reminded everyone that the question before council is whether to approve this bid on this specific set of drawings; and that answer would be either yes or no, and that this is for a specific bid based on a specific grant by the TIB; that it is not in the design stage as that stage has passed; and if council wishes to design this further, Councilmember Gothmann suggested there be additional discussion. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if a change order situation could be addressed later on anything, including the width of a sidewalk, which would change the scope of the work as far as the contract is at this point and Mr.Worley said yes that the contract has been bid,we are just looking to award it. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he views that as the remedy, and that he does not want to overhaul this project as that is not Council's business at this point. Councilmember Grassel asked for Mr.Worley to clarify phase 1 and 2. Mr.Worley said that as far as the City's project is concerned, there is only this phase; the question was asked a few weeks ago if an additional lane added to this road would be paid for by the City; and he said under one of the original plans that the property owner came up with , it showed an inner lane circling the inside commercial area; and when staff worked with the property owner over that, staff said that is something that will have to be built by the developer when the property develops and that is not part of the public project that we got funded; that the project we got funded was to make a connection that is missing to complete the arterial link on the north side of the freeway. Councilmember Grassel asked if the developer has specific plans yet for this property, and Mr. Worley said it was just a concept in order for staff to come up with a designed road; and if the property owner wants to develop this property, he would then have to come up with formal plans and submit them to the city through the normal process. Councilmember Grassel asked why would the owner want the city to move forward with the project if the owner's plans are not finalized yet. Mr.Worley said the property owners are not developers;they might sell portions of their property to other developers and those developers would develop the plans that would come through the City for approval; so they are creating this situation and they might sell the middle area, or the area between the road and the river, or could sell the area between the road and Flora; or even break it up into different pieces and sell it and let each individual buyer decide how they want to develop that property. Mr.Worley continued by explaining that because there were so many options available, we wanted to get the road built to make that connection to increase traffic flow, and let the development proceed as it normally does. Councilmember Grassel said it seems we are "putting the cart before the horse" and she asked why we couldn't do a portion of the road leaving it four lanes going both directions, and at the point that they determine how they would develop their property, then construct the additional land; she said she is not clear about the purpose of having Mission go one-way as that doesn't make sense since the developer hasn't come up with their plans and they might want to change it, then we would put more money in converting it back around. Councilmember Grassel said the original design was one-road that just connected, and said that seems reasonable to her, and she asked if we are accommodating them because of the donation of the land. Mr.Worley said yes; when someone wants to donate land to us we try to look at the opportunities to design the road in the manner that will help them the most; and this design is their concept and we applied our design standards to it to try to match their concept as best as possible to design a safe road; and he said they wanted to create the three different sections you see with the split road. Mr. Worley said when he approached the property owner several years ago about possibly Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT partnering with us on this grant and building this road, and the first time it was met with disagreement because they didn't want to see a road that would split their parcel into two halves; someone else approached the property owner a year later and asked if there was a way to make this work, and for whatever reason, that person was able to get the developer to agree to partner with us and donate the right-of-way for this project; and when we got the support letter from the property owner, we agreed that the alignment of the road that we showed in our grant application was not written in stone,that we would work with the property owner to determine an alignment that would work best for his future development of his property; and said that staff felt that was good;that anything we could do to provide the connection to make the traffic flow better, and offer an opportunity to a property owner who can develop this property and provide income to this city, and to do it in a manner that he believes will be the best for his development, then we wanted to make that partnership work; and that is what staff did and Mr. Worley said this was the owner's concept; and traffic-wise, it was safe; and that any changes that would be made would not be made by us; the public right-of-way has been donated and recorded, and the public now owns it even though the road is not in it yet. Councilmember Gothmann said that funding was made as part of the Urban Corridor Program of the Transportation Improvement Board; and the objective of the Urban Corridor Program is to complete a corridor from point A to point B to make transportation better within the corridor; and this project satisfies that which is why we got the grant money. Mr. Worley said when the design concept changed, we presented that to TIB and explained why the property owner was interested in doing it this way and TIB agreed to allow the design to be changed to this current design; and that it still meets their intent of completing the corridor and providing economic incentive for neighboring property owners; and said that is one of the things about an Urban Corridor Project is that it looks for opportunities to create new development, and they saw this as doing that. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Grant Rice, 16620 E. Valleyway: said he wanted to make Council aware that he lives about a mile from where this is going in between Conklin and Flora on Valleyway, and that there are two trailheads there; said he frequently rides down Flora, and if you keep going down Flora and get onto the Centennial Trail to go east from the curb out there on that trailhead, off Indiana; that there two trailheads to accommodate people, because people aren't going to want to have to drive out west, and then turn around and go back east to head out towards Coeur d'Alene. Ms. Pete Miller, 18124 E. Mission: said she has three very short issues: on the SEPA checklist for October 26, 2009, #7 says do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal, and the answer is no. Said she feels people on east Mission that are going to be impacted by this traffic should have been notified; and she distributed via the clerk, a copy of an aerial photo of the area and explained that this means all round-abouts aren't round; she said it might be a solution, if you look at N 50th Street on that map, that could be Mission; and the street that would be going north and south to that,there's really no name on it; if you straighten that out that's Flora; get rid of North Saddle Creek Road, get rid of North Happy Lane and possibly one of those other roads, which is Country Club Drive or Country Drive Avenue or could be the Mission/Indiana parkways; that saves Mission and the trailhead; and said if the intent is to save the Old Mission trailhead, and on the new plan, why is there simply not a straight shot from Mission to the trailhead; why do we have to go on the Mission Parkway and then have an abrupt, right-hand turn to get back to it? Monty Lewis, 16913 E. Mission: said he's in favor of a road connecting Indiana to Flora, but to answer Councilmember Grassel's question, it was more a concession on our part then approval; said we were led to believe that due to the donation of the right-of-way, there wasn't much to do with the design, to do two-way access to the trailhead or our property; said he feels a two-way road would be much better especially with the sewer concerns since part of the property would be right over the sewer; that it made Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT more sense to run a two-way road along the sewer line that's already existing so that we could continue to have two-way access to our property as well as to the trailhead. Steve Bailey, 17020 E. Indiana: said he understands Council's position with the transportation grant money that grant money is very specific; said he had a couple questions for the developer who spoke earlier; that one was due to the savings, he asked has the city council and the developer looked at purchasing the land; if you saved a lot of money on the donation of land for the roadway, to trade a parking area in place of the Mission Road access parking that's there for the Centennial Trail right now; he asked which five landowners did you meet with; said he's curious if BLM, and State Parks was a part of that meeting; that he understands condos is conceptual now; thinks the City has a unique opportunity to be a part of that development plan; and said he's speaking for the Spokane Community Kayak Club, Eastern Washington University's outdoor program, NW Whitewater Association, John Schwartz the General Manager of Mountain Gear, as well as the Spokane River Forum and some fishing communities; that the current access at the end of Mission Road is a very well used parking access;there is access at the corner of Flora but there's no parking there, it's just access for pedestrian and bicycle; people come down Indiana Avenue; there's no official access there and sneak the guard rail; but if you remove the end of Mission Road, you're limited now to Sullivan Road, which really the parking is coming across the Sullivan Bridge, or Barker Road, so you reduce a lot of parking potential. HE said the potential of economic growth for the city with that location if you establish some parking there, maintain it as it is today, aside from standard, or bicyclists and walkers, it's whitewater; said there are features for a natural whitewater park at that location; that this is something the City of Spokane is looking to spend a million dollars for; that there are kayakers that can use these features nine to ten months of the year and said he thinks you have a unique opportunity that as the design phase goes through, to achieve some economic growth. Mary Pollard, North Greenacres. Read part of her statement, and explained that one of the suppositions that they are making is this connection is going to relieve the congestion on Sullivan and Broadway is a little bit overstated because you're assuming we're all going to the Mall which is just wrong; said she would take that cut-through and likes the original design and does not like the change; said we will end up taking that cut-through, and end up on Sullivan, so you're going to end up with another congestion problem at the same intersection just going south; said there is a problem that this was a done deal approach to working with the community and it should be addressed at the design stage.;that the Lewises who live on that property, it's been there for 55 years and she resents that she has to go the wrong way to go the right way; so it is this guy and his business, Appleway Florist, who conceded defeat; they like the connection; and she said who wouldn't like the connection; but not at the expense of a one-way and this poor young couple has to travel ten miles a day to just do their daily business; and said she thinks there should have been more transparency about how this is going to affect Mission which is a very dangerous intersection; it's bad but people slide through the intersection; they can't get up the hill; and so the staff already knows they're going to have to mitigate Mission somehow; and so we're feeling like one of the big problems is where this exists into our community when this couplet comes back, there is maybe five car-lengths. She said seventy-two houses on Mission front on this, what would be impacted by the traffic that goes from Argonne to Liberty Lake; that the City stated this is connecting Liberty Lake; that there's enough talk about this foolish mall business; the mall looks like a bowling alley during the week; people aren't busy shopping there except on the weekend. Said she agrees we have a serious congestion problem on Sullivan and that she wants to see that one-way go away, and concluded by stating that she feels Spokane Rock Products is a fine company, but she urged Council to wait to see what can be done to mitigate this and do the project right. Gordon Curry, 14313 E Trent: said he hopes Council and all the people who are concerned with this take a real good look at this; said he's developed land, commercial, residential, built buildings,built homes all over the valley and it's real easy to design something and then later on if you come in, if there's lot of Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 9 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT vacant land there and the people don't know what they're going to do; it's real simple for them, the planning department to say, well, you can do what you want to do but you gotta go back and tear up five miles of road, build new curbs and do whatever, and he urged Council to give this a lot of thought before jumping in and doing something we could be sorry for down the road. Richard Behm, 9405 E. Sprague: said he's on a one-way street and it does not encourage development; said he has known Steve Worley for many years when he was an engineer for Spokane County along with Rosskelley as they were the ones who promoted the one-way Appleway, Sprague/Appleway couplet.; and that Mr. Worley is very good at promoting one-way streets because engineers believe on getting traffic from point A to point B; that he thinks Centennial Properties needs to take another look at what they want because one-way does not encourage development as evidenced by what's happened on Sprague over the last twelve years and he asked Council to seriously consider this; that that's the way engineers think, and engineers don't always think like business people and developers, and said that one way is not the way to go. Chris Hoppe, 1100 College Avenue, Cheney, Washington: said he's a graduate assistant at Eastern Washington University and a commercial raft guide for Road Adventures, and spent 100 days on the Spokane River last summer and has commercially guided from Post Falls all the way down to the end of Riverside State Park; and said any development in that area needs to really take that area into account and allow access to that River because it is a beautiful feature that not very many cities in the United States can claim, and to recognize that parking area is a really important resource to the boating community,the kayakers, and also to commercial development through rafting as being a growing demand in the region. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned she received an e-mail from Alden Sherrodd, at 17215 E Montgomery Avenue which asked her to pass the exchange into the public record; that there was some exchange with Mr. Worley and Mr. Sherrodd stated that"my concern in this issue is that it appears that the ground work is being laid to take over the Mission Avenue right-of-way; I do understand that this will not happen during the current road project; I would like a public assurance by the officials of our city that they will not ever allow this to happen and that the Mission Avenue Trailhead with existing right-of-way will be preserved for perpetuity. Ms. Bainbridge added that Mary Pollard handed in a one-page written letter from James Pollard, and two-pages from Janice Austin and Clerk asked Mayor for his pleasure to have this read into the record; that it would be included in the minutes either way; and Mayor Towey said he preferred to put it in the minutes and distribute copies to council. Councilmember Gothmann said there is still one question before council; that we have purchased property, or property has been given to us where we wish to put in a road; the property north of Mission and the trailhead are not involved;the property has been given to us for the purpose of a road; he said we now own that right-of-way and the question is, should a road be put on that right-of-way that we now own or "let it sit there and gather weeds;" he said the bids for the project came in about $600,000 lower than expected, which generally means that TIB will provide the grant minus the $600,000; and Mr. Worley concurred. Councilmember Gothmann further said that those saved funds would not be ours to use as they would go back to TIB; and said if someone wants to use their land as this design shows, and that land owner provides the resource to do it,that would be the property owner's choice and Councilmember Gothmann said this project does not involve the river,but rather involves specific land now owned by the City and reiterated that the question before Council is whether to approve the bid made on that specific project; and said he feels council should accept the bid. Councilmember Grafos said we are talking about roads,but also about the opportunity to have economic development on that trailhead; and the people who are north of Mission Parkway who perhaps haven't donated land as did Centennial Properties, but they are just as important; and to preserve the trailhead, help the neighborhood, and provide access to that trailhead with a two-way access is a pretty inexpensive investment for this city to attract people into this city; and said he feels it does not make sense for this council to be short-sighted and push ahead with this Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 10 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT without looking at low-cost alternatives and added that he would approve the bid with a change order that the Public Works Department looks at changing that one-way so we have two-way access to that trailhead; and said he wants to make sure that on the old Mission Avenue, that no impediment will ever block that trailhead going into the river; and Attorney Driskell said that is correct;that it will remain open as publicly dedicated right-of-way and the only way to change that would be by Council adopting an ordinance following a full public process including a public hearing. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested we are opening that area up, there's more congestion coming from the east; there was a comment made that we'd have the connection to Broadway, he said that will never go away and now we'll give the people an alternate there to go down and go to the mall,hit Sullivan Road and the freeway, and said he does not think we are providing congestion; we have a selfish view as far as economic development is concerned, and he said we can look to the west of Flora Road and see what is happening there and said that is just the beginning of that property; and said he doesn't have anything against this roadway project and believes if there is a problem with sidewalks or other incidentals, those can be cured. Councilmember Grassel asked if we could put a suspension on the funding to give council time to review all the issues and postpone this for a few weeks; and Mayor Towey said we would have to have a motion to delay the motion. Councilmember Gothmann stated that most bids have a specific timeline in which to act. Mr. Worley said it would not be a problem if this were postponed a week or two; it would be best to make a decision as quickly as possible since there are two projects scheduled this year, which are tied together; he said the intent was to get this project built by early July as we have another project to concrete the intersection of Sullivan and Indiana, and to build that project, they were going to use this Indiana Avenue Extension as a way for people to get to the businesses on the east side on Sullivan on Indiana the back way; and they coordinated the Indiana/Sullivan project with the businesses in the mall and those businesses indicated the best time to do this to impact them the least, would be July and August. Mayor Towey said because there are so many unanswered questions concerning this project, he would entertain a motion to postpone this issue. Mr. Jackson said an option would be to withdraw the motion. City Clerk Bainbridge concurred that the easiest way would be for the maker of the motion, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, to withdraw his motion if this is his desire. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that is not his intent. City Clerk Bainbridge said with that in mind, council could vote on the motion on the floor, and based on that outcome, make another motion if desired; and she reminded Council that the current motion is to award the bid. City Clerk Bainbridge said council also has the option of tabling the motion for two weeks; which means the motion stays as it is, and in two weeks or whatever timeframe Council desires,the motion would come back to council; that council at that time would need a motion to take the matter off the table to discuss; then vote on the original motion at that time and at that time could even withdraw the motion. In the interim two-week period, Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Worley if council could examine some alternatives; and Mr. Worley agreed. Councilmember Grafos also suggested each member of council visit the area to see what an easy fix that would be, in looking at the whole scope of this project; he said he is not against the project, but to be shortsighted enough to close that trailhead off to our citizens is not the right thing to do. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded by Councilmember Grassel to table this motion for two weeks. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Gothmann. Motion is carried and the motion to award the bid is tabled until the April 5 council meeting. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 6. Motion Consideration: Appleway Court Drainage License—Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the License Agreement to Appleway Court 202, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents related thereto. Attorney Driskell briefly explained that the owner of the property requested we grant a license for their use of some city drainage property so they can put turf on it and a sprinkler system to help with the Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT aesthetic value of their new development; that the stormwater staff looked at this and said it would not affect the functionality of the stormwater. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Motions for March 29 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position#3 Vacancy—Mayor Towey Mayor Towey explained the process,that Council members will make a nomination,that each nomination must be seconded to proceed, and that upon voting, if the nominee receives three or more votes, that person will be interviewed. Mayor Towey opened the floor for nominations. Arne Woodard was nominated by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Mr. Woodward as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Mr. Woodard will be interviewed. Steven Neill was nominated by Councilmember Grassel and seconded by Councilmember Grafos. Vote to include Mr. Neill as a candidate to interview: Mayor Towey, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Mr. Neill will be interviewed. Jennie Willardson was nominated by Councilmember Grafos and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Ms. Willardson as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Ms. Willardson will be interviewed. Ben Wick: was nominated by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Mr. Wick as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Mr. Wick will be interviewed. John Baldwin was nominated by Mayor Towey and seconded by Councilmember Gothmann. Vote to include Mr. Baldwin as a candidate to interview: Mayor Towey and Councilmembers Gothmann and Grassel. Mr. Baldwin will be interviewed. Dee Dee Loberg was nominated by Councilmember Gothmann. There was no second therefore there was no vote and Ms. Loberg will not be interviewed. There were no additional nominations offered and it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to close the nominations. City Clerk Bainbridge confirmed that those to be interviewed March 29, 2011 include Arne Woodward, Steven Neill, Jennie Willardson, Ben Wick, and John Baldwin, and Ms. Bainbridge confirmed that letters will be sent out to notify everyone of the outcome of tonight's process, and that she will send those to be interviewed a copy of the potential interview questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments. Andy Hale, Spokane Valley Fire Department: said that their Greenacres Fire Station will hold an open house this Saturday from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. and he invited everyone to attend; and said that they are celebrating the new station that replaces a temporary facility which was approved in 2007, and that they will have Mako the fire dog in attendance as well. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Amendments—Mike Basinger Via their PowerPoint, Planning Team Members Mike Basinger, Karen Kendall and Lori Barlow explained the 2011 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, which included the purpose of the annual amendments, the process, that there are two privately initiated site-specific map amendments, mentioned that if the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan) is eliminated that CPA 01-011 will no longer be relevant. They explained the City-initiated text amendment and that the recent census data was a little lower than the estimate; and briefly discussed urban growth areas. Councilmember Grassel said she was asked by a constituent about a change in the flood plain and what method they would need to address that, and Mr. Basinger said he would be willing to meet with those individuals and the City's floodplain administrators to assist in that issue. Mr. Basinger also mentioned that the findings are still being developed and they will be part of the packet for the April 12 meeting for a first ordinance reading if council concurs. There were no objections from Council in moving forward for a first reading April 12. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9. Public Access Programming Funding Process—Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the funding process; and that staff recommends reserving $80,000 of the $150,000 for city needs and splitting the remainder between the Education and the Public access programming and to split the quarterly payment from Comcast equally among those as well. Mr. Koudelka also went over the draft contract summary points and said staff seeks general consensus to move forward with this process and there were no objections from council At 9:00 p.m. it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for 30 minutes. 10. Advance Agenda The issue of the Indiana Bid was brought up by Councilmember Gothmann and Mr. Jackson said that staff will bring additional information to council next week so that council will be ready to look at the bid motion again April 5; that the main focus next week is that we want to make sure we preserve the access to the trailhead and consider or look at the feasibility of adding one-way or maintaining the existing corridor and building the project to keep the two-way to the trailhead; and said the other roundabout issues are resolved, and Councilmembers nodded in agreement. r. Jackson said Council likely won't want to remove that bid award from the table until they are ready to focus on that issue. Councilmember Grafos asked about the railroad quiet zones and said council needs to make a decision on whether to authorize the consultant to move ahead,that it appears the process takes 12 to 18 months and he'd like to discuss that in the next week or so. Councilmember Grassel said she would like to have staff work with council concerning the process of the Transportation Improvement Program; that council get a listing of all the road projects,that some are basic, but she suggested having more information on the larger projects prior to them going to bid so that council will be informed on what the project entails. Councilmembers concurred. INFORMATION ONLY Greenacres Park Bid, Railroad Quiet Zones, Community Development Block Grant Letters of Support, and the Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Joint Meeting City of Spokane/City of Spokane Valley Monday,March 28,2011 City of Spokane Council Chambers Attendance: Spokane Valley Councilmembers: Spokane Valley Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rick Van Leuven,Police Chief Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk City of Spokane Councilmembers: City of Spokane Staff: Mary Verner,Mayor Mike Piccolo Joe Shogan, Council President Rick Romero Bob Apple, Councilmember Gavin Cooley Steve Corker, Councilmember Dave Mandyke Nancy McLaughlin, Councilmember Ted Danek John Snyder, Councilmember The meeting was opened at 9:12 am by Spokane Council President Shogan. He explained the meeting is not a hearing and will be a discussion of ideas. He welcomed Spokane Valley Councilmembers and introduced Spokane Council Members, stating that Council Member Corker, Apple, and Rush will arrive late. Council President Shogan stated the agenda is made up of the same topics discussed the last time they met and said they may get some new ideas this time. Mayor Towey said the meeting is an informal exchange of ideas between the two councils and the issues they are discussing will have a great impact on citizens and that some decisions will need to be made within the next year or two. Mayor Verner said she appreciates the invitation to be included in the meeting but their form of government limits her involvement in the discussion. 1. Animal Control Spokane had a study session two weeks ago and discussed whether they should float a bond. He said he thought they should ask the agencies involved to collaborate and design a program rather than the City. He said rather than assuming what those agencies are going to do, he would like to hear from them as to whether they can work together and tell us how much space and infrastructure is needed. Councilmember Gothmann asked if they have exhausted the Broadway and Helena location. Council President Shogan said they have not, but it became apparent the ones doing the work are communicating and in the mean time the City was trying to come up with a concept that seemed to be destroying what they were doing. He said he would like to address the needs of the agencies rather than tell them what they will have. He also said they are hearing varying things from the agencies. He is not sure what the Humane Society has for a facility and he thinks Spokanimal has expanded. Councilmember Gothmann said he doesn't Council Minutes:03-28-2011 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT think Spokane Valley can do anything until Spokane figures out what they are going to do, and Spokane can't figure out what they're going to do until they hear more from the agencies. He then invited a Scraps representative to speak. Councilman Corker arrived at 9:25 am. A representative from Scraps said a regional facility is something they have been trying to do for a number of years and it makes sense. Another representative said the Humane Society facility is over capacity. An issue they face is placing stray animals into the appropriate agency — Spokane Valley animals go to Scraps, Spokane animals go to Spokanimal based on where they are found the animal. An animal gets picked up, taken to an agency, then possibly transferred to the appropriate facility. Both agencies will transfer animals as part of a mutual exchange at no charge to the other agency. Councilman Snyder said he thinks the problem is the capital cost of a facility. The money for a bond issue for animal control is more than the levy lid lift they decided against. Commissioner Mielke said they looked at how the agencies can work together. He said it would be helpful to have a site for adoption because adoption is labor intensive and something they do very well. He said they should try to move as much of that part as possible and they are looking at if a satellite facility for adoption would be beneficial. He said there is a good working relationship with staff of the County, the Cities, including Liberty Lake, and he said he thinks we need a new Capital Facility. He said a brand new facility would cost $13-$15 million, by rehabilitating this site the cost is closer to $10 million. He said 70% of our citizens want to come up with a joint plan rather than individual jurisdictional plan. He identified other funding sources —there has been improvement in the number of people who license their pets and they will try to get more people to license their pets. He would like to see charitable contributions increase by $200,000. He said if they increase the cost of the animal control contract, jurisdictions said they would not be able to afford it. Another option is to not raise the contracts to jurisdictions. He said there are still questions to answer, but they continue to move forward. Commissioner Mielke said the rent for the property, the current facility and payment for the renovation is $6.3 million. He said they are looking at whether it is better to get a lump sum payment or monthly or annual payments. He said if they go to the ballot for capital funds, he thinks everyone will work to ensure voters are informed and he said he thinks there is strong drive for animal protection. Council President Shogan asked what the market rent value is if the facility stays in Spokane's name and rents it out. Mr. Romero said they need a fair market appraisal because they would be using federal dollars. He said currently the lease is $150,000 per year, but that may not be fair market value because only 50% is leased right now. He said it isn't likely they could enter into a transaction for less than fair market value without some legislation. Mayor Verner said she wants regional animal control and we are now at the point of evaluating whether we go to the ballot or think creatively for ways not to ask voters for capital funding. She said Spokane would not be able to carry this alone, and added Spokane is not even a partner in Scraps but they are looking to join them as a partner. Council President Shogan said the problem is not the amount of the levy, but having an election. If there is push to do something for animal control in August, that is not an opportune time; they Council Minutes:03-28-2011 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT are also looking at the jail and other needs of Spokane. He said it is a question of their priorities as to what gets put on the ballot. Councilman Apple arrived at 9:51 am. Council President Shogan said this is a tough time to go to the ballot unless they are looking at the November ballot. He said otherwise they might be competing with each other for funds if they try for the August ballot. Councilmember Gothmann asked if it would help if Spokane Valley contributed $2 million, if that would help keep it off the ballot. Commissioner Mielke asked if Spokane Valley is talking about a grant, or a loan. Councilmember Gothmann said he is not sure, but it could fit within our capital facilities plan; Spokane Valley could purchase the property and then after a certain number of years they could sell it back. Commissioner Mielke said Spokane needs to recoup some of their costs, so they would be looking at closer to $2.5 million. He said they would also want to give the animal control entity the first right to repurchase. He said it might be workable if Spokane Valley agreed to purchase and hold the property and give the first right of purchase it would put them very close to a non-ballot option. He said they may have to hold the property for twenty years. Council President Shogan called for break at 9:55 am. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 am. 2. Regional Solid Waste System Councilmember Gothmann said he and Councilmember Schimmels are on the board and that at the last meeting they asked for the kinds of constructs to be performed. Councilmember Schimmels said they have examined looking at the big picture, the kind of structure that is permitted by law, and the non-profit situation, but they can not give any definite answers at this point. Mayor Verner said Spokane and Spokane County met last week with regard to potential litigation surrounding the Wheelabrator contract and she said she would be happy to share what information they can share with the Spokane Valley Council, adding that uncertainty is not a good platform to stand on when trying to secure facilities. She said the County has submitted amendments to interlocal agreements and Spokane is reviewing them. Council President Shogan said they do not need to discuss this now, unless others would like to continue with the discussion. Mayor Verner said after they all participated in the Solid Waste summit, Spokane understood clearly that there will be a different relationship in the future between the entities. She said Spokane will have a vendor/customer relationship in the future and she said that is the presumption they will be making their decisions under so if there is another understanding by others she would like to hear from them now. 3. Jail Council President Shogan said their Council had a second study session on the jail last week and were given a good presentation of the process, of municipal court, and a flow chart showing incarceration and release. He said the number of prisoners that go from court to jail is aboutl5% and that just because the County is responsible for felons, it does not mean the City should have Council Minutes:03-28-2011 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT no responsibility because felons can be City residents. He said until they know the actual costs as they project them, it is hard to come up with a position on the proposal. He said he thinks they are on a course to get to the end result. He said each council member needs to make their own decision as to where they are, adding they are not all in agreement. He said they will have two more study sessions on April 14th and 21st and invited Spokane Valley Council to attend. Councilman Apple said 50% of the people in jail are not there for criminal purposes. He said most are traffic related or domestic violence. He said those 50% of people in jail should be in a program rather than in jail and he said he thinks there should be a progressive program to get folks out of jail and back to work or to take care of their families. He said this is not happening and this is the bigger problem rather than whether the jail should be bigger. Councilmember Gothmann said the Geiger facility is not safe for our officers and his understanding is that it does not meet the qualifications of protection for prisoners. He said many in jail are there because of mental problems. He said he thinks we have to do more than just incarcerate people and said the County has provided innovative ways to keep people out of jail. He said the figures he has seen indicate we need a new jail, but he is waiting for additional information. Councilwoman McGlaughlin said there are many issues they are considering, including animal control, the fire bond, a levy lid lift, the jail, and she wants to make sure the jail is appropriately sized and that the funding is being looked at in the most efficient way. She said we don't have the luxury of dollars with all the other needs as well. Mayor Towey said this is a complicated issue and although we tend to focus on the financial part, we also have to focus on the service part and think of ways to eliminate some of the jail occupants who could be better served by another program. He said there are a lot of unanswered questions and he said he would hate to have a bond issue in November only to find the $300 million they asked for was not enough and they need to go back to the voters in two or three years asking for more. He said we need to answer the questions before November. Councilmember Schimmels went back to the topic of animal control and suggested Spokane finish what they started with their ongoing discussions with the agencies and then tell Spokane Valley the outcome and determine if we need to have a meeting. Council President Shogan agreed to notify Spokane Valley of the outcome. Mayor Verner and Council President Shogan thanked everyone for attending. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 am. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes:03-28-2011 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 29,2011 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rick Van Leuven,Police Chief Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director John Whitehead,HR Manager Mike Thompson, Fire Chief John Hohman, Senior Engineer Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Proposed Resolution 11-003 Amending 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Resolution 11-003 adopting the amended 2011 TIP as presented. Public Works Director Kersten said Senior Engineer Worley has presented the TIP information to Council at previous meetings and they held a public hearing last week. Since adopting the 2011-2016 TIP, staff submitted applications for several grants to fund projects. The TIP is amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include projects that were not completed in 2010 and have been carried over to the 2011 construction year and include projects added to the 2011 construction year. Mayor Towey invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation:In favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None.Motion passed. 2. Motion Consideration: Sprague Avenue ITS Bid Award— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the Sprague Avenue ITS Project Base Bid and Additive 1 to the lowest responsible bidder, Aztech Electric, in the amount of$171,462.45. Public Works Director Kersten said the project will be funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. He said they have done the design for this project and for the next extension of the project, from Evergreen to Sprague and Sullivan to I-90. In the TIP just passed by Council, it shows they received funding for construction through the next phase and with grants we have enough funding to do Sprague from University to Sullivan and Sullivan to I- 90, connecting signals to a central system to provide better timing and coordination. Mr. Kersten said Aztech Electric was the low bidder, and although they had a few rounding errors in their bid, overall it reflected a difference of approximately$33.00 but had no effect on low bidder outcome. Councilmember Grassel asked how the total dollar amount is calculated. Mr. Kersten explained that when adding the unit prices in the tabulations, it appears Aztech had a difference of$33 from their total bid amount entered, but he said he thinks the errors are attributed to rounding mistakes. Councilmember Council Study Session Minutes March 29,2011 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Grassel asked why the project cost is shown as $400,000 when the low bid came in at $171,462. Mr. Kersten explained $171,462 is for the construction of this portion;however, design work has already been done, staff time and design work by a contracted agency is also included in the $400,000 overall project price and said the project bid amount came in under the engineer's estimate. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion passed. 3. Motion Consideration: Approval of Procedure to Fill Council Vacancy#5 —Mayor Towey It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the procedure to Jill the vacant Council position as outlined. City Manager Jackson explained the procedure to fill this vacancy is similar to that used to fill the position last time as well as the procedure we are currently using this year. He said they are shortening the advertising time with the understanding that we have a position open and another one to fill. He said applicants from the current opening can submit a letter of interest to the City Clerk for the new vacancy rather than reapplying, or they can choose to reapply. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Gothmann said the procedure allows us to fill the vacancy by the filing deadline of June for the November election. Mr. Jackson said the City is required to fill the vacancy by June 11 or the decision would go to the County. By completing the process by May 17 it gives us plenty of time to meet that requirement. Councilmember Grassel asked what happens if the Council has a tie vote due to there being an even-numbered body. Mr. Jackson explained if there is a tie vote, the motion fails; a motion has to pass by a majority vote. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None.Motion passed. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 4. Council Position#3 Interviews—Mayor Towey Mayor Towey stated that candidate John Baldwin could not make the interview tonight due to personal reasons. Council will interview candidates alphabetically and Councilmembers can each ask three questions. Sample questions were provided to candidates in advance but Council is not limited to asking those questions. Councilmembers interviewed Steven Neill, Ben Wick, Jennie Willardson, and Arne Woodard. When concluded, Mayor Towey thanked the candidates for their commitment to apply for the position. He said Council will make their nominations at the April 5th meeting and added it will be a difficult decision for them to make. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:53p.m. 5. Greenacres Bid—Mike Stone Parks Director Stone discussed the Greenacres Park project and said that thanks to decisions made a few years ago they had a successful bid process. He said they put the plans and specifications together over the winter and were able to put the project out for bid after the first of the year. They opened the bids on March 17th and were pleased to receive five bids that were well below the engineer's estimate for this project. He said thanks go to the design team and the involvement and direction from the neighborhood. Mr. Stone said the project is divided into two phases with Phase 1 estimated to cost $1.5 million. Bouten Construction was the low responsible bidder at $937,973.00 for the base bid and five alternates. He said staff recommends awarding the base bid and the first four alternates, delaying the sign alternate until we have a Spokane Valley Park template sign that is easily recognizable. Mr. Stone said they plan to purchase a restroom from our State contract for $100,000.00, which is not included in this bid, coordinating with Spokane County for connecting to sewer, and making street and fronting improvements to Boone and Long. He said they are working with Avista and property owners across the streets to move power poles and put the power under the streets to create a more welcoming look. The street improvement estimate is approximately $90,000.00, which is well within the budget of$1.5 million, and we will be reimbursed $500,000.00 from two State appropriations. He said he looks forward to comments and thoughts from Council and hopes to get a consensus to move forward with award of the project. He said Council Study Session Minutes March 29,2011 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT he anticipates completion by fall. Councilmember Grassel asked if there are any design changes they should know about. Mr. Stone said the 9-hole disk golf course was inadvertently left out of the plans but that was estimated to cost approximately $10,000 so it could still be incorporated. He said they worked to incorporate the neighborhood wishes of an agriculture and farm theme. Mayor Towey said it is nice to see the neighborhood had input and played a part in developing the park. It was the consensus of Council to place on April 5, 2011 agenda for motion consideration of bid award. 6. Hanson Industries Developer Agreement—John Hohman Senior Engineer Hohman explained the background of the current Development Agreement with Hanson Industries, stating that Hanson is a developer of several properties by Spokane Valley Mall. He said the project started in 1978 and covers 275 acres. Traffic concurrency requirements ensure the infrastructure is in place to support development or that a plan will be in place within six years to support the development. Mr. Hohman said Hanson Industries has been a proactive developer in the community, investing approximately $11 million into infrastructure. The original agreement will expire in 2014 and the developer asked if there is anything that can be done to attract business into Spokane Valley. He said Indiana and Sullivan improvements allow better traffic flow and they identified two projects in which the developer could participate — the concrete intersection at Sullivan and Indiana and the anticipated 2015 Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. Hanson Industries agreed to provide additional right-of- way and financial contributions in exchange for extending the expiration of vested trips to March 2025. He said the agreement identifies the number of existing and new vested trips and sets some limitations on how the trips may be used which was a key concession for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). He said it also allows flexibility for using the trips differently in the future provided a new traffic study is completed. He said in the existing agreement,there is no limitation on the trips. WSDOT looked at putting trips where they were modeled. He said Exhibit C shows the number of trips they will maintain in various areas. He said they want to give the developer additional flexibility for follow up traffic studies to look at how capacity is maintained. The purpose is to provide development certainty for this portion of the city. He said he is looking for Council consensus to move forward for motion consideration on April 5. Councilmember Grafos asked what the driving factor was for WSDOT to offer concessions. Mr. Hohman said it is somewhat unusual but through their negotiations, he thinks they saw the value and importance of the traffic flow in that area.It was the consensus of Council to add to April 5 agenda for motion consideration. 7. Indiana Avenue Extension Project—Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten said they revised the Indiana Avenue Extension project to accommodate some of the requests from citizens. To access the Old Mission Trailhead,they included a ten-foot pathway along the north side of Mission Parkway to Flora Road allowing access to the Centennial Trail. He informed Council that the project will not allow going beyond the limits of the project, but they can consider a separate project to upgrade Old Mission Avenue and add parking at the trailhead and Council would have to approve the funding. Mayor Towey said originally he thought there was not enough room to provide parking, but there is room within our 60- foot right-of-way. Mr. Kersten confirmed we could make a much nicer road or gravel or paved area to park in and that access to the trailhead is not changing. Councilmember Grassel asked if we could pave Old Mission road. Mr. Kersten said paving would have to be funded using City funds because it is not part of the scope of work for this project. Mayor Towey asked it would save us money to pave and extend the pathway at the same time we do the rest of the project. Mr. Kersten said that we would likely save money and if we paved the road we could extend the bike lane. Councilmember Gothmann said he thinks that we should prioritize that addition with our other projects. He said it would be great to get a cost estimate and put it in perspective with our other projects. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we could likely save 25-40%by doing it with the roadway, and added that could be a significant savings. Council Study Session Minutes March 29,2011 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT City Manager Jackson said staff can put together a separate project and estimate for the trailhead portion and schedule for a future Council study session. Mr. Kersten said to access the Appleway Florist property, they provided a connector street between Indiana Parkway and Mission Parkway and a left-turn access going east on Indiana Parkway into Appleway Florist's adjacent property. He said this is a full public road that will be funded as a change- order to the current project. He said it was not a negotiated item but it is something they can design. He said Centennial will donate the right-of-way for the road so we do not need to pay for the right-of-way other than our matching funds for the grant. Mr. Kersten said that the safety of roundabouts has been the topic of a lot of discussion. He said he has provided information in the Council packet and Washington State Dept. of Transportation (WSDOT) has a great deal of information on their website. In addition,the design manual has site data from the Federal Highway Administration about the improvement of safety when using roundabouts. He said they create an overall reduction of collisions by 30% and a decrease in fatalities by 90%because it is difficult for t- bone and head on collisions to occur in a roundabout. He said it reduces overall injuries by 75% and pedestrian collisions by 40%. Mr. Kersten said the data seems consistent in other states and countries that have done similar studies. Councilmember Grassel asked if they discussed proposed bus stops with the neighborhood. Mr. Kersten said the bus stops should not be impacted. Councilmember Grassel said we should tell the community where they will be located. Mr. Kersten said buses typically pick up and drop off passengers just past the intersections so this would not be an impact. Mr. Kersten said that a few other issues came up at a recent site meeting. The canoe and kayak clubs want the neighborhood river access to stay open. He said it will stay open and they will talk about the need to add signal lights for pedestrians and flashing lights to notify traffic that someone wants to cross. He said currently, the WSDOT standards do not recommend putting in lights but if the standards change in the future they would look at putting in a signal at that time. He said they will lay the conduit in anticipation of lighting in the future so we will not need to tear up the road later. He said another issue was concerning when a "double `S' curve" should be used. He said they are recommended for roundabouts used in high- speed areas, 50 mph and higher. He said they are not recommended for lower speeds and he wants to follow the standards. Mr. Kersten said they hope the project will be awarded next week. He said they got fantastic bids, about 30% below the engineer's estimate. Councilmember Gothmann said the TIB reimbursement is based on the actual bid and not the engineer's estimate. City Manager Jackson said that on April 5 the tabled motion from the March 22nd meeting comes back for Council consideration and that the best process is to put that motion back on table which is to consider award of the bid for the project. He said if there are other concerns or issues about the project, we will schedule another agenda item to address that, but the motion that will be put back on the table next week is to award the contract and the public will have an opportunity to comment. 8. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey No comments. 9. Permit Tracking Software was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 10. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey No comments. Council Study Session Minutes March 29,2011 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said the Washington Recreation and Park Association will present the Spotlight Award for Spokane Valley's Discovery Playground on April 28 in Wenatchee. He said Parks Director Stone will give a report to Council on that afterward. He also said that March 31st is the City of Spokane Valley's 8th birthday and provided some characteristics of 8-year olds: growth is slow and steady, they are eager and enthusiastic, and they respond best to praise and encouragement but sometimes need a little guidance. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes March 29,2011 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Executive Session Tuesday,April 5,2011 Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Dean Grafos, Councilmember Brenda Grassel, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)J, and that action is anticipated thereafter during the regular 6:00 p.m. council meeting. Council adjourned into executive session at 5:01 p.m. At approximately 5:17 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session and it was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes:04-05-2011 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington April 5,2011 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Dev Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director John Whitehead,HR Manager John Hohman, Senior Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration, Tabled Motion: Indiana Avenue Extension Bid— Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to remove from the table, the motion to award the bid for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project, which was placed on the table during the March 22, 2011 council meeting. City Clerk Bainbridge then re-read the original motion: "to award the bid for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project#0112 to Spokane Rock Products, Inc., in the amount of$1,049,282.20 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained that this motion is for the bid award for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project; that during last week's presentation by Public Works Director Kersten, many concerns were addressed and it was agreed that the topic of the Mission Avenue access improvements and associated options would be brought back to council in the near future, but that tonight's motion is for the bid award. Mr. Worley said at the last meeting, changes were discussed to be made by change order after the bid is awarded, which is the access road for Appleway Florist, and the conduit underneath the legs of the round-about for future pedestrian lighting if standards change such that those kinds of improvements are required, and the change for the ten-foot wide pathway on the north side of the roadway for improved pedestrian and bicycle access to the Centennial Trail. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bob Horrocks, 8622 Valerie Street, Spokane: voiced his concern that the access to the Centennial Trail be maintained; said he is a member of the Spokane Kayak Club and many use that access, and said if the access were moved south, it would be more difficult to reach; and emphasized his desire that the access on Mission Avenue remains and is not eliminated, and if it could be paved or improved, that would be appreciated as well. He said there were formerly signs at the area showing a map of the Centennial Trail, and said that unfortunately, those signs were vandalized and no one has bothered to put them back. Mayor Towey said that this topic is on the council's April 19 agenda and he encouraged citizens to attend. Council Study Session Minutes April 5,2011 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT Steve Bailey, 17020 East Indiana: said there are many "paddlers" here who are very interested in the access at the end of Mission Road, and he asked if everyone in the audience who is interested, would please stand, and approximately twelve people stood. Mr. Bailey said he appreciates Council slowing this process so that corrections can be made to help with the access and users; he said he spoke with representatives of Centennial Properties and said it appears they have rough drawings showing the intention of dissolving that access point; and said Centennial Properties told him that they intend to improve access with better parking, more parking, better handicapped access, but he asked what direction they have taken to talk to the user groups to determine what really is better access; and said their plans show a site to the southwest, but the paddler user group prefers the current access to the northeast; and said the community likes the current right-of-way. Mayor Towey again reminded everyone this topic is scheduled for the April 19 council agenda. Brian Durheim, 2803 W. Euclid Avenue, Spokane: said there is another group here which are the fisherman; he said the river is re-charged at Sullivan from the aquifer which is conductive for trout habitat, which he said does not exist upstream from that point; said he is a member of Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club, Spokane Flyfishers, and said he was talking to a member from Trouts Unlimited this week who applauded council for looking at this access issue, and he thanked Council as well. James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: voiced his concern about changing and enforcing the city's policy on informing the public about major roadway projects prior to the bidding stage; he said that Mr. Kersten had stated he regrets that a public meeting was not held on the Indiana Road Extension; and Mr. Pollard said he does not believe this was an oversight but has been a process used by Public Works since the inception of the city, and said this is the third major public works project in his neighborhood which intentionally avoided public input and negatively affected adjoining properties; he said council needs to review a future public works policy which will include the citizens and not just the developer; he said that for this project, Councilmember Gothmann previously pointed out we are past the design stage; but said when this project was received for construction grant, why didn't Councilmember Gothmann, who is part of a Transportation Improvement Board, ask if the citizens were allowed input regarding the road design and cost prior to its approval. Mr. Pollard said that Mr. Kersten's recent apology for not including citizen input, some additional bureaucratic rhetoric and placing band aids over obvious injuries to adjoining properties due to poor city engineering, has somehow made everything right; and said tonight a "yes"vote by council will burden taxpayers with paying 75%of the cost of this construction,this "poorly designed couplet to a private property;"and he asked council to take time to do things right. Mary Pollard, N. Greenacres Neighborhood Chair, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: she thanked council for further examining this process, said that staff didn't use design criteria to include the scope of the local road network and uses; and said the community appreciates the connection,but it fails in all other aspects; she said "we don't have time to re-design a quality project;" and she asked council not to approve the bid without further motions and addendums, and to give the work to Spokane Rock since they are already there; she asked that ADA access be preserved at the Mission Trail with improvements as noted on her handouts; she said she spoke with Bob Smith and understands their intention; she also asked council to initiate a policy to mandate early design stage opportunities for public comment, initiate budgetary cuts to public works; and said this project should have gone to private consulting engineers as they have more expertise, range of projects and innovation that our public works staff cannot replicate; and said it is bad to take jobs from the private sector; she said staff evaded SEPA required disclosures, again as noted on the materials she handed the clerk; and she urged council not to award the bid as it causes more problems than it solves; and said there is an ethical problem with the design that was for a particular developer rather than the community. Tom Pratt, 20114 E Belmont Road: said he is concerned with the access point; that he uses the site regularly; said the road design has some obvious issues which he understands are being addressed; and Council Study Session Minutes April 5,2011 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT said the 60' right-of-way design is key as it is a public space, and he encouraged council to work with the design team to make sure that space is allowed to remain and become incorporated with the open space requirements that are developed for condo-type projects. Mayor Towey once again reminded everyone of the April 19 meeting which will address the access issue and the trailhead. Richard Behm, 9405 E Sprague Avenue: he applauded the Pollards for their dedication and research; said he wanted to correct something he said two weeks ago: he associated Steve Worley with the County Roads Department in the development of the Sprague/Appleway Couplet; and said that was not quite true as at that time Mr. Worley was working for the stormwater utility of Spokane County; and he said the County built Appleway across the Chester Creek Floodplain without complying with their own regulations and requirements for intruding onto a floodplain; he said those issues have been resolved now, but at that time Dishman Road landowners were ready to file suit against the County; and said that although Mr. Worley did not work for the County Roads Department, at the time he did not catch that Appleway was going across the Chester Creek Floodplain. Gordon Curry, 14313 E Trent: said when he first saw the design he thought "what a monster" and said there would have to be all kinds of ramifications to satisfy and take care of the people that are around it, and when you stop and think, what is a road, he said a road is something that you travel on to get from one point to another; and said that monstrosity has all kinds of inadequacies going different directions and having the people going all kinds of ways; and said he thinks there could be a better design with one- way from Broadway right straight through to Mission,unless this road is built for someone else's benefit. There were no further public comments and Mayor Towey thanked everyone for coming. After brief discussion, Council voted by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 2. Motion Consideration: Greenacres Park Bid Award—Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the Greenacres Park Phase #1 project which includes the base bid and alternates one through four to Bouten Construction in the amount of $926,016.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said as was mentioned last week, the consultant and the neighborhood group worked well together for a strong project,that we received favorable bids, and that the alternates include phase 2 installation of turf and irrigation, adding the sand and water play areas, adding one phase 2 small shelter, and substitute concrete for asphalt on the perimeter path system. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Mary Pollard, N. Greenacres Neighborhood: said they are thrilled about this project and the cooperation between the consultant and the neighborhood community. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Hanson Industries Developer Agreement-John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the Development Agreement with Hanson Industries, Inc., and to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement. Senior Engineer Hohman gave a brief background on the topic, as noted in his Request for Council Action Form, and said this project will contribute significantly to the City's infrastructure and to the improvement of the flow of traffic. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bob Boyle, Hanson Industries, 15807 East Indiana Avenue: said this was a wonderful process and collaboration and that this is a perfect example of what can be done on such collaborative projects. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Appointment of Candidate to Council Position#3 -Mayor Towey Mayor Towey outlined the procedure for nominations of candidates, and said the vote would be taken by raised hand, and if a candidate receives a majority of votes, that candidate will be the interim councilmember. (1) Deputy Mayor Schimmels nominated Mr. Arne Woodard. The nomination was Council Study Session Minutes April 5,2011 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT seconded and those voting for Mr. Woodard included Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grafos and Grassel. (2) Councilmember Gothmann nominated Mr. Ben Wick. The nomination was seconded and those voting for Mr. Wick included Councilmember Gothmann. (3) Councilmember Grassel nominated Steven Neill. The nomination was seconded and there were no votes for Mr. Neill. (4) Councilmember Grafos nominated Jennie Willardson. The nomination was seconded and there were no votes for Ms. Willardson. After Mr. Woodard was sworn in by the City Clerk, he was congratulated and he took his seat at the dias. Mayor Towey thanked everyone for applying. Non-Action Items: 5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Questions arose concerning the Indiana Avenue project and Mr. Jackson said staff will come back to council on April 19 for general discussion about the Mission Avenue trailhead; and that a change order may come to council in the future, or could fall within the authority of the City Manager, which is $200,000 or 15% of construction costs, whichever is less. Deputy Mayor Schimmels announced that the April 14th State of the City Address, initially scheduled for the Greenacres area has been moved to CenterPlace due to construction. Other items mentioned to add to the advance agenda included the idea of Sprague beautification, which needs to be discussed with the Finance Committee as well, and of forming a committee in connection with economic development. 6. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that he attended a Government Affairs meeting today and that the Clean Air Board is going to make a decision in the next few months about whether to fund with 100% from industries as opposed to cities supplementing those funds, and said perhaps we could get a future report from Rose Dempsey. Mayor Towey concurred. Councilmember Grafos voiced his concerns about transit service eliminations in Spokane Valley and said it appears there will no longer be a route through the Industrial Park Loop or to the YMCA, but they have added other routes; and said if we were to complete the connection at Mansfield Road, that might be beneficial in getting another route included; and also mentioned that he attended a grand opening at the Rockwood Low Income Retirement apartments. 7. City Manager Check-in—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said he and Attorney Driskell have finalized the purchase agreement on the new street shop. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes April 5,2011 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 12th, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-006 amending Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 19.120 (Permitted and accessory uses) update matrix to allow animal raising and keeping in the mixed use center and corridor mixed use zones, with conditions. Chapter 19.40.150 (Animal raising and keeping) adding language to allow the keeping of livestock in areas of the City zoned Mixed Use. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170-210 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28th, 2007. In September of 2010, the Community Development Director received a request for an Administrative Interpretation from a citizen asking for clarification on zoning regulations for the keeping of livestock in areas of the City zoned Mixed Use. The Planning Commission held a study session on this issue January 27th, 2011, held a public hearing February 10th, 2011, and continued deliberations on February 24th, 2011. OPTIONS: Proceed to second reading of the ordinance with or without modifications, or provide other direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to advance Ordinance 11-006, amending Title 19 concerning permitted and accessory uses, and animal raising and keeping, to a second reading as drafted. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen —Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Draft Ordinance Administrative Interpretation request Amended Use Matrix Draft February 24, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes Map showing lots zoned Mixed Use Map showing Mixed Use lots over 40,000 square feet in size DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE 07-015 AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 19.40.150 AMENDING REGULATIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK IN MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07-015, on September 25,2007;and WHEREAS,the UDC became effective October 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist, the City issued a Determination of Non- significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS,the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC)initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on January 14, 2011; and WHEREAS,the amendment as is set forth below bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare,and to the protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council as is set forth in SVMC 18.10.050 and RCW 35.63.060; and WHEREAS,on January 27, 2011,the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence, information, written and oral public testimony at a public hearing on February 10, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on February 24, 2011; the Planning Commission provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and the recommendations by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that such an amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment is consistent with the Land Use Residential Goals and Policies Goal LUG-1, as well as NG-2 in the Neighborhood Goals and Policies; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions are also consistent with provisions contained within land use codes of other jurisdictions located in the greater Spokane region. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Ordinance 11-006 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Section One: SVMC Chapter 19 shall be amended as follows: 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted,the keeping of poultry and livestock(excluding swine and chickens)is subject to the following conditions: A. The lot or tract must exceed 10,0000 square feet in area;Minimum Lot Requirements: 1. In residential zone,the lot or tract must exceed 40, 000 square feet. -h2.In Mixed-Use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet. A713. The keeping of swine is not permitted B C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; �D. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to, any stable, paddock,yard, runway,pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any habitation; PE. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to, any stable, paddock,yard, runway,pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; &F. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses,mules, donkeys,bovine,llama or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acres; or 3. Any equivalent combination of subsection (F)(1) and(F)(2) of this section. F7G. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl (excluding chickens),including , duck,turkey,goose or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit,mink,nutria, chinchilla or similar animal,may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a shed, coop, hutch,or similar containment structure must be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl; and G-H. In residential areas,the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area, with a maximum of 25 birds allowed. 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibited. 3. Coops,hutches or similar containment structures must be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, 5 feet from side and rear property lines, and 15 feet from flanking streets. 4. Coops,hutches or similar containment structures must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from occupied structures on neighboring properties. 5. All chickens must be rendered incapable of flight. Ordinance 11-006 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT WI.Structures,pens, yards, enclosures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Section Two: All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 and Appendix A (Definitions) not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Three: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Four: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of , 2011. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 11-006 Page 3 of 3 pkanc t'TY" " }�r"KA"E Department of Community Development Valle golliwog Planning Division City Council 1St Reading April 12°i , 2011 CTA-02-11 Proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code pkanc 'TY" " }�r"KA"E Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Animal raising and keeping regulations • Lot or tract must exceed 40,000 square fee in area • Swine is not permitted • Beekeeping limited to 25 hives • No more than 3 large animals (horses, llama, bovine) per gross acre • No more than 6 sheep or goats per gross acre • One small animal (birds-excluding chickens, rabbit, chinchilla, etc) per 3 ,000 sf of lot area • One chicken per 2,000 sf of lot area with a maximum of 25 birds • Setback requirements for structures, yards and manure piles. � It i Spokane Va11e t'Ty" " „r„A"E Department of Community Development Planning Division Zoning r ITVHAI I«}5r,^,KANEv,, Spokane 194,weistsp., Department of Community Development Planning Division Lots zoned mixed use w/ residential uses Valk; Residential;Parcels 40.000 sqft and over Parcels ›=40,040 spit Valley Parcels rITHAI KANE,/ Spokane Va 1 Is,assim Department of Community Development Planning Division Mixed use lots over 40,000 square feet in size 1 • .1 Cm cif Intim ood ne gal I IIMmi 1 .1F).11V. .1:-; 'r04--1-1-j • IL'ar 1)11111111 I MEd . ;III I al II g. -Min .151 • T_ , City of Liberty-Like Valley Residential Parcels Mixed Use Zoning 40,000stift N Single Family Residential A Valley Parcels •M pkanc }""KA"E Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division phapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES i Printing instructions Uses are classified using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System(NAICS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau based on category and subcategory. Subcategories include all uses not identified separately by specific number. Uses may be permitted, be subjectto conditions,orrequire conditional or temporary use permits as shown in Appendix 19-A,the schedule of permitted and accessory uses_ R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Meighborho od Commercial Communit y Comm erci a1 Regional Commerci al ParksfOpe n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 711 Adult entertainment establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC 453 Adult retail use establishment 5 5 Chapter 19.80 SVMC 311 Agricultural processing plant,warehouse P P 33E411 Aircraft manufacturing P 481219 Airstrip,private P P 62191 Ambulance service P P P P P P P P 54194 Animal clinicfveterinary P S P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)( 1) 311613 Animal processing fadlity P S S S S S S 112 Animal raising and/or keeping Excluding NAICS 1122, pnkanc }""KA"E Department of Community Development alle Planning Division 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding swine) is subject to the following conditions: A. Lot Requirements 1. In residential zones, the lot or tract must exceed 40,000 square feet in area. 2. In mixed use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet. B The keeping of swine is not permitted; C. Beekeeping for non commercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; D. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any habitation; E. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line pkanc }""KA"E Department of Community Development Valle Planning Division Questions ? ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION PRETATIO 4 Sjôkáne � REQUEST - - Va . SVMC 17.50.010 Valley Community Development— Planning Division i 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 • Fax: 509.688.0037 • planning®spokanevalley.org 1 STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 9//C)//0 Received by: /7,X � Fee: / `� O , 00 PLUS #: 1 000 2'3 `I 5 File#: AI -03-1 PART I — APPLICANT INFORMATION OWNER NAME: ,--; Y,---\---\- t un E `� MAILING ADDRESS: 1g, 0 CSC) BOX 3 r')) C� {� i i �, CITY: ae.r.e\c�`5 STATE: ZIP: 1C\0 \ -0 ' - PHONE: FAX: CELL: (.0 3 )-t EMAIL: KtilS ; S Uei Qtv'- C sue-, nC PART II — INTERPRETATION REQUEST TYPE OF REQUEST: f SVMC 13 Zoning Map C Arterial Road Map I Prior Condition 0 Prior interpretations SITE ADDRESS: 1 S-004 Ct3 ANI R\J '& Parcel No: J ( ' 1 1 Z DESCRIBE IN DETAIL REQUEST AND REASON(S)WHY: (may included on separate sheet of paper) igez5'IAq....v1ru� ki UAW_V1 W\( -› 41-ye iVI I. V\ t,\ Ae_ (e CA lit {-e vfl(vvi- kAr kef Di vy w Prn. t ' 'vLS, 5V'S k ci_t! b.r_VA h lc6vt v AI\\ I ke( PART III — AUTHORIZATION I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY ME IS TRUE AND C ECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. l< 0-- 's-V\--t\00114c q) ) /1 ii Owner/Applicant Signature Date INFORMATION FOR OWNER:After submittal of the application,the Community Development Director has up to two(2)weeks to issue a decision. All decisions are appealable pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Page 1 of 1 REVISED 1/27/10 Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. 19.120.010 General. Printing instructions Uses are classified using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau based on category and subcategory. Subcategories include all uses not identified separately by specific number. Uses may be permitted, be subject to conditions, or require conditional or temporary use permits as shown in Appendix 19-A, the schedule of permitted and accessory uses. R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 711 Adult entertainment establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC 453 Adult retail use establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC 311 Agricultural processing plant,warehouse P P 336411 Aircraft manufacturing P 481219 Airstrip, private P P 62191 Ambulance service P P P P P P P P 54194 Animal clinic/veterinary P S P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)( 1) 311613 Animal processing facility P S S S S S S 112 Animal raising and/or keeping S S S S Excluding NAICS 1122, R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions Swine. SVMC 19.40.150. 81291 Animal shelter P P 31161 Animal slaughtering and processing P 45392 Antique store P P P P P P 448 Apparel/tailor shop P P P P P P P P 443111 Appliance sales/service P P P P A A Only if manufactured/ assembled on premises. 33522 Appliances manufacturing P P 45392 Art gallery/studio P P P P P P P P 32412 Asphalt plant/manufacturing P 333 Assembly—heavy P 334 Assembly—light P P P P P P P P P 623312 Assisted living facility P P P P 4533 Auction house P P P 4533 Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P 1152 Auction yard, livestock P 3361 Automobile assembly plant P 922 Automobile impound yard P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 441 Automobile/light truck sales and service P P P P 4853 Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P P P P 811121 Automobile/truck/RV/motorc ycle painting, repair, body and fender works S P P P Enclosed structure only. SVMC 19.60.050(B)( 3). 4413 Automotive parts, accessories and tires P P P P P P 31181 Bakery products manufacturing P P 445291 Bakery, ry, retail P P P S S P P P A A Floor area limited to 10% of Gross Leasable Floor Area (GLFA) not to exceed 1,000 sf. 52211 Bank, savings/loan and other financial institutions P P P P P P P P P P 8121 Barber/beauty shop P P P A P P P P P 33591 Battery rebuilding/manufacturing P P P P P P P P 721191 Bed and breakfast P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 11291 Beekeeping, commercial P S S S 11291 Beekeeping, hobby SVMC 19.40.150(C) 4511 Bicycle sales/service P P P P P P P P P 336611 Boat building, repair and maintenance P P 441222 Boat sales/service P P 4512 Book/stationery store P P P P P P P P 3121 Bottling plant P P 71395 Bowling alley P P P P P 722 Brewery, micro P P P P P P P P P 3121 Brewery,winery and/or distillery P P P P P P P 339994 Broom manufacturing P P 4441 Building supply and home improvement P P P 445292 Candy and confectionery P P P P P P P P 71399 Carnival, circus T T T T T T T 3219 Carpenter shop P P P P 561740 Carpet and rug cleaning plants P P 811192 Carwash P P S P P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B) R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 7132 Casino P P P P P 454113 Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P P P 72232 Catering services P P P P P P P P P P P 8122 Cemetery and crematories P 451112 Ceramics shop P P P P P P P 325 Chemical manufacturing P P P P P P P 813 Church,temple, mosque, synagogue and parsonage P P P P P P P 4481 Clothes, retail sales P P P P P 49312 Cold storage/food locker P P 6113 College or university P P P P P P P 517 Communication service/sales P P P P P P P P 3342 Communications equipment manufacturing P P P P S S S S S S 921 — 922 Community facilities S S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions. P P P 8134 Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P P PPP 6232 Community residential facility(6 or less residents) R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions P P P 6232 Community residential facility(greater than 6 residents, no more than 25) 56173 Composting storage/processing, commercial P 54151 Computer services P P P P P P P P P P 2373— 238 Contractor's yard P P P P P 623 Convalescent home, nursing home P 44512 Convenience store P P A A P P P P P 339 Cosmetic and miscellaneous manufacturing P P P P P P P P 6233 Day care, adult P P P A P P P A A C C C C P P 624410 Day care, child (13 children or more) P P A A P A A PPPPP P 624410 Day care, child (12 children or fewer) P P P A A P P P A A 4521 Department/variety store P P P P P 44611 Drug store P P P A P P P P P 8123 Dry cleaners P P P A P P P P 812332 Dry cleaning, laundry, linen P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions supply plant, commercial 321111 4 Dry kiln P S S S 814 Dwelling, accessory apartments SVMC 19.40.100 814 Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B)( 1) P P 7213 Dwelling, congregate P P P P P P P P 814 Dwelling, duplex P P P P P 814 Dwelling, multifamily P P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B) P P P P P P 814 Dwelling, single-family P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B) P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P P P 334— 335 Electrical/electronic/comput er component and system manufacturing/assembly P P P P P P P 322226 Emery cloth and sandpaper manufacturing P P 713 Entertainment/recreation facilities, indoor P P P P P P 7139 Entertainment/recreation facilities, outdoor P P P P P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 5323 Equipment rental shop P P P P P 8113 Equipment sales, repair, and maintenance P P P P P 7222 Espresso/latte retail service P P P P P P P P P P R R R R R R 92 Essential public facilities R R R R R R Chapter 19.90 SVMC A A 71394 Exercise facility/gym/athletic club P P P A A P P P A A 32592 Explosive manufacturing P 493190 Explosive storage P P P P P P P P 814 Family home, adult P P P P PPPPP P 814 Family home, child P P P P 441222 Farm machinery sales and repair P P P 112112 Feed lot P 311211 Feed/cereal/flour mill P P 3253 Fertilizer manufacturing P 81292 Film developing P P P A A P P P 44313 Film/camera sales/service P P P A A P P P 4531 Florist shop P P P A A P P P P 311 Food product manufacturing/storage P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 44521 Food sales, specialty/butcher shop/meat market/specialty foods P P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)( 3) 484 Freight forwarding P P 447 Fueling station P P P A P P P P 81221 Funeral home P P P 337 Furniture manufacturing P P 315 Garment manufacturing P P 453 Gift shop P P P A A P P P A S S S S S S 71391 Golf course P S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC CCCCC C 71391 Golf driving range/training center P C S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC 49313 Grain elevator P P 44422 Greenhouse, nursery, garden center, retail P P P P P P 1114 Greenhouse, nursery, commercial S S P P SVMC 19.60.050(B)( 3) 4451 Grocery store P P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)( 3) 44413 Hardware store P P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)( R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 3) 562211 Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S SVMC 21.40.060 4812 Heliport P P 4812 Helistop C C C C P 45112 Hobby shop P P P A P P P 442 Home furnishings, retail sale P P P P 6221 Hospital P P P P P RRRRR R 622210 Hospital, psychiatric and substance abuse R R R R R R R R 622310 Hospital, specialty P P P P P P A A 7211 Hotel/motel P P P P P P P 312113 Ice plant P P 32591 Ink manufacturing P 45322 Jewelry, clock, musical instrument assembly, sales/service P P P A P P P P P 81291 Kennel, indoor kennel, doggie day care facility S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions. 54138 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 2) P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 54138 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 3) P P P 54138 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 4) P P 62151 Laboratories, medical and diagnostic P P P P P P 44419 Landscape materials sales P P P P A A A 812310 Laundromat P P A P P P P 4453 Liquor store P P P A A P P 561622 Locksmith P P P A A P P P 3211 Lumbermill, sawmill,shingle mill, plywood mill P 33271 Machine shop P P P 333 Machine/machinery manufacturing P P 236115 Manufactured home fabrication P P S S S S S 814 Manufactured home park SVMC 19.40.130 45393 Manufactured home sales P P P 327 Manufacturing, nonmetallic metal products P P 453998 Market, outdoor T T T T T T T R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 621498 Massage therapy P P P P P P P P 3116— 3117 Meat/fish canning, cutting, curing and smoking P P 3391 Medical and laboratory instrument/apparatus manufacturing P P P 42345 Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply/sales P P P P 6214 Medical/dental clinic P P P P P P P P 621 Medical/dental office P P P P P P P P 332 Metal fabrication P P 332 Metal plating P 332 Metal processes, hot P Mineral product manufacturing, nonmetallic P 212 Mining P 722330 Mobile food vendors S S S S S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.010(H) T T T T T T 236115 Model home units 71211 Museum P P P P P P P 45114 Music store P P P A P P P A A 561 Office P P P P P P P P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 45321 Office and computer supplies P P P A P P P P 999 Off-road recreational vehicle use P P 1113 Orchard,tree farming, commercial P P 32211 Paper/pulp mills P 4859 Park-and-ride facility P P P P P P P P 522298 Pawnshop P P P P 812 Personal service P P P P P P P P 45391 Pet shop P P P A P P P 32411 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing P 54192 Photographic studio P P P A A P P P 32511 Plastic and rubber products manufacturing P 326199 Plastic injection molding, thermoset P 326199 Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P 326199 Plastic injection solvent molding P 491 Post office, postal center P P P P P P P P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 221 Power plant(excluding public utility facilities) P 56143 Print shop P P P A P P P P P 323 Printing, reprographics, bookbinding services, commercial P P 48849 Public pay parking garage/lot P P P P P P SSSSS S 221 Public utility distribution facility S S P P P P P P P P P See zoning districts for conditions. SSSSS S 237 Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions. 71399 Racecourse P P P P 711212 Racetrack P P 5151 Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P P 4821 Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P 7212 Recreational vehicle park/campground C S SVMC 19.60.060 44121 Recreational vehicle sales and service P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions P P P P P P 51511 Repeater facility P P P P P P 7222 Restaurant, drive-in P P P P P P 7222 Restaurant, drive-through P P A C P P P P 722 Restaurant, full service P P P A P P P P P P 452— 453 Retail sales P P P A P P P A A Limited to items manufactured on the premises. 71399 Riding stable C P P 33122 Rolling mill P 314991 Rope manufacturing P P 325212 Rubber reclamation, manufacturing/fabrication P PPPPP P 6111 Schools, public and private, K through 12 P P P P P P P 6114 Schools, professional, vocational and trade schools P P P P P P P P P Showroom P P P P P P 4533 Secondhand store, consignment sales P P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(6)( 9) 33995 Sign manufacturing/repair P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions 33995 Sign painting shop P P P P P 32561 Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing P 56292 Solid waste recycling/transfer site S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B) 6116 Specialized training/learning schools or studios P P P P S P P Adaptive reuse of existing structures only. No expansion allowed. P P 49319 Storage, self-service facility P P P P P P 493 Storage, general —outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for conditions. Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060 213112 Tank storage, critical material above ground S S SVMC 21.40.060 213112 Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S S SVMC 21.40.060 3161 Tanning, curing of hides and skins P 7224 Tavern P P P P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions Taxidermy P P SSSSS S 5172 Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC CCCCC C 5172 Telecommunication wireless support tower S S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC 31411 Textile manufacturing P P 711 Theater, indoor P P P P P P 711 Theater, outdoor P P P P 56292 Tire, recap and retread manufacturing P S S S S S S 5179 Tower, ham operator S S S C S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(A) 221119 Tower,wind turbine support C S S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(B) 4851 Transit center P P P P P P P P C 7213 Transitional housing 441222 Truck sales, rental, repair and maintenance P P 445— 447 Truck stop P P 81142 Upholstery shop P P P P P 49311 Warehousing A S P A P P Adaptive reuse of R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -1 MF -2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente r Corrid or Mixed Use City Cente r Garde n Office Offic e Neighborho od Commercial Communit y Commerci al Regional Commerci al Parks/Ope n Space I-1 Ligh t Ind. 1-2 Heav y Ind. Reference Conditions existing structures. No expansion allowed. 321 Wood product manufacturing P P 56292 Wrecking, recycling,junk and salvage yards C S SVMC 19.60.060(B) P Permitted Use A Accessory Only R Regional Siting T Temporary Permit S Conditions Apply C Conditional Use Permit (Ord. 10-005 § 1 (Exh.A), 2010; Ord. 09-036§6, 2009; Ord. 09-017 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09-006 § 5, 2009; Ord. 08-026 § 1, 2008; Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 24, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Sands, and Woodard were present. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to excuse Commissioner Stoy; this was seconded and approved unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Woodard made a motion to amend the agenda to move CPA-03-11 to the end of the end of the agenda, which was seconded. Vote on the amendment was four in favor and two against, motion past. Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the amended agenda for February 24, 2011. This motion was seconded and unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the minutes for January 27, 2011 as presented. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard stated he had attended Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum, Commissioner Mann also attended the Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta stated there was currently nothing to report. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business: Continued Deliberations regarding CTA-02-11 — Code Amendment on keeping of livestock in Mixed Use Zones. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Assistant Planner Christina Janssen made a small staff report reminding the Commission the amendment is to allow livestock on residential parcels in Mixed Use zones. At the last meeting the Commissioners has asked of the residential properties in the Mixed Use areas how many were actually over the 40,000 square foot threshold, which is required in order to have livestock. Ms. Janssen presented a map which shows that there are 19 parcels that are legally established residential lots now in the Mixed Use areas. This was the only additional information requested by the Commission from the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard asked about being able to apply an overlay zone for this motion instead of an amendment, Planning Manager Kuhta responded that it would be more difficult to administer and there were not enough parcels to warrant that type of an overlay. The motion from the February 10, 2011 meeting is: the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council to allow livestock on currently established residential parcels located in Mixed Use zoning districts as per the current animal keeping regulations. Vote was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. B. New Business: Public Hearing Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Senior Planner Mike Basinger introduced himself and the Comprehensive Amendment team for this year, Associate Planner Lori Barlow and Assistant Planner, Karen Kendall. Mr. Basinger explained that due to the time constraints from the last meeting, staff will be having a study session on the Comprehensive Plan amendments prior to the public hearing, where-by the Commissioners will be able to ask questions before the public hearing starts. Sr. Planner Basinger explained why the City has an Comprehensive Plan and how the annual amendments are proposed and taken care of. The Comprehensive Plan is a road map to guide future development and growth in our City. Amendments every year allow the plan to be updated and remain current while allowing citizens to request changes, such as site specific map changes, of which there are two this year. Mr. Basinger stated that each amendment would be reviewed individually. CPA-01-11: This amendment is a privately initiated site-specific map amendment located at Sprague and Progress. This amendment is 10 parcels which cncompasa includes a small strip mall and some single family housing. Staff has also recommended adding two parcels which are adjacent to these in order to not leave pockets of alternatively zoned land surrounded by another zoning district. This amendment however will not be necessary if CPA-03-11 were to be moved forward as requested. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Neighborhood Commercial. CPA-02-11: This is a privately initiated site specific map amendment located at 503 N Walnut Road. This amendment is being proposed by St. John Vianney Catholic Parish. This parcel is currently a parking lot serving the church. The request is to change this parcel from low density residential to medium density residential. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 CPA-03-11: This amendment is council initiated to remove the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This proposed amendment is to propose to changcremove the area in the Subarea Plan will be removed from the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. All areas will be returned to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations as they were at the time the plan was adopted in October of 2007. CPA-04-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 2 — Land Use: Table 2.1, Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, will reflect new population numbers within the City of Spokane Valley. Map 2.1, Land Use, will display land use designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process. Commissioners asked how the Board of County Commissioners based their population allocations. Mr. Basinger attempted to explain how the Technical Planning Committee made a recommendation for the population allocations and the County Commissioners made the decision for these allocation numbers. CPA-05-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 3 — Transportation: Map 3.2, Bike and Pedestrian System, will display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Commissioner Woodard asked if this amendment was pf—passed is it binding to the City. Sr. Planner Basinger explained that the map contains existing infrastructure as well as proposed infrastructure. However, none of the proposed infrastructure is binding and does not need to be done next year or the year after, and it would depend on funding but it was put on the map based on the community's vision for these types of facilities. CPA-06-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services: Amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure consistency. Amendments will update special purpose district's and other city service provider's facility and service data. Capital projects such as city hall, parks, and a public works storage facility will be included for the use of REET funding. Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 will display updates to reflect the latest capital facilities and public services. Amendments will also update the growth assumptions to reflect population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if projects are not included in the Comprehensive Plan then the REET funds cannot be used for them. There was also discussion regarding growth assumptions and how our City does not plan capital facilities within the UGA's. At the beginning of the City,Shortly after incorporation the City Manager determined that the City would not plan for service into the UGAs. The UGAs are not allocated to our city by the county. Commissioner Woodard wondered how the level of service for the parks department was amended. Mr. Basinger stated that the Planning Commission could make a different level if they thought something different level was more appropriate. CPA-07-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 7 — Economic Development: Map 7.1 will display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle. The question came up as to if there was a limit on permits or was it any permit? and tThe answer was any permit. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 CPA-08-11: This is the last amendment and also staff initiated, Chapter 8 —Natural Environment: Map 8.3 will display the field inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream typing in Spokane Valley. Map 8.4 has been updated to reflect the current FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. Mr. Basinger stated there were places on Sprague Ave,— and Trent that stated there were classified ass fish baring streams and these needed to be updated. Mr. Basinger stated that staff would recommend that the Commission would take action on CPA-03-11 which refers to the Subarea Plan, before it addresses the amendment of CPA-01-11. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if the recommendation is for the Subarea Plan to go away then amendment in CPA-01-11 is not necessary. Commissioner Carroll asked if there had been any comments received from the adjoining parcels in CPA-01-11. Ms. Kendall stated there had been no written comments received from either party but had been aware that there had been some dialog between the proponents and Mr. Jankowski one of the parcel owners. Commissioner Carroll asked what other uses are on site for CPA-02-11, which the reply was a church and a K-8 school. Commissioner Carroll asked in regard to CPA-03-11 if there had been any additional studies or surveys done by staff or City Council as to why this amendment is necessary. Ms. Barlow answered not that she was aware of. Commissioner Carroll asked if there were any alternative plans in place or being proposed; Ms. Barlow stated there was nothing other than to go back to the designations and zoning that were previously in place. Commissioner Carroll asked if the only change has been the City Council itself and Ms. Barlow stated that she had documented the community meetings and the comments received from them stated that some of the regulations in the Subarea Plan were hardships and unwarranted, in the opinion of the public commenting. Commissioner Mann asked how many people commented at the meetings, Ms. Barlow stated that each meeting, of which there were five, had varying amounts of attendance and input, but the largest had 30-40 people in attendance and it decreased at each meeting after. A QQuestion was asked how many meetings were held to put the plan in place, Ms. Barlow stated that she thought that there were probably 100 meetings. Commissioner Sands stated we are not having the same level of discussion to remove the plan as was had to implement the plan. Ms. Barlow stated that staff was following the required protocol for notifications for such an amendment, that staff was following all of the City's and the State's procedures for minimum notification requirements. Commissioner Woodard asked if any input had been received on this amendment, Ms. Barlow stated that the amendment was part of the whole list of annual amendments and she had not received a letter, email or phone call regarding this amendment. Commissioner Mann wondered if the public was actually aware of what was going on. Commissioner Hall asked if he remembered that City Council stated he thought from the Council Retreat that it was considered to do a citizen survey but was it geared to the City Hall or the Sprague Avenue area? Ms. Barlow stated she could not comment on the Council Retreat, however Director McClung stated she did not feel that the survey was not stated being geared to the Sprague Ave. but more to economic development for the whole city. Mr. Hall thought that 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 the Subarea Plan could be a part of that survey_; tThe Director did not feel the conversation was about the Subarea Plan but about where the City Hall might go. Commission took a break at 7:11 p.m., resumed at 7:19 p.m. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing by reading the rules at 7:20 p.m. Matt Jankowski, 315 W. Riverside: Mr. Jankowski is speaking for CPA-01-11. Mr. Jankowski stated he had received a letter from the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Hume, regarding this amendment. Mr. Jankowski stated he would not have a problem with the proposal as long as items he was worried about and his tenant is comfortable, he would be ok. Mr. Jankowski turned in a letter with his concerns to the Commission. Commissioner Sands asked about Mr. Jankowski about his business that had been on the one way Sprague (KFC) just west of Farr. Mr. Jankowski stated how hard the one-way had been on his business, how difficult on sales, how his sales dropped, that he held on hoping that the road would change back to two-way. *In the application for CPA-02-11 it has been stated that the church is proposing a 40-unit low income Sr. housing complex owned and run by Catholic Charities. Many comments address the project and not the land use change requested. Shelly Stevens, 312 N Walnut Rd: Ms. Stevens stated she was against CPA-02-11. Ms. Stevens stated she was worried about apartments in her neighborhood, the extra traffic, the speeding families of church parishioners and school attendees The City has never replaced a stop sign at Valleyway and Walnut, making money off of the neighborhood, wants to preserve her quiet neighborhood. Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Rd.: Mr. Strauss stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Strauss stated he had talked to his neighbors, and they are worried about traffic, decreasing property values, worried about police and at the other low income apartments there have and been homicides, changes in ownership, need to look at long term effect, this is the heart of our neighborhood, it is about greed. Mr Strauss is worried about Valleyway as a thoroughfare. He also stated he was worried there is not enough parking for the church now and that the environmental review might not beig accurate enough. Chris Carr, 223 N. Walnut Rd.: Mr. Carr stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Carr stated he was concerned about the traffic from the church parishioners now and would not like the speeders to increase three fold. Commissioner Mann asked if any of the people commenting attended St. John Vianney. Levi Strauss, Mr. Strauss stated he has a child that attends the school and this was a difficult issue for him. Mr. Strauss stated that when the church hold events there are people parking on the street. Commissioner Woodard stated he knew there were about 1,000 families that attend the church in question. Sandra Holder, 9814 E Valleyway: Ms. Holder stated that she was against CPA- 02-11. Ms. Holder stated that she lives on a dead end street but people from the 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 school still speed down the her street. She lives here because she has a deaf child. She does not allow the child to play in the front due to traffic and feels it will increase with the change. Ms. Holder stated she felt that unwanted people could move into the complex, she is worried about theft, she said she knows that the church says the housing is for seniors but she is not `buying into that' they could later allow anyone to live there, event parking is excessive. Chris Pierce, 404 N Farr: Mr. Pierce stated that he was against CPA-02-11 but could be convinced if the following issues were addressed — Valleyway cannot go through to Walnut. Mr. Pierce has a barn listed on the state register of historic places. Mr. Pierce stated he was fine with senior use, but worried about down the road that general low income people in the complex and turned over to some else. Mr. Pierce also stated he did have a problem with the parking but not as big as the Walnut people have. George Birge, 611 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Birge stated he was against CPA-02-11 for the reasons given previously. Mr. Birge stated that he was not against elderly housing at the church. He stated that his mother lives in elderly housing through the Spokane Housing Authority, however it wasn't the residents he was concerned about but the associations and the people, the lower income folks he does not want in his neighborhood. Heidi Shutts, 116 N Walnut: Ms. Shutts stated she was against CPA-02-11 for the reasons previously given. There is currently too much traffic, there is an assisted living being built behind the old U-City mall, the soccer moms fly down the road to get kids back and forth, liquor store speeders come down the street as well. Marie Raschko-Sokol, 2110 S Sunrise Rd: Mr. Raschko-Sokol stated she was supporting CPA-02-11. Ms. Sokol stated she was the chair of the St. John Vianney parish council. She also stated she had worked in the field of aging for almost 30 years. Ms. Sokol stated she was currently a member of the planning and advisory council for the area agency on aging, which is a five county area, primarily serving older adults in Spokane County. She has also been appointed to the Washington State Council on Aging by the Governor. Ms. Sokol stated it is estimated that in the City there are approx. 14,000 people over the age of 60. And of that number 8% are low income, which means approx. 1,100 people are below the poverty level, most are women. 10% of people over 60 are disabled. Church looked at the parcel south of the request for purchase, it had been on the market for some time and they felt it would help fulfill part of their philosophy as well as that of the Catholic Dioceses, to provide services low income adults within the community. HUD projects are 40 year projects and Catholic Charities continue to operate beyond and they have a commitment to these projects. There will not be any convicted felons in the units, but neighbors, family, parents. She Sshares the concerns about speeders, but feels that most of the people will not have cars. Commission asked if the church had had any neighborhood meetings, the answer was no they had not so far but would be more than willing to do so. Commissioner Woodard wanted to know if the extension of Valleyway was being considered, and the answer was no. Commissioner Sands asked what kind of assistance they would be acquiring, they would be individual housing with in-service for daily needs but no common eating 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 areas. These are not buy-in/owned apartments. They are HUD subsidized rent. How would people know that this would be the same as it progresses, Catholic Charities is committed it to keeping its projects as they start out. Commissioner Bates asked about parking requirements, Mr. Kuhta stated that the code would dictate what the parking requirements would be. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners that this is a land use decision not a project decision. Joseph Bell, 502 N Farr Rd: Mr. Bell stated he is the pastor for St. John Vianney and is supporting CPA-02-11. Pastor Bell also stated he had been the pastor at a previously mentioned senior housing development and that at the time, that parish had wanted to make it a low income project but it was not possible and feels privileged to be able to be involved with this one. Pastor Bell stated he did not feel that parking would be an issue, however he too is concerned with speeders. Dan Hipple, 313 N Walnut: Mr. Hipple stated he was adjacent to the property just sold. Mr. Hipple stated that he was opposed to Valleyway being put through. Mr. Hipple stated he was not opposed to the project, but he had concerns. Mr. Hipple stated he was concerned about the employees coming in and speeding, worried about the employees taking smoke breaks in the parking lot. Jason Minnihan, 9802 E Valleyway: Mr. Minnihan stated he was against CPA-02- 11. Mr. Minnihan stated that he would not want this near his home. Mr. Minnihan stated he understood the need, he was placing his grandmother into a nursing home but does not want something like this in his yard, or his neighbors' yards. He felt it would destroy the neighborhood and be an eyesore. Mr. Basinger clarified that there is a shared use path that connects Valleyway through the church area, that has been proposed that is on the bike and pedestrian map. Ann Martin, 101 N Stevens St: Ms. Martin stated she was a representative of the applicant and a proponent of CPA-02-11. Ms. Martin stated that she was disturbed that a project was being discussed when what has been asked for is a land use decision. Ms. Martin also stated that the Growth Management Act encourages low income housing, including for elderly. Ms. Martin stated that she understood that it was an emotional decision, however asked that the Commission not confuse a land use decision with a project that was not yet being proposed. Ms. Martin also stated that a comment had been made that the project was going to be built to the maximum allowed, she pointed out that if a boundary line adjustment was done, the project could be increased to 51 units which is not being contemplated. Monique Kolonko, 902 W Roland: Ms. Kolonko stated she is the Associate Director of Senior Programs and Housing Programs for Catholic Charities. Ms. Kolonko stated she was speaking in favor of CPA-02-11. Ms. Kolonko stated that there are 800 units in Eastern Washington most with HUD support that belong to Catholic Charities. She stated that the units are professionally managed, look beautiful and add value to the neighborhoods. Ms. Kolonko stated it was offensive to her it was being suggested that Catholic Charities would profit from such 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 projects, and it is not true. Each building is its own corporation and any money made goes into the repair of that building. She also said that theft in the areas of these housing units decreases because there are extra eyes as home watching the neighborhoods. Chris Pierce: Mr. Pierce stated that if there had been a neighborhood meeting maybe there would not have been so much opposition, at least on his part. He also stated it was nice to know that HUD would be guaranteeing the project. He would like to see a bike trail but no extension to Valleyway. However, Mr. Pierce expressed concern over the height of the possible building. Brian Milspa, 216 N Walnut: Mr. Milspa stated that he is opposed to CPA-02-11. Mr. Milspa stated he and his neighbors have small pets and children and are concerned about the speeders. He also stated that a community meeting would have been helpful. Mr. Milspa stated that on occasion that they also have various wild animals come down and habitat the neighborhood. Mr. Milspa stated that he felt that having older people would bring more theft instead of less. Chris Carr: Mr. Can stated he is living in his grandparent's home. Mr. Can stated he felt that the map being shown was incorrect. (Staff helped explain to Mr. Carr that he was looking at the wrong parcel) Dan Daly, 303 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Daly stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Daly stated he was in agreement with the rest of the neighbors in their objections to this project. Mr. Daly stated he has spoken to an expert that the sewer line will not handle 80 more people. Mr Daly asked if this had been considered and Mr. Kuhta stated that the County had not been consulted, that would be the responsibility of the applicant at the time of submittal of the project. Gail Goodall, 515 N Farr Rd: Ms. Goodall stated that she appreciated the wildlife that visits the neighborhood. Ms. Goodall stated that in her neighborhood that most of the lots are one acre and that her concern was that if this amendment was allowed it could lead to infill of lots in her neighborhood. She would like to keep the neighborhood the way it is now and not have anything change. Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Representing the Hultman Family Trust. Mr. Hume stated he was speaking in support of CPA-01-11. Mr. Hume also stated that if the Subarea Plan is removed, then this amendment would not be necessary. Mr. Hume stated that he had contacted the two adjoining parcels to participate in this amendment, at the suggestion of staff, in order to not leave single parcels zoned differently in a pocket of an area. One of the participating parcels has concerns about non-conforming issues on his parcel. Mr Hume will communicate with the adjoining parcel and discuss the issues Mr. Jankowski is concerned with. Mr. Hume stated that he has reviewed the staff report and agrees with the findings in this amendment. Mr. Kuhta clarified the non-conforming sign issue. Commissioner Sands made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 10, 2011, which was seconded and was voted in favor unanimously. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 �1. c Boa l li :MEW rri .HI -I i Off 0. 16 1.1 IL.::L. „tiro ...iIIIII izl .nl ail _ ■■.°1 x .=MER MMIbMINgni 11=111 _..._..,..,_..MMI 111.111 xMEMFO II .awls aiii 111M1 111111 i 7112111-1!�! 'i h ,1 IIII. FI:ill€m111 111 1n. PEE el: ?n 1111111E IIII INIII:1i ..61"110111 71 n.l. IIIL %tlra.r at le NM ;�raii L 1nl III IN ,6..IIIIIIIII u!II EIJ 1111111111 TEEM m KI iii"i.r- =IIIIII �i ii11Ii!lit„ 1 ?M711111 a "'I1111I 1111. IiIIJ I City of-Liberty Lake NAPINES EMU E 11111 11•161: ■7l l: =a;1IIii 31111. Ix: 1 ._ 11111d1111L• 1 ri 111 .-1111111111 MI NI WEN :.1n. ANL MM In1 RA mu 1111111x1 nkx�l: 13 ffE •.1A EP; 4 IW•I ■MINA=AWN In s, 2211111 Itlak Valley Residential Parcels Mixed Use Zoning N Single Family Residential Valley Parcels 05 0 1 Mlles ' �1. c Boa MaI MEM WPM Off ®o issmimpur 11(11:111:111 IL.: N F...s;1 i6a.: I".1.114HEFAig sl■ 1■ •ii11'N�11 m Mina 1!eeill. l i t s- i ::r:r:1 IW mmmm ri Elm= MEI mow i U.isvisommil afig Ala-Ns. i °llaIlIlIi V liEl ^ 1111111111E-N•7 11111111111•::=Ir W• 1E■■NZ aLiemosur IEC:mer 11M1"10 ' E_ III Z. SEM E1 IIII. F:ii7•Ii 1'11:: I mll. :1■ 1 mll1 ' IIII INIII Im= WPM -1F '. Mg114. am II low. re "IP IN EIJ gegglEgg galb 9,0 UM I InI,•,r:,n,1111 !1- 1.." .,. .a.a1.. m•.:1 1%a1■rm,I III'i'• m a1jiIi TEEM 2 l!a=:,A Ilse. ,6..IIIIIIIII =1111111 �i�n111ait 1p Ofir Nil is ... 1116-1 11111111 'T1 1 ■EMA®lirI'I ,I11i1l 1: mu 1 City of-Liberty Lake EN= 1'11 1 111 •.J. 1111111 li I_IIIII i_ai IFIIN Illgf :I III=■1N111,1 I= =11:1:11111 a i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 12,2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Vacation Process PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The Planning Division recently received an application by the Spokane Valley Fire Department to vacate a portion of a street right-of-way accessing Fire Station No. 6 at 6306 East Sprague Avenue. At the April 26 council meeting, Council will receive this request along with a draft resolution setting the public hearing date for the Planning Commission. This presentation will provide an overview of the City's street vacation process. The major steps in the street vacation process are: 1. Initiation of Vacation — Owners abutting street may petition City Council to vacate street. City Council may also initiate a street vacation. 2. Council receives petition and sets hearing date by resolution. 3. City Planning Commission conducts hearing, makes recommendation to City Council to either approve or deny the vacation. 4. City Council may consider Planning Commission recommendation but the Council's final decision is not limited to their findings. 5. If approved, Council adopts ordinance. 6. Council may require compensation for property. 7. Ordinance is recorded. 8. Record of Survey required. OPTIONS: Information only. RECOMMENDATION: Information Only STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Street Vacation Regulations Exhibit 2: Presentation Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Page 1 of 6 Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Sections: 22.140.010 Purpose. 22.140.020 Initiation of vacation. 22.140.030 Planning commission review and recommendation. 22.140.040 City council decision. 22.140.050 Vacation of waterfront streets. 22.140.060 Application of zoning district designation. 22.140.070 Recording of ordinance. 22140.080 Compliance to city council conditions. 22.140.090 Record of survey required. 22.140.100 Monumentation. 22.140.110 Costs of title transfer to be borne by proponent. 22.140.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes the procedures, notice requirements and fees for the vacation of public streets and alleys within the City in conformance with the authority granted to the City by Chapter 35.79 RCW and RCW 35A.47.020. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.020 initiation of vacation. The owners of an interest in any real property abutting any public street or alley who may desire to vacate the street or alley, or any part thereof, may petition the city council. In the alternative, the city council may itself initiate a vacation by resolution. The petition or resolution shall be filed with the city clerk. A. Petition for Vacation. The petition shall be in a form prescribed by the director or his or her designee and shall be signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting the portion of the street or alley sought to be vacated. B. Petition Fees. Every petition for the vacation of any public street, alley or any part thereof shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the City to defray the administrative costs incurred in processing the petition and publishing, posting and mailing notices. The set amount shall be stated in the City of Spokane Valley Master Fee Schedule. Once paid, the fees shall not be refunded. C. Submittal Requirements for Petitions. Every petition shall be accompanied by the following: 1. A Spokane County assessor's map showing with a solid red line the portion of the street or alley sought to be vacated; 2. A vicinity map showing the general area of the proposed vacation; http://www.codepublishing.corn!WA/SpokaneValley/spval22/spva122140.html 04/07/2011 Chapter 22.140 Page 2 of 6 3. A copy of the record of survey, if available, for the subject street and alley proposed for vacation and abutting properties, streets and alleys within 100 feet on all sides of the proposed vacation; 4. Written evidence of any and all utility easements, other allowances or reservations, whether public or private, pertaining to the street or alley proposed for vacation; and 5. A written narrative describing the reasons for the proposed street vacation, the physical limits of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. D. Setting of Hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, the fee and all required documents, the city clerk shall forward the petition and required documents to the director, who shall determine whether the petition has been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting the part of the street or alley to be vacated. If the petition has been signed by the requisite percentage of such owners, the director shall bring the petition before the city council within 30 days of receipt of the petition, and the city council shall by resolution fix the time when the petition will be heard by the city council, or a committee of the city council, which time shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 20 days after the adoption of the resolution. Where the city council initiates the vacation by resolution, that resolution shall fix the time when the proposed vacation will be heard by the city council or a committee of the city council. E. Staff Report. The director, in conjunction with the public works department, shall prepare a report concerning the proposed vacation. The public works department shall evaluate the advisability of the proposed vacation based on the existing and future transportation system needs and requirements. The report shall address the criteria to be considered by the city council in determining whether to vacate the street or alley, and such other information as deemed appropriate by the director including, but not limited to, drainage requirements and street closure requirements, such as the removal and replacement of concrete and asphalt, and placement of barriers limiting vehicle movements. In preparing the report, the director shall solicit comments from the police department and the fire department and may solicit comments from other governmental agencies and utility companies having jurisdiction or utilities within the boundaries of the City. The report shall be submitted to the planning commission and to the petitioner and his or her representative not less than seven calendar days before the hearing. P. Notice of Hearing. Upon the passage of the resolution fixing the time for hearing the petition or proposal for vacation, the city clerk, or the director, acting under direction and supervision of the city clerk shall give not less than 20 days' notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing by: 1. Posting of a written notice in three conspicuous places in the City; 2. Publishing written notice once in the City's official newspaper; http://www.codepublishing.com/WAlSpokaneValley/spval22/spval22140.htm1 04/07/2011 Chapter 22.140 Page 3 of 6 3. Posting a minimum 24-inch by 36-inch notice sign in a conspicuous place at each end of the street or alley sought to be vacated describing the proposed vacation and the date, time and location of the public hearing; and 4. Mailing written notice to all petitioners at the addresses on the petition and all owners of property abutting the street or alley proposed to be vacated, as shown on the records of the Spokane County assessor, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the date of the public hearing. The director shall send the same written notice to the representative of the petitioners at the address on the petition. G. Protest. If 50 percent or more of the abutting property owners file written objections to a city council-initiated vacation with the city clerk, prior to the time of the hearing, the City shall be prohibited from proceeding with the vacation. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.030 Planning commission review and recommendation. A. The hearing on the petition or proposal shall be held before the planning commission upon the day fixed by resolution or at the time to which a hearing may be adjourned. In its consideration of the proposed vacation of the street or alley, the planning commission shall render a recommendation based on the following criteria: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public; 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access; 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public; 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists; and 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public. B. Following the hearing, the director shall forward the planning commission's recommendation and the hearing minutes to the city council at a regularly scheduled meetin if a hearing is held before the planning commission, it shall not be necessary to ( g• g • p g ry hold a hearing before the city council; provided, that the city council may, at its discretion, determine to hold a separate hearing on the proposal. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.040 City council decision. A. Following the hearing and receipt of the planning commission's recommendation, the city council shall determine whether to vacate the street or alley. The determination shall consider, but not be limited to, the findings of the planning commission. B. If the city council determines to grant the vacation, the action shall be made by ordinance with such conditions or limitations as the city council deems necessary and proper to preserve any desired public use or benefit. The ordinance shall contain a http://www.codepublishing.comlWA/SpokaneValley/spval22/spval22140.html 04/07/2011 Chapter 22.140 Page 4 of 6 provision retaining or requiring conveyance of easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services. C. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040, the city council, in approving a street vacation request, shall specify that the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. D. The city council reserves the right to require compensation as a condition of approval of ordinance action; provided, that such compensation shall comply with the requirements of RCW 35.79.030; and further, that any required compensation shall be paid to the City prior to the City's participation in required title transfer actions. (Ord. 07- 015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.050 Vacation of waterfront streets. A. The city shall not vacate a street or alley if any portion of the street or alley abuts a body of water unless: 1. The vacation is sought to enable the City to acquire the property for beach or water access purposes, or launching sites, park, public view, recreation, educational purposes, or other public uses; 2. The city council, by resolution, declares that the street or alley is not presently being used as a street or alley and that the street or alley is not suitable for any of the following purposes: a. Beach or water access; b. Launching sites; c. Park; d. Public view; e. Recreation; 1. Education; or 3. The vacation is sought to enable the City to implement a plan, adopted by resolution or ordinance, that provides comparable or improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the street or alley sought to be vacated abuts, had the properties included in the plan not been vacated. B. Before adopting an ordinance vacating a street or alley under subsection (A)(2) of this section, the city council shall: 1. Cause an inventory to be compiled of all rights-of-way within the City that abut the same body of water that is abutted by the street or alley sought to be vacated; 2. Cause a study to be conducted to determine if the street or alley to be vacated is unsuitable for use by the City for any of the following purposes: http://www.codepublishing.comlWA/SpokaneValley/spval22/spval22140.html 04/07/2011 Chapter 22.140 Page 5 of 6 a. Launching sites; b. Beach or water access; c. Park; d. Public view; e. Recreation; or f. Education; 3. Hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation in the manner required by Chapter 35.79 RCW and this chapter; and 4. Include in its written decision a finding that the street or alley sought to be vacated is not suitable for any other purposes listed under subsection (B)(2) of this section, and that the vacation is in the public's interest. C. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed vacation shall be provided in accordance with SVMC 22.140.020(F); provided, that the City shall also post notice of the public hearing conspicuously on the street or alley sought to be vacated, which notice shall indicate that the area is a public access, that the street or alley is proposed to be vacated, and that anyone objecting to the proposed vacation should attend the public hearing or send a letter to the director indicating the objection. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.060 Application of zoning district designation. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the extended districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007), 22.140.070 Recording of ordinance. A certified copy of the ordinance vacating a street or alley or part thereof shall be recorded by the city clerk in the office of the Spokane County auditor. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.080 Compliance to city council conditions. All conditions of city council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.090 Record of survey required. Following the city council's passage of the ordinance approving the proposal to vacate the street or alley, a record of survey prepared by a registered surveyor in the state of Washington and including an exact metes and bounds legal description and specifying, if applicable, any and all easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services shall be submitted by the proponent to the director. Said record of survey shall contain the professional stamp and signature of the registered http;l/www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokatieValley lspval221spval22140.html 04/07/2011 Chapter 22.140 Page 6 of 6 surveyor, and the proponent indicating acceptance of the vacated property. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.100 Monumentation. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by this chapter. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.110 Costs of title transfer to be borne by proponent. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street or alley from public to private ownership including, but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City assumes no financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Compile Title This page of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current City Website: http://www,spokanevalley,org/ through Ordinance 11-003, passed February 22, 2011. (http://www.spokanevalley.org/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the City Telephone: (509) 720-5102 Spokane valley Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Code Publishing Company Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance (http://www.codepubiishing.com/) cited above. http://www.codepublishing.corn/WA/SpokaneValley/spval22/spval22140.htm1 04/07/2011 Street Vacation Process Overview City Council Administrative Report April 12, 2011 S``inkan�e "` 'ale _. CITYHALLpSPOICANE'v Department of Community Development Planning Division Initiation of Vacation Process Petition Submitted by Property Owners or Initiated by Council 1 Community Development Director Verifies that the petition � is signed by more than 2/3 of abutting property owners Council Sets Date for Planning Commission Review by Resolution - within 60 days S``inkan�e "` CITYHALLpSPOICANE'v Department of Community Development Planning Division Planning Commission Review Conducts Public Hearing Considers comments from Public Works, Utilities, and Emergency Service Providers Provides Recommendation to Council 0 Planning Commission Must Consider: Will the street vacation better serve the public; Is the street no longer required for public use/access; Would the substitution of a different public way be more useful to the public; Will conditions change in the future that may provide a greater use or need than presently exists; and Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the street, other governmental agencies or members of the general public. S``inkan�e " CITYHALLrSPOICANE'd Department of Community Development Planning Division Council Revie , Consider Commission Recommendation Consider additional Conditions Decision by Ordinance Council Considerations: If additional conditions should be imposed to protect public use or benefit; If easements for utility construction, repair and maintenance are necessary; Compensation for the street right-of-way The vacated portion of the street shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each, unless circumstances dictate a different division S"pnkan� CITYHALL[a�SPOIANE'v Department of Community Development ev Planning Division Completing the Vrocess ■ Applicant satisfies ALL conditions Provides record of survey and pays fees 1 Ordinance recorded Property transfer Complete O Applicant must meet all conditions which include the following: Provide a record of survey; Pay all fees and reimbursements if required; O Property distributed to new owners O Abutting zoning extended to new property co CO 1 FD. AND ACCEPTED #4 REBAR W/YPC MRKD. "SIMPSON LS 9967" 0.08' SOUTH 4' HOG WIRE FENCE 0.2' WEST h 3363A .E cn co 1 1 v Kif/ii friererffr, r AVENUE FD. AND ACCEPTED AS NE CORNER OF SNP-17-08 3/4" IRON PIPE 1' DEEP 4' HOGWIRE FENCE 0.2' WEST LEGEND: PORTION OF 5TH AVENUE VACATED BY SPOKANE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. 08-028 WATH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP W/YPC SET #4 REBAR 'MTN ORANGE PLASTIC rno uovn "nai C of c 10)7n" T 128.84' 5th Ave CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 12, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Broadway Ave Stormwater Drainage Project#0153 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: (1) Approval of the 3-lane conversion of Broadway Ave— Pines Rd to Sullivan Rd; (2) Discussion of preliminary collision data on Broadway Ave between Pines Rd & Sullivan Rd on April 29, 2008 & June 16, 2009; (3) Approval of the 2010-2015 Six Year TIP on June 16, 2009, including the Broadway Ave Safety Project, Park to Pines; (4) Administrative report on design of the Broadway Ave Safety Project on May 11, 2010; (5) Failed motion to suspend the Broadway Ave Safety Project on June 29, 2010. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the City applied for a grant from TIB for improvements to Broadway Avenue between Park Road and Pines Road. The project will restripe Broadway Avenue to three lanes, including bike lanes, and sidewalk upgrades to meet ADA requirements. The design of this project is approximately 75% complete. The estimated cost for the Broadway Avenue Safety Project is $932,850 with 80% ($746,280) coming from the TIB grant and 20% ($186,570) paid with city funds. During a recent pavement condition survey it was determined that Broadway Avenue between Park Road and Vista Road is substantially deteriorated and in need of resurfacing. Staff proposes to include the resurfacing of Broadway Avenue with the Broadway Safety Project. This way the restriping of Broadway Avenue to a three lane roadway would occur after the overlay work is completed. The estimated cost for this resurfacing work is $392,100. Funds for this work will come from the Street Fund. A CDBG grant from Spokane County in the amount of $88,000 is also being considered to help pay for this resurfacing work. There are also failing drywells in this portion of Broadway Avenue between Park and Vista Roads. Staff began looking at the potential to replace these drywells as part of the overlay project mentioned above. It turned out that a vacant parcel of land at the low point of Broadway came up for sale. Staff proposes to purchase this vacant parcel and construct a stormwater swale. The failing drywells would then be replaced with a system of catch basins and pipes directing road runoff to this new swale. This approach addresses the failed drywells, provides stormwater treatment that currently does not exist, and protects the aquifer. The estimated cost for property acquisition and drainage work is $458,750 and would be paid for from the Stormwater Fund. Staff proposes to include the Broadway Avenue Overlay and Stormwater Upgrades with the Broadway Avenue Safety Project. The city will save money by combining these items into one bid and having the work done all at once. There will also be less disruption to the traveling public by combining these projects into a single project. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds in the Street Fund to pay for the resurfacing project. There are also sufficient funds in the Stormwater Fund to cover the cost of the stormwater improvements but a budget amendment will be required to include this cost. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Steve Worley ATTACHMENTS Map of Project Area i ____Imiliriamtoompumom _mom A 111 Km= Imm•Irmolipm EMI Moho ore MIN PliI ill i MIN ❑D ❑❑ ■ i BROADWAY AVENUE SAFETY PROJECT(CIP#0063) BROADWAY AVENUE WORMWATER UPGRADESRESURFACNO PAQIECT(CAP OWN POTENTIAL SWALE PROPERTY PROJECT MAP Spokane CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 12,2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report, Comprehensive Plan Amendments (includes text and map amendments) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 22, 2011, Council was briefed on comprehensive plan map amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments. Sites that are approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use designation. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 —Transportation, Chapter 4 -- Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 8 —Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24, 2011. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the City Council on March 22,2011. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial maps, vicinity maps, transportation maps, and co mments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading scheduled for April 19, 2011; or take other steps council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading scheduled for April 19, 2011 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS contained in notebook 1 of 1 • CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 12, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ®old business n new business n public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report, Official Zoning map amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 22, 2011, Council was briefed the on comprehensive plan map amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments, Sites that are approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use designation. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 8 --Natural Environment. The amendments • may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The Planning.Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24, 2011. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the City Council on March 22,2011. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial maps, vicinity maps, transportation maps, and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading scheduled for April 19, 2011, or take other steps council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading scheduled for April 19, 2011 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner • ATTACHMENTS: contained in notebook 1 of 1 Department of Community Development Planning Division 2411 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review Session April 12, 2011 Lead Planner: M ke Basinger Planning Team: Karen Kendall and Lori Barlow Planning Manager: Scott Kt to Department of Community Development Planning Division Revised 2011 CPA Schedule ▪ Administrative Report — March 22, 2011 ■ Administrative Report — April 12, 2011 • First Reading — April 19, 2011 • Second Reading — April 26, 2011 -- 7.1.1yva�, SOkane "Y0,A,:w.r �' Department of Community Development Planning Division Comprehensive Plan/Zoning St Joins Vianney . .., �.-Sfitikane Department of Community Development • Planning Division Goals & Policies relating to CPA-02- 11 State-Wide Planning Goals "Encourage deveomen t in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist.. . " "Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety qf residential densities and housing des .. , „ Policy LITP-103 e . ..provide fo innovation and flexibility in the design of now residential developments, accessory dwelli • .1—"Ipokane . ValleY 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106.Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000•Fax:509.921.1008•cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: John Carroll,Chair-Spokane Valley Planning Commission Date: March 10,2011 Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CPA-01-11 —Private Amendment for Sprague and Progress CPA-04-11—Chapter 2,Land Use,Text and Land Use Map • CPA-05-11 —Chapter 3,Transportation,Bike and Ped Map CPA-06-11 —Chapter 4,Capital Facilities,Text and Water District,Fire District and 6-year Sewer Maps CPA-07-11—Chapter 7,Economic Development,Development Activity Map CPA-08-11—Chapter 8,Natural Environment,Wildlife Map and FEMA Map BACKGROUND On February 24, 2011, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs). The Planning Commission received public testimony on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to March 10, 2011 to accept additional public testimony and for deliberations. After receiving public testimony and deliberating on the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission developed recommendations to City Council on the 2011 CPAs. City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a • proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community Development Department received two requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2011. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new Iand use designation. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 -Land Use, Chapter 3 —Transportation, Chapter 4 Capital Facilities and Public Services,Chapter 7—Economic Development,and Chapter 8—Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission's findings and recommendation on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11 are summarized below: 1 of 4 . . 6A) FINDINGS 4p , e,,c,f 1. Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 4, 2011 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 2. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each affected site. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA RCW 43,21C)environmental checklists were required for each proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each comprehensive plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendments on February 4, 2011. 5. The DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 21, Environmental Controls. 6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to consider the proposed amendments. 7. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to accept additional public testimony and for deliberations. 8. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Detailed findings and conclusions specific to the comprehensive plan amendments • can be found in the individual staff reports for CPA-01-11 and CPA-04-11 through CPA-08-11, or in the attached exhibits for CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11. RECOMMENDATION File No.: CPA-01-11 Description of proposal: Privately initiated, site specific comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation on parcels 45231.0109, 45231.0210, 45231.0211, 45231.0212, 45231.0213, 45231.0214, 45231.0216,45231.0218, 45231.0224, 45231.0226, 45231.0114 and 45231.0215 from Mixed Use Avenue to Neighborhood Center with a corresponding zoning change from Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) to Neighborhood Center (NCT). This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. Proponent: Dwight Hume Location of Proposal: The subject properties are located on the southeast corner of Progress Road and Sprague Avenue; further located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 25 North,Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. PC Recommendation: Change to Neighborhood Center(NCT) and zone to Neighborhood Center (NCT) File No.: CPA-02-11 • Description of Proposal: Privately initiated site specific comprehensive plan map amendment on parcel 45174.2102 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential with a corresponding zoning change from Single Family Residential District(R-3) to Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1). This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.2IC. Proponent: Ann Martin,Heylman Martin Architects Location of Proposal: The proposed site is located at 503 North Walnut Road; further located in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. 2 of4 PC Recommendation: Deny the proposed privately initiated site specific comprehensive plan map `/ amendment, leaving the subject property with the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation and corresponding zoning of Single Family Residential District (R-3). Separate Findings and Recommendations for this amendment follow this report. File No.: CPA-03-11 Description of proposal: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment to remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea PIan (SARP) and associated zoning designations and return those areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15,2009. Associated Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text Amendments necessary to remove all reference to the Subarea Plan are also considered. Proponent: City of Spokane Valley Location of Proposal: Generally, the plan area consists of approximately 1000 acres of properties lining along and located in between the Sprague Ave. and the Appleway Boulevard rights-of-way, and extending west from Interstate 90 to just east of Sullivan Road. The area generally lies between E. Main Ave./E Riverside Ave. to the north and E. 41b Ave. to the south. PC Recommendation: Retain the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan and continue with a public process to identify what components of the Plan are supported by the community. Sepoarate Findings and Recommendations for this amendment follow this report File No.: CPA-04-11 Description of proposal: Chapter 2—Land Use: City initiated comprehensive plan amendments will update Table 2.1, Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, to reflect new population numbers within the City of Spokane Valley; will update Map 2.1, Land Use, to display land use designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process. Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Ste 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 2 — Land Use will have citywide implications. PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 2—Land Use as proposed by staff. File No.: CPA-05-11 Chapter 3 — Transportation: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map 3.2, Bike and Pedestrian System,to display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 3 — Transportation will have citywide implications. PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 3 —Transportation as proposed by staff. File No.: CPA-06-11 Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services: City initiated comprehensive plan amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure consistency; will update special purpose district's and other city service provider's facility and service data; will add capital projects such as city hall,parks, and public works storage facility to be included for the use of BEET finding; will update Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 to reflect the latest capital facilities and public services; will update the growth assumptions to reflect population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services wil have citywide implications. • PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services as proposed by staff. File No.: CPA-07-11 3 of 4 Chapter 7 — Economic Development: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map 7.1 to display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle. Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 7 — Economic Development will have citywide implications. PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 7—Economic Development as proposed by staff, File No.: CPA-08-11 Chapter 8 —Natural Environment: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map 8.3 to display the field inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream typing in Spokane Valley and update Map 8.4 to display the latest Federal Insurance Rating Map (FIRM)data. Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 8—Natural Environment will have citywide implications. PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 8 — Natural Environment as proposed by staff. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140) when recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Each staff report contains findings applicable to the particular request. At the conclusion of the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, adopted the findings of fact contained in the staff reports for CPA-01-11 and CPA-04-11 through CPA-08-11, and in the attached exhibits for CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11. Approved this 10th day of March,2011 Joim G. Carroll,Chair City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 4of4 SÔ1 4),,e �T11 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106•Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,921,1000•fax:509.921,1008•cityhall@spokanevalley.org Nemorandum To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: John Carroll, Chair- Spokane Valley Planning Commission Date: March 10, 2011 Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CPA-02-11, St John Vianney Background: The site-specific comprehensive plan map amendment was privately initiated to change the designation on parcel 45174.2102 from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single Family Residential District (R-3) zoning designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)zoning designation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 24, 2011 and continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011. After hearing public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposal. The Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendation are summarized below: Findings: . 1. SVMC 17.80.140(H) states that the City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments, • based on the specific findings and factors. The Planning Commission's findings are italicized, Findings a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, • safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The Planning Commission is concerned the proposal does not fit with the current neighborhood. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The amendment is consistent with GMA and the goals and policies of the plan. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject • property lies; The site-specific amendment is not responding to a change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and The amendment does not correct an obvious mapping error. 1of3 4 e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive r Plan. The Commission has not identified a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; The proposed amendment is a non project amendment and will not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The Planning Commission is concerned the proposal does not fit with the neighborhood, which is established with single-family residences. The potential size and height of a multi-family facility would not be on the same scale as the neighborhood residences. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks,recreation and schools; • Impacts on infrastructure have not been addressed through this non project action. At the time of any building permit applications, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment would not benefit the neighborhood and it is the wrong place to locate multi family development. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The site-specific amendment is approximately 1.91 acres in size. The Planning Commission finds the proposed density is too much for the existing neighborhood. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and The population density is not known. Analysis was not performed h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, The site-specific amendment will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. Conclusions: The Commission concludes that the proposed amendment is not in the best interest of the neighborhood at this location. 2 of 3 Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council that liz„� the proposed site-specific comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation on parcel 45174.2102 from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single Family Residential District (R-3) zoning designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a Multifamily Medium Density Residential District(MF-1) zoning designation be denied. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation reviewed and approved on this 10th day of March,2011 John G. Carroll, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant 3 of 3 • 011 ', //Of 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106•Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 Fax:509.921.1008•cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: John Carroll, Chair- Spokane Valley Planning Commission Date: March 10,2011 Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CPA-03-11, Removal of the Subarea Plan Background: The Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) was adopted in June 2009 and became effective on October 15, 2009. Following the plan adoption, Council directed staff to review the plan on a zone by zone basis with affected property owners, business operators and interested citizens. Public meetings were conducted from May 2010 through September 2010. City Council passed a motion on October 26, 2010 to place the elimination of the Subarea Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and reinstate the 2007 pre-Subarea Plan Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. The item was added to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket to be processed in conjunction with the annual amendments. The proposal is described as follows: Remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and associated zoning designations, and return those areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009. Associated Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text Amendments necessary to remove all reference to the Subarea Plan are also considered. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 24, 2011 and continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011. After hearing public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposal. The Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendation are summarized below: Findings: 1. SVMC 17.80.140(H) states that the City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments, based on the specific findings and factors. The Planning Commission's findings are italicized. Findings a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 1 of 4 • The Planning Commission is concerned that if the plan is eliminated the. 41} conditions along the corridor will continue to decline without a plan to provide guidance and stability for future development. The Commission is also concerned 7 that sufficient public input has not been sought to determine community support or opposition to the Subarea Plan and believe that the community should be surveyed to determine what components of the Subarea Plan should be retained; The Commission believes that it is not in the public interest to move into the future without a plan to revitalize the Corridor. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Elimination of the subarea plan will not cause the comprehensive plan to be inconsistent with the GMA, and it will not cause the development regulations to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The Commission believes that the Subarea Plan has been inaccurately identified as the reason for a decrease in development along the corridor and further that the decrease is a symptom of the state of the economy. is a long term plan that provides direction, and it has not been given adequate time for implementation. Public review of the Subarea Plan has led to numerous changes addressing property owner concerns. The amount of critical input of the Subarea Plan has been minor in comparison to the amount of input received in the development of the Subarea Plan. The Commission is concerned that eliminating the Subarea Plan sends the message to the development community of instability and appears to address the specific needs of a small minority of vocal citizens. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and The amendment does not correct an obvious mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission has not identified a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Commission notes that the Subarea Plan may not be fully supported by the Commnunity and advocates that the plan continue to be studied and modified accordingly. Additionally, the Commission believes that the community should be surveyed utilizing a statistically valid method to determine community opinion. Factors: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes; 2 of 4 The proposed amendment is a non project amendment and will not affect open ° ,. space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The previous comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning were established consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan adopted on April 25, 2006. d. The adequacy of land impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; Eliminating the plan does not create, nor address known impacts, but allows for conditions to continue. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; The Planning Commission finds that eliminating the Subarea Plan is abandoning the businesses located along the corridor. Business has suffered along the one- ways and the corridor continues to decline. The City has a responsibility to all segments of the community, and the businesses along the corridor represent a considerable portion of the city's sales tax revenue. Business's west of University are suffering as a result of the one-way couplet. Commitments were made by the City to increase visibility and access. The city has a commitment to support the businesses along the corridor recognizing their important sales tax revenue contribution that supports the services provided by the city to its residents. f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The Subarea Plan contains approximately 1,000 acres of underutilized land The proposal would return all acreage to the October 14, 2009 land use designations and zoning. The elimination of the plan will allow additional commercial development increasing the amount of land available for generalized commercial uses. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Eliminating the Subarea Plan will restore the previous commercial land use designations. The Planning commission recognizes the trend for business to locate near intersections or freeways and believes that vacancies will continue, and a decrease in employment could result. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the mapped area and zoning associated with the Subarea Plan. The pre-Subarea Plan land use designations were consistent with the goals and policies within the SVCP at the time of adoption, and remain consistent. The mixed use vision for Sprague Avenue is similar under the Subarea plan, and the previous land use designations. However, mixed use development may be less likely to occur under the use based zoning. 3 of4 Conclusions: • � The Conunission concludes that the proposed amendment is not in the interest of the citizens -� of Spokane Valley and that there is not significant community opinion supporting the removal of the plan. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and associated zoning designations and return those areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009 be denied. The Planning Commission further recommends that the associated Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Text Amendments proposed to remove all reference to the Subarea Plan also be denied. The Planning Commission recommends that the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan be retained. It is further recommended study of the Subarea Plan continues with a public process to identify what components of the Subarea Plan are supported by the community. . Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation reviewed and approved on this 10`x' day of March,2011 John G. Carroll, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant 40f4 " 3 COMMUlTY DEYELOPMENT DEPARTIVJ. iVT: Gz� PLANNING DIVISION Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COlvI ISSION CPA-01-11 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 16,2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 24, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Site-specific comprehensive plan map'amendment to change the designation on parcels 45321.0109, 45231.0210, 45231.0211, 45231.0212, 45231.0213, 45231.0214, 45231.0216, 45231.0218, 45231.0224 and 45231.0226 from Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) to Neighborhood Center (NCT) comprehensive plan and zoning designation. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcels 45321.0109,45231.0210, 45231.0211, 45231,0212,45231.0213, 45231.0214, 45231.0216, 45231.0218,45231.0224 and 45231.0226; located on the southeast corner of Progress Road and Sprague Avenue; further located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 25 North,Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. OWNER/APPLICANT: John Hultman,Hultman Family Trust, LLC & SET LLC; 3876 East Aphrodite Ct; Boise,ID 83716 OWNER OF PARcEL 45231.0114: Matt Jankowski; 315 West Riverside, Suite 302; Spokane, WA 99201 OWNER OF PARCEL 45231.0215:Judy Soucy; 15121 East 1st Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 990037 APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Dwight Hume; 9101 North Mt. View Lane; Spokane, WA 99218 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission approve CPA-01-11 subject to incorporating.parcels 45231.0114 and 45321.0215 as part of the amendment. STAFF PLANNER:Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWED SY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: ( Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3: 2009 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-11 Page 1 of 7 ( f Exhibit 5: Transportation Map Exhibit 6: Application Submittal Exhibit 7: SEPA Determination I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. October 13,2010 Applicationtiifnittec�:. November 1,2010 Dr✓terrrluiaiorio" Conipleeness: November 1,2010 'Yssuance'q De#erinma zan. fNon-Significance(DNS): February 4,2011 X.rid:9f A0pe 1T iod f64D10: . .. :, . February 18,2011 Date:6fP blzs ed otiee o ,l?ublie Hearing: . February 4,2011 Date o,f Xylailea, Iot ee cofPublic Hearing:. February 9,2011 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size`ari 'Ch`f acferisfics ': The site is approximately 4.57 acres in size. The SEPA checklist states the site is flat. ,C611ipehensive Plan: Mixed Use Avenue Mixed Use Avenue ' P&Igtind Laud Me: There is a multiple occupancy building with office, shoe repair, restaurant and lock smith, post office, tire repair and six (6) single family dwelling on the subject parcels. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: N011i V' Comprehensive Plan—Neighborhood Center(NCT) and Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) Zoning—Neighborhood Center and Mixed Use Avenue . {" Existing Land Uses—Church, restaurant,fitness center, bank and vacant building ;Saudi 'R Comprehensive Plan—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and Community Boulevard(CB) Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and Community Boulevard(CB) ;'_. Existing Land Uses —Single family residences E ,s `..°'. : Comprehensive Plan—Neighborhood Center(NCT) Zoning—Neighborhood Center (NCT) Existint Land Uses—Multi e le retail corn i lex with restaurants and bank >yist Comprehensive Plan—Mixed Use Avenue(MUA) and Community Boulevard(CB) Zoning—Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) and Community Boulevard (CB) Existing Land Uses—Car lot, retail uses and single-family residences II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-11 Page 2 of 7 �-i was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. HI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE • Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that(analysis is italicized): a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, ( and protection of the environment; Staff Comment: The City's adopted policies of the Comprehensive Plan state in part "the economic development strategy is to promote a more diverse economy[that] would achieve a better balance between jobs, housing and support the City's desired quality of life" (Section 2.3.1). The site-specific amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve the balance by expanding the land use available for further diverse development. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Comment: The proposed location is served by all necessary urban services and provides • for appropriate in-fill development within the City of Spokane Valley. The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new development such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, setbacks, and height. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. The current amendment does not include two (2)parcels (45231.0114 and 45321.0215) located to the east and south of the proposal. Staff f nds the two (2)parcels should be included in the site-specific amendment to prevent islands of Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) surrounded by Neighborhood Center (NCT). The applicant, Dwight Hume, has contacted each property owner by mail requesting consent to include their parcel into the amendment. As of the date of this report, staff has spoken with the property owner ofparcel 45231.0114 Matt Jankowski (KFC restaurant), however no direction was given to staff. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is not responding to a change in conditions. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-11 Page 3 of 7 f f d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; - Staff Comment: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The comprehensive plan amendment is a non project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Staff Comment: The SEPA checklist states that there is no sum face water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. ( c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is contiguous to a Neighborhood Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation. The uses currently in operation on the subject parcels are convenient and within close proximity to serve the surrounding neighborhood. At the time of future development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping) will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Staff Comment: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. .Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of development, the proposed amendment may have an impact on transportation. All subject parcels are developed, however at the time of the future development staff will evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Staff Comment: The amendment is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. l The parcels proposed to change are in a neighborhood that has existing commercial/industrial uses on three (3) sides and single family residences to the south. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA.-01-11 Page 4 of 7 f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is approximately 4.57 acres in size and has a variety of commercial uses and six (6) single-family residences. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment will not increase the population density. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not demand population analysis. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment as proposed to be modified by staff will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. The applicant, Dwight Hume, has contacted each property owner by mail requesting consent to include their parcel into the amendment. As of the date of this report, staff has spoken with the property owner of parcel 45231.0114 Matt Jankowski (KFC restaurant), however no decision has been made. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19 (ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.60.040 (Neighborhood Commercial District, Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) to Neighborhood Center (NCT)comprehensive plan and zoning designation. The Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to provide a limited number of commercial goods and services to surrounding,residential neighborhoods. ConcIusion(s): The proposed site-specific amendment is contiguous to Neighborhood Commercial properties and will provide a wider variety of commercial uses. At the time of development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping).will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. Any future development would be consistent with the intention of the Neighborhood Commercial designation. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive plan states that the Neighborhood Commercial designation provides areas for small- scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses located in clustered development. 1. LUG-4 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends providing neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Staff Comment: The Neighborhood Commercial designation is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. There is public transportation route along Sprague Avenue adjacent to the proposed amendment. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-11 Page 5 of7 2. LUP-4.4 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the integration of retail developments into surrounding residential areas. • Staff Comment: The Neighborhood Commercial designation will allow the introduction of a variety of commercial uses that would service the surrounding residential neighborhood. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES Findings: The property is currently served with public water and sewer. Progress Road designated as a local access street and Sprague Avenue designated as a principal urban arterial provide access as indicated in the Arterial . Street Plan (Exhibit 5). E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-01-i1 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. ( F. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no agency comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Neighborhood Commercial and change in zoning classification to NCT is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approve CPA-01-11 subject to incorporating parcels 45231.0114 and 45321,0215 as part of the amendment. Planning Commission Findings and Factors (Section 17.180.140H of the SVMC): Findings a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring economic diversity and a better balance between jobs, housing and support of the City's desired quality of life. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). c. The proposed amendment is not responding to a change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-1I Page 6 of 7 t' e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed amendment is a non-project amendment and will not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed amendment is contiguous to neighborhood center, mixed use avenue and low density residential properties. Any potential impact to adjacent properties will be addressed during the development of the property and can be mitigated with design and development standards. d. Future development of the site may impact traffic in the area. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review will be required to evaluate the impacts of increased traffic. e, The proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will provide a wider array of commercial uses serving the neighborhood. f The proposed amendment will not increase population densities and does not demand population analysis. g. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. ({ Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission finds CPA-01-11 to be consistent with Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CPA-01-11, a change to Neighborhood Commercial with a subsequent zone change to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-01-11 Page 7 of 7 • /i '.COMil {11YITY DEVELOPMJ NT�DEPARTMENT r, ..',: . '.---01"\Wifti Sookane PLANNNGDIVI,SYONi • .. `' . ' STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 1 � ��y . PrArirrINc COMMISSION ,L-,_7 -.- CPA-02-11 • STAFF REPORT DATE: February 16, 2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 24, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. . PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Site-specific comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation on parcel 45174.2102 from Low Density Residential with an R-3 zoning designation to Medium Density Residential with an MF-1 zoning designation. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel 45174.2102; addressed as 503 North Walnut Road; further located in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North,Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. (' APPLICANT: Ann Martin,Heylman Martin Architects; 100 North Stevens Street; Spokane, WA 99201 OWNER: St. John Vianney Catholic Parish; 503 North Walnut Road; Spokane Valley, 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends that the Planning Commission approve CPA-02-1L STAFF PLANNER:Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Scott Kuhta,AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: • Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3: 2008 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Exhibit 5: Transportation Map Exhibit 6: Application Submittal Exhibit 7: SEPA Determination f'. Exhibit 8: Public Comments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 Paee I of 7 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. lYkai — November 15, 2010 November 24,2010 Dterlinhon 0106N5Weness: November 24, 2010 JSs:ii4ndeof Deforrrimatipn of Non-Si: 'ficance (DNS): Februar 4,2011 E:iia:!3tAiWarte"rii0f0DNS: February 18, 2011 .0WaPi:IblilieiIiS16itC6 of Public Hearing: February 4,2011 :164.6 aMagalNOtice of Public Hearing: February 9,2011 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size a>id'cliaatfeiiAiWY The site is approximately 1.91 acres in size. The SEPA checklist states the site is flat. omprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential .Zoning: Single Family Residential District (R-3) 'Existing Land Use: The parcel is an existing parking lot serving the St. John Vianney Catholic Church and School. ( SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: roati Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential(LDR) Zoning—Single Family Residential District (R-3) Existin! Land Uses—St. John Vianne Catholic Church and single famil residences S,OUt1-0.: Comprehensive Plan — High Density Residential (HDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — High Density Multi-family Residential District (MF-2), Medium Density Multi- ; family Residential District(MF-1) and Single Family Residential Urban District(R-3) Existing Land Uses —Single family residences 'East Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential(LDR) Zoning—Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses— Single-family residences West Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning—Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses—St. John Vianney Catholic School and single family residences II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43,21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02.1f Page 2 of 7 f! Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE • Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spok ane Valley Municipal Code 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that(analysis is italicized): a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Comment: The City's adopted policies of the Comprehensive Plan state in part "the economic development strategy is to promote a more diverse economy [that]would achieve a better balance between jobs, housing and support the City's•desired quality of life" (Section 2.3.1). The site-specific amendment offers additional opportunities to achieve the balance by expanding the land use available for further diverse development. The application states the intent is to provide senior citizen housing. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Comment: The state-wide planning goals and policies provide the basis for the City's Comprehensive Plan and guidance in the development of goals and policies. State-Wide Planning Goals: Goal 1: Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Goal 4: Housing Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock Approval of the requested site-specific amendment would meet both state-wide planning goals cited above. The proposed location is served by all necessary urban services and provides for appropriate in-fill development with the City of Spokane Valley. The City has adopted development regulations that are designed to address specific impacts related to new 1 develo p ment such as o ff-street parking,, llandscaping, li g htin lighting, and height.t. The site- specific amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the amendment. staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 PROP. of 7 c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is not responding to a change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment does not correct a mapping error, e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Staff Comment: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The site-specific amendment is a non project action under SEPA. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes; Staff Comment: The SEPA checklist states that there is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is contiguous to a Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation on the south. At the time of development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards),.specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping) will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads,public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools; Staff Comment: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. At the time of development, the site-specific amendment may have an impact on transportation. At the time of the submittal of any building permit applications, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation, e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 Page 4 of 7 ( Staff Comment: The subject site is owned by St. John Vianney, which has a K-8 school, church and play field adjacent to site-specific amendment. Senior housing is proposed to complement the existing uses on site. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is approximately 1.91 acres in size. The intent of this comprehensive plan amendment is to merge a portion ofparcel 45174.2103 with the subject parcel by a boundary line adjustment for a total of 2.7 acres. Senior housing is proposed with approximately forty (40) dwelling units. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have rnininral impact on other aspects of the plan. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is intended to provide approximately forty (40) housing units to low-income seniors through residential bonus densities. The site-specific amendment does not demand population analysis. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The site-specific amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19 ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.60.040 (Neighborhood Commercial Districtokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District (R-3) to Multifamily Medium Density Residential District(MF-1). The Medium Density Residential designation is intended to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth with densities not to exceed twelve (12) units per acre. Multifamily residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses, such as commercial and office, to lower density single-family neighborhoods. High density residential areas should be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routes. Conclusion(s): The 1.91 acres allows the opportunity for flexible development in housing types with a minimum size 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit. At the time of development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards), specifically 2230 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping) will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (` The Comprehensive plan states that Medium Density Residential designation represents an opportunity to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 Paon 5 of 7 1. LUG-1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends preserving and protecting the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Staff Comment: The Medium Density Residential designation allows flexibility and a wide range of housing options. At the time of development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping) will reduce impacts on adjacent low density residential designated properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. 2. LUP-1.3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages review and revisions as necessary for existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Staff Comment: The Medium Density Residential designation will allow flexibility in development with the option of different housing types from single-family residential, clustered housing, duplexes, townhouses and/or apartments. 3. HG-3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages meeting the housing needs of special populations including the elderly, mentally ill, victims of domestic abuse,persons with debilitative conditions or injuries,and the homeless. Staff Comment: The Medium Density Residential designation will allow flexibility in development. The intent of this comprehensive plan amendment is to merge a portion of parcel 45174.2103 with the subject parcel by a boundary line adjustment for a total of 2.7 acres. Senior housing is proposed with approximately forty (40) dwelling units. t B. PUBLIC FACILITIES Findings: The property is currently served with public water and sewer. Walnut Road provides access and designated as a Local Access Street(Exhibit 5). E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received two (2)public comments concerning the proposal to date. Public comments are focused on increased traffic concerns and the potential of V alleyway Avenue being extended to Walnut Road. The comments are attached in•Exhibit 8. Conclusion(s): The proposal is considered a non-project action and future development is not a part of the decision making process. At the time of future development, traffic will be reviewed and determined by the City's Traffic Engineer. Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-02-11 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. F. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no agency comments to date. Conclusion(s): • staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 Page 6 of 7 ) No concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Neighborhood Commercial and change in zoning classification to NC is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA-02-11. Planning Commission Findings and Factors (Section 17.180.140H of the SVMC): Findings a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring economic diversity and a better balance between jobs, housing and support of the City's desired quality of life. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). c. The proposed amendment is not responding to a change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed amendment is a non-project amendment and will not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed amendment is contiguous to medium density residential zoned properties. Any potential impact to adjacent properties will be addressed during the development of the property and can be mitigated with design and development standards. d. Future development of the site may impact traffic in the area. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review will be required to evaluate the impacts of increased traffic. e. The proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will provide a wider array of commercial uses serving the neighborhood. f. The, proposed amendment will not increase population densities and does not demand population analysis. g. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission finds CPA-02-11 to be consistent with Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CPA-02-11, a change to Medium Density Residential with a subsequent zone `l ,hange to Medium Density Multifamily Residential District(MF-1). Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-02-11 Page 7of7 Comprehensive Plan Map. - _ , 5p.iflofield f-- ~--- CPA-02-11 St John Vianney oh / , . v 0 I k�VW' I ! i it Valleyway Valltyway— '1%..-: _A iii ' I rn I I !- — CPA-0241 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map City of Spokane Valley designation from LDR to MDR; subsequent zoning Community Development Department change from R-3 to MI-1. :. ODfI4 JNrrX DEVELbP IEit]T DEPART11iEN r . F;.s Pi.a: ii DivrsioN Spocntrl r-ka -rte e STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-0341 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 24, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated, comprehensive plan amendment to remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan(SARP) and associated zoning designations and return those areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009. Associated Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text Amendments necessary to remove all reference to the Subarea Plan are also considered. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The amendment area includes all properties located within the Subarea Plan. Generally,the plan area consists of approximately 1000 acres of properties lining along and located in between the Sprague Ave. and the Appleway Boulevard rights-of-way, and extending west from Interstate 90 to just east of Sullivan Road. The area generally lies between E. Main Ave./E Riverside Ave. to the north (r and E. 4th Ave. to the south. See Exhibit 4 for the exact location. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) . SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division has not provided a recommendation to approve or deny the proposal. The Commission should review the information and discuss the impacts of eliminating the Subarea Plan as described in CPA-03-11. STAFF PLANNER:Lola BARLOW,AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: SCOTT KUt-ITA, AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: SARP Area Exhibit 2 Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map Exhibit 3: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map Exhibit 4: Existing Zoning Map Exhibit 5: Proposed Zoning Map Exhibit 6: Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-11 Page 1 of 10 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Subarea Plan was developed in response to the community's desire to reverse the visual and economic decline of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, restore the area as a viable commercial area within the community, and plan for the development of the City Center for the City of Spokane Valley. The plan provides the implementing regulations to achieve the desired change along the corridor, and also identifies corresponding public and private investments necessary for the plan goals to be accomplished. A major component of the city actions included plans to reconfigure portions of Sprague Avenue to a two-lane, two- way street with wide sidewalks, and extend Appleway Boulevard, also as a two-way street. The reconfiguration of streets was intended to reverse the negative impacts to business resulting from the one way street configuration, as well as make the area pedestrian friendly. The Plan was based on the broad policies established in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan for a new City Center and mixed-use/commercial development along the corridor. Planning for the Subarea plan began in 2006 with community focus group meetings and followed by public meetings. After several years of effort the plan was formally adopted by Ordinance 09-013. Subsequent to plan adoption, Council directed staff to review the plan on a zone by zone basis with affected property owners, business operators and interested citizens. As a result of the zone district review, changes were considered to the plan as code text amendments, with other changes to be docketed as a comprehensive plan amendment during the annual amendment process. Subsequent to the complete review of the Subarea Plan, the Council determined that the Plan no longer conformed with the policy direction of the Council and directed staff to begin the process to remove the Plan in its entirety. Prior to the beginning of the annual amendment process the City Center portion of the plan was eliminated by an Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 11-001. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance(DNS): February 4, 2011 End of Appeal Period for DNS: February 18,2011 Date of Published Notice of Public Heating: February 4,2011 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: N/A Date of Public Hearing: February 24,2011 PROPERTY INFORMATION(GENERAL): Size'and Clraracteiistics� `y'' :'.`' The plan area consists of approximately 1000 acres of privately and publicly owned properties. The area is relatively flat. No environr'nentall sensitive areas are known to exist within the elan area. Existing Comprehensive Gateway Commercial Centers, Gateway Commercial Avenue, { :Plan Land Use Community Boulevard, Neighborhood Centers, and Mixed Use Designations: Avenue; (Note: City Center area was redesignated as Mixed Use Avenue by an Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Ordinance 11-001) Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-11 Page 2 of 10 l` Proio'serZpCori}}��JJreher'`sive ,' Regional Commercial, Community Commercial, Office, Medium Plan`la UseZZDesignations Density Residential, Corridor Mixed Use, High Density Residential, (Oc ,15,}2009 Parks/Open Space Existii:• .Zpniig Gateway Commercial Center, Gateway Commercial Avenue, Community Boulevard, Neighborhood Center, and Mixed Use Avenue; (Note: City Center area was rezoned Mixed Use Center by Ordinance 11-0002) Pr3vosed Zoning (Oct 15, Community Facilities, Regional Commercial, Multi-Family-1, t ,2009 Zoning): Corridor Mixed Use, I-2, Heavy Industrial, Community Commercial, and Multi-Family 2. Existing Land Use: The corridor is predominantly occupied by commercial and retail oriented uses. At major intersections along the corridor, such as Pines x,z.+•of and Argonne-Mullan, the uses are generally office type uses in the north and south direction from Sprague. The uses south of Appleway R.O.W. are a mix of residential and limited commercial. Major intersections along the corridor are developed with neighborhood retail, and the area west of Argonne-Mullan contains mostly auto dealers and auto related commercial and service type uses. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: TIort1 ¢` $ Comprehensive Plan—Predominantly Low, Medium and High Density Residential; Heavy Industrial, Community Commercial and Office Zoning —R-3, R-4, MF-1 and MF-2; Garden Office and Office, Community Commercial, and I-2,Heavy Industrial Existing Land Uses — Predominantly Residential with commercial and Office uses along the major intersections of Sprague South Comprehensive Plan—Predominantly Medium and High Density Residential; Community Commercial and Corridor Mixed Use Zoning—MF-1 and MF-2; Office, CMU and Community Commercial Existing Land Uses—Predominantly Residential East Comprehensive Plan —Low, Medium and High Density Residential; and Community Commercial Zoning—R-4, MF-1 and MF-2; Community Commercial Existing Land Uses—Commercial, Office and Residential West Comprehensive Plan—Heavy Industrial,Regional Commercial and Office Zoning—1-2, Office and MF-2 Existing Land Uses—Commercial, Office and Residential IL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead t•' agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03.11 Page 3 of 10 • was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): • The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH T ITLE 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The following are responses to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City proposes an amendment due to the deterioration of the economy and opposition to the • implementation of the plan. The public has conveyed to the Council, with written comment and verbal testimony their belief that the Subarea plan creates an additional layer of regulation that in their opinion results in unwarranted project design and development costs not desired by the community. The costs create a financial burden to property and business owners, which in combination with the current economic conditions, has stifled, rather than stimulated, development within the subarea. • The proposed amendment reduces the amount of regulations, creates a more flexible environment for developers, and eliminates the restrictive corridor identity established in the Subarea plan. However, if the plan is eliminated the conditions along the corridor may remain unchanged, with the expectation that vacancies and property disinvestment could continue. If the cycle continues properties will become increasingly more disadvantaged. This proposal has no potential impact on the safety of the community. It can be concluded that the vocal consensus of the community does not support the subarea plan goals and policies, and therefore eliminating the plan will support the health and welfare of the community by returning the area to its previous Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations and zoning. However, it also can be concluded that eliminating the plan does not address the declining conditions that are recognized along the corridor, and the continuation of the decline is contrary to the health and welfare of the community. b, The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36,70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-11 Page 4 of 10 RCW 36.70A, The Growth Management Act, (GMA) requires cities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent with thirteen statewide • planning goals. RCW 36.70A.080 authorizes jurisdictions to adopt optional elements and subarea plans. A subarea plan is not a required element, but one that is allowed so long as it is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan. The GMA planning goals require citizen participation and coordination to be a part of the plan development and allows for amendments to occur on an annual basis. The proposed amendment would eliminate the subarea plan, and amend the comprehensive plan in part, while retaining the goals and policies that directed the development of the subarea plan within the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment to eliminate the plan is based on public dissatisfaction with the plan. Public comment has indicated that the development of the plan was based on a fraction of input from the community and does not represent the community's interests. The public comment received does not dispute the general direction of the goals and policies found within the Comprehensive Plan, but contends the Subarea plan developed is not what the community envisioned.Alternatively, other members of the community contend that the plan should not be abandoned recognizing that change is anticipated over a long period of time and that it is premature to determine that the plan will not provide the expected results. Regardless of the opposing opinions, the conclusion can be drawn that the elimination of the subarea plan will not cause the comprehensive plan to be inconsistent with the GMA, and it will not cause the development regulations to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan. Retaining the goals and policies within the plan regarding the development of a city • center and revitalization of the Sprague Corridor will allow the community to develop a plan and corresponding regulations in line with current community preference. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. Over 1,100 properties are located within the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Plan area. The amendment does not respond to any change in conditions to individual properties but is in response to the consensus of vocal citizens and property owners who contend that the plan does not reflect the needs and/or desires of the community, that the design standards within the form based code are not practical to apply to existing development, and that additional regulations have become a deterrent to developers considering the corridor. However; two specific conditions have changed since the adoption of the plan. First, the council has eliminated the city center portion of the plan as an emergency comprehensive plan amendment. Second, the City has not resolved the issues that would enable the City to acquire the Appleway right-of-way making it possible to extend Appleway in the future, as well as impeding the ability of those affected property owners to meet the requirements for frontage improvements concurrent with development. Two conclusions may be drawn from the latter (± statement: The first is that those properties may be unfairly burdened until the right ofway is improved; and the second conclusion is that the principals of the plan are working by insuring that Appleway does not continue to develop as the "Back door of Sprague. " Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-11 Page 5 of 10 It can be concluded that a shift in the economic climate, community support, and obstacles to obtaining the Appleway right-of-way have lead to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment does not address a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; The comprehensive plan amendment is a non project action under SEPA and has no identifiable impact on the environment. Development regulations in conjunction with environmental review ensure that all project related adverse impacts are mitigated at the time of development. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; There is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of subarea. Balfour Park is the only designated open space within the proposed amendment area. There are no impacts anticipated. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is to return the land use designations and zoning to those in place prior to the implementation date of the Subarea Plan on Oct. 15, 2009. The designations and zoning were established consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan adopted on April 25, 2006. Development regulations address impacts anticipated due to incompatible uses and SEPA provides the tool to address impacts not anticipated by regulations. Since the amendment proposes to restore land use designations and associated zoning to that which was previously in place, the status quo will be maintained, and no impacts are anticipated d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads,public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses the adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of the submittal of the building permit application, an additional SEPA review would likely be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s)and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in regards to transportation and schools. However the community has noted that the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard configured as a one-way street have negatively impacted business, and that too few north- ( south connections exist to conveniently provide access to business on either street. The limited connections and fast travel speeds of the thru-traffic create unfriendly and dangerous conditions for pedestrians. Book 11: Development Regulations, and Book III: City Actions address these conditions, but to this date no measures have been implemented or projects Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA•03-11 Page 6 of 10 • initiated that would bring about change. As a result of eliminating the plan, the conditions noted may remain unchanged. Traffic Studies completed for the EIS by Glatting Jackson and Associates prior to the plan adoption have shown that reconfiguring Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard would have marginal impact on the level of service. Eliminating the plan does not create, nor address known impacts, but allows for conditions to continue. e, The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The proposal would restore many uses within the subarea neighborhoods to that of a • conforming status and restore commercial entitlements to properties that were rezoned. However, studies prepared by Eco-northwest indicated that the city has a surplus inventory of vacant and available commercial and office properties. Shopping trends indicated a consumer preference for anchor based shopping centers located at major crossroads which led to the underutilization of the commercial zoned properties. The Subarea plan zoning established a pattern of centers, boulevard and avenue segments in keeping with contemporary consumer and investor preference. The shift of entitlements within the plan attempted to reposition the corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary market place. Eliminating the plan will restore commercial entitlements contributing to the surplus of commercial properties. A benefit to the city may be realized by deciding the fate of the Subarea Plan in a final fashion as the continued controversy creates an uncertain climate for developers. (f f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The Subarea plan contains approximately 1,000 acres of underutilized land. The proposal would return all acreage to the October 15, 2009 land use designations and zoning. The EIS prepared for the Subarea Plan noted that in general, there is not a significant difference between the "terms of envisioned growth"for the corridor and the land uses established within the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Under either scenario, SARP, or pre-SARP Sprague Avenue will take many years to transform from strip retail to a mixed-use avenue. However the combination ofform based zoning and the reconfiguration of Sprague and Appleway was intended to provide a foundation for redevelopment. A few differences are noted from the report. . First, the mixed use vision for the Sprague corridor is similar under both alternatives (pre SARP and SARP) in that it allows a mix of uses. The subarea plan regulations require compatible building types, with regulations that control the building form,placement and architectural design of buildings. The current zoning regulations (in this case zoning prior to October 15, 2009)are use-based considering primarily use and bulk standards, such as minimum setbacks, height/limits and maximum coverage requirements. Second, the subarea plan concentrated like uses into centers and segments. The elimination of ( the plan will allow commercial development essentially up and down the corridor increasing the amount of land available for generalized commercial uses. The elimination of the Community Boulevard District will return the zoning such that generally commercial uses are • Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Conunission for CPA•03-11 Page 7 of 10 { allowed on the north side of Appleway Boulevard and residential uses allowed on the south side. Last, regulating the design of buildings was intended to encourage a mixed use environment. Residential development along Sprague is less likely to occur when the zoning code is use- based, and not form-based. • g. The current and projected population density in the area; and According to the EIS prepared for the Subarea Plan, impacts to population, housing and employment were not anticipated to be more significant than the impacts evaluated during the adoption of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan.(SVCP) Both the Subarea plan and the SVCP encourage residential growth along the corridor, however the subarea promotes higher density apartments and townhouses. The subarea plan analysis predicted an increase in employment,particularly in the City Center area. Since the City Center designation has been removed, and more commercial entitlements would be restored up and down the corridor, the strip commercial land use pattern is expected to continue. If the pattern of vacancies continues, a decrease in employment will be expected. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would eliminate the mapped area and zoning associated with the Subarea plan. The pre-SARP land use designations were consistent with the goals and policies within the SVCP at the time of adoption, and remain consistent. The mixed use vision for Sprague (• Avenue is similar under the Subarea plan, and the previous land use designations. However, • • mixed use development may be less likely to occur under the use based zoning. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.110.020 (Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan) Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment includes the proposal to eliminate zoning associated with the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and replace the zoning for affected properties with the zoning that was in effect on October 15, 2009. All references to the Subarea Plan and its authority are proposed to be removed from the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The following sections of the SVMC are proposed to be amended: Title 19 Zoning Regulations, section 19.110.020 and 19.140.010;Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Chapter 5.10 Adult Entertaimnent Establishments; and Appendix D, Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Conclusion(s): Rezoning the properties within the subarea to be consistent with the proposed land use designation would not result in any inconsistencies with Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Any non-conforming uses that existed prior to the adoption of the Subarea Plan, would likely be nonconforming at the time the proposed zoning became effective. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 1 of Ordinance# 09-013,which amends the Comprehensive Plan Map and adopts the Land Use Designations set forth in the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan, identifies in great detail 41 supporting Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03.11 Page 8 of 10 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The Subarea plan is supported by the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. However, based on public input and council direction the subarea plan is not representative of the community's vision, nor the Council's policy direction. Section 3 of Ordinance#07-015 which adopts Title 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as portion of city of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code identifies in detail that the Development Regulations are consistent with numerous Goals and Policies from Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2, Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 5—Housing, Chapter 6,- Private and Public Utilities, Chapter 7- Economic Development, Chapter 8 - Natural Environment, Chapter 9—Parks, Recreation and the Arts and Chapter 10 Neighborhoods of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore it can be concluded that the proposed zoning regulations are consistent with the comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Goal EDG -7 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction." The continuation of the sub area plan creates an unpredictable environment for developers as staff struggles to implement the regulations contained within the plan consistent with the policy direction of the council. D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no written public comment concerning the proposal as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment noticing requirements to date. However, at the direction of Council, staff conducted a review of ( the plan by hosting 5 public meetings between May 2010 and September 2010. Both written and verbal comments were received during the process. As a result of the comments, council addressed issues through the code text amendment process, and then added the remaining issues to the annual comprehensive plan docket for further consideration. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-03-11 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION Considerable analysis was completed during the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The Plan was determined to adequately establish the planning and design framework to restore the vitality, functionality, and beauty of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor consistent with the free-market and community's vision. While the plan was built on public participation and governmental support, it appears that the vision within the plan may no 6 longer be supported by the community and current council. The Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the plan is intended to be a living document and as such should respond to the visions and preference of the community and its leaders. RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission fox CPA-03.11 Page 9 of 10 • r Management Act identifies the review process and schedule for annual updates acknowledging that revisions are necessary to address changing conditions within communities. This process has been followed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is provided. The Planning Commission should consider the infolrnation within the staff report and discuss the merits of eliminating the plan as it relates to the public health and welfare of the community. The Commission should forward their recommendation, along with findings of fact to the Council for their consideration. • t. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission.for CPA•03-11 Page 10 of 10 yhno ra.; 1 Sc ^�� L :ua�t t I1!'wV I I- � 5 I .J11ro°s I f' j y .Lid, I fI'wg • 11,,.•, �S -{ U LTMr' tulx.+x - r �- iii iJi l J� I- ^ _ _ _^,lo r � I!..'" l "1-I''I 8F�1:141I"h �.n° �?I" , "�'.� j ' lao_�l' I I-Nm;n�•41-i _�__—°-,r,.-=1 i--� _ WTI" iJ{- r_ iI} _ 1i:-l�IX�,dwl IC 1 I �_ll: • JfoNWf I� POY�lp y-T I I�� j i.r1.ULLxen�.ilri:' oP 9� F{m�, ,.,yHll�' . roA �a0 "�'': DOFF `r 5 ▪ - ^.31�{A VY%!u rr -IYJ.t_} �+G�I �II1 --�I�� I-1�G.'L�' _ O,r T� .`I_ CUT lu,cP`>{i�'I'L! ;+'ml'I!;lltri! I �L � co '`. ��` -_ r,°.,�I _.LJNwI.n 11--n Y1�,7•l I' _ _ I . 1 i..1{'iL Uii-�'1�lPrewn��lx.aw.q E u:.w:vTl' _ r IL -b°3„7,c wuu.l - u.o- 5- =G' II' 'iln vra OFF 1 - Ti_ M.1•., 1 _ .r o N°la ...PP CON• / I 'e .'� f.,_,� ;pr ...I ;L'{ y..J•�--,`09^ uP 'i�r ry • r J;Jw{e_oid- i.o, f�.•,-�-_ i•Y`_, -f .nw.. >�"•" •-111-I�.cn:-g',:1-1vr_I�r! _:r-. •-r f-f;' _��'j4_,,�Jn....o! - _ oa - r ,.,r--`-' I...�r Sf�=-, ^'•`:''-i:.. ' +z,r OOa910x o,� li1.,14 �, 'i� LG �I 1 l 4 L.�—Ncl.rvf../ ISInIP.'.I'I^.`. _�.f.�li' _ ll�+�:' '.slnl° - �le-' =`• S I� s � ?•- 1— l� sz � sl�l:�,-1' is ! ;,ll,: ' as �<. --"-• -� j•lP'" � i rrW�J�s " I� II' { �� _ laneZa°•`,,1"`� _ :_I- .I ' ?-: _N%a.°n., I'..J�P=•.�`�,11-nirl�-� tE°.n.1-.�l�.s. ��,'.a°°IIi.WiAnsn.r-�-..•�I1 tv:r} ��., � I!,-rtM!j�l I^I.c-I,�'�I I,''- -J.. ��;{�M I'T7r-I'�' ,-� Ix�l �P�, �!-1-13s H.:•r':_I i ,.2`i`..ra' ?°"I'J' "`i�•{ -"�_ti, --�' _,1�•z"f�ii�� !° �.,▪ -i-�i;Irr � ils=III• • r '� -:'j- •-_x '' _ a1 mtf�u..Grrr'.a..:'�I • pr. 'I F �r� r� �o - f .-,..y. Ir,•I .r !�I•^;111T•.1- ate' ,.wa.. xl .uda,=,J-I. ' r I - �'-_g rl;lq• m _�.�_7� _,L'r.:.. _. J .J-fi - � ' ' �P •nor !^...i..z 'Jt''hL •)lomlmiIlT •c.tim. I .� Il I,rR,.:`.• -�_-clla i r ,"-� ,,__fI S � LFo4mn.l._- If L w.,,?I.o.�,' x,71 I I L ,-r'„ l._�•41daF�._1111' c,.le°J .cr:ri:t' rrr di 11 `! I- II�tiL!'�`kl_ Sil •.rid... .--! j _ cwm 1 4tlt*C,-!- '-}` k •a,;'.T- 4'aLrll'"(.'I+ �r=_k�l `�.Illu:__w fae= L 't�;.Y '` ��:.- ri`•m'� �_ _,, a. w-._.1 C • 'i ��1!'l i s.[ 1 st I - -, �'� .r--°r„r:�,rwrn_�t4rJ;,�ti;:rrlr ;.. :.��,..TY;Y-C _ _ ;r' _ •.,=n'r,:�;�r - ntGoal�`F': �'s=n'-I�--- ---- - - •--ir- r� r,vu 'p.y.. '�-- - .r-r+ y �l'�:J s� �iu.,�^rxre'n [inky r aw�11-+I,li lr"�"-�i8'�.' i''=- 'I I I�� .._�.--...i -:r!'l II !,�I'l:�IV'l�lj a I N.In_II �I li ti^• , I'l�y Ilh 9ra.n' F - I, fir- nl nll ,lr -•fir, l l .�i'+ ?t �`Hn'I+ `J 1v��. xw l Y '��ui 1;5�'!r 1 2 s I �r'= � i ' Ld,E° 'r`-� I _w1 °r ,a F'6 7 �� 'U.11 �I � �y� I �In.r,LLI go�ac��df�i9bcr�t000n�©I'iE�>3�6bI �l' �r�clp�oq�mla8"2'boo '�`�- rl•-�'z'y� s�� ao l 1� Jy�l c7y�`' I, -�'_..�?��41m�oacaopooaacrao li-V sec nr,rrn�,r..-.,o Cl1i'�eP •.il.�~r [� •'�!!' -m`�li—lillll` IV oT l�'�I I:`IU _ -P jil::I ' .I raad'�RG". .i 4i r. r'; I I i1.r_• 1. !- I .,--:`.n!"'eA4a•.:r=.l��L:,Ld�Lrl ri ! P ' I s°; u 9: �. - I'. �.- --�_ 'I �. . -_.._- - r�rr,. -ice Tr— .. .r rrr�'T--e LJI.TiT.:;i—^r•:'.I I i- ,+I I I I Ill. lid 400'. ta' ti ppp O ogoaa C C T• h K h `f� k. C'- _ _ J. . �,I 1.J.!;loll']r.:.^.1ftlr� r•'-:• 14,.E„ 'i�,Q�jtilsii: [=1 a}!JLc hr.-4tr,1 fnhl-sm.,�i�I riA.l. _ I�✓�,1��'Ir I rl -l...6 ',i - -{l q l I � 'rr-+� .. CIaY rf RIS I!ouJ” .I '-' �5-.'1� , I_d Jl _� .�bssw�lsm�. 'F �. II cmL�n •r: 'l5i ly vj l,� '"R� s� an.• , • Fw�n�'! l�lnl"I_-I I� -i� ihi"h `=a�dwl rfsJ� I 1 s Y-'• 'j1r'r>-•-r-...- III a_e III ' ti.• �.+I--bf..��n .� �' ri, em' � ''ft';; IFUC n 7r rcr f i-fel3k�-'-J a - I ? )!•-' `✓Tm'_•�'y. t7Ji •�,. _.. '•'�-_.4``�i :I I.nhhl Cv.x:,•Ir,n�r"Kpi��I.LLii.E�r�.�y;�.?.�1. ti.4:*x`.lI'1 :�'E.'. )'.--r--dS+�;...�ir•�-r'--� ..� �, 1 lrr�'-r! .Im{ .,--� @ �'f- a i�`w+"'I�m'� I- slfli� 5lJ4 1-3314:1.11"1,-7• ln_J 9n,R it .fy P x r.k� I i � 3 I t_S••"-F ll � n' I I :4'11 ii.' x .dill i�'7 uv � II k X11 "i'E r� l �- ' f 7rr I 1 l I ,. �_ ,��"r.d.. I' � �• � '7 ' ' �='�• 1 " - '`-1 .sm ••"-•r cl: . � < - 11,`d-1'111414'1. • �Y ivn 2I-�I'iaen�a5-r, 1d F� tnn"1I � }'• nw �- Ii[�} � i""�•��2sea �.�s2'. 111I �� aw 5 1rI ,�h�7' .:I�1:-�'��`y-f'.i.��y'}-'_�rw+ 'fssMj !�� _I�h i3j� � �I1itipm��dml li-��.°�ieie"ie°=-L'-_rl�JT•� .Sr, ? •...iv i • w�dlJ` IE }�' �1•-.1„u ! a-LdlYl� F fJL '-2Yfi ! .� 1.d ;'� �°.rlfl� EsluflffT,?I�i {�h rl,.re:�,_I aryl." +Cr ii' •_� 1 i1}I� FN-117{,44k • z'?• rxlr4(ad F�l li Jt-^G'iii I i teams i�z al r ! �9e3C s•• .1� -�/ � -�� '1.b.usmcLf.T��so.11 I'i�li a►wi<A?ter" i ! \-,•IGU. 11- I1- J' J'J_'▪'1ZErAi {1 JJI 1. f -J I,� t' I :CLIn I '� •,1 ^k I _J'irJ'':innllu-'-uk :zUh .._ ! II� �s �I -." '.4tiC_r�ih I,�.�5 mhyrl 1v ' .7 aT2 CTTVU P1 Le. r � y` ^r . i-ll[J--.' '�_. ..!1. I-'L';°j�' I 1 :�PI{I•.G;.I•:is 1 I }[ afi•'m 4 3''r1I 1I5a¢u,: P SARP Boundary City of Spokane Valley Exhibit 1-SARP Area P9 021 0 > C0117NlllNfTYDBVEIOPIENTDEPARTAfENT`k - -.;. PLANN1KGDIVISION ( yScn3� .ti .3;.>_: x.4-• h -, `5 '. .`a .�. -� t: pokane STAFF REPORT:AN}D RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION +zw 2011 COMPREI:IENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT DATE:February 15, 2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 24, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments include: CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-04-11 Text Chapter 2 -Land Use: Table 2.1,Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis,will reflect new population numbers within the City of Spokane Valley. Map 2.1,Land Use,will display land use designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process. CPA-05-11 Map 3.2 Chapter 3--Transportation: Map 3.2,Bike and Pedestrian System, will display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure. CPA-06-11 Text Chapter 4- Capital Facilities and Public Services: Amendments will Map 4.1 incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan ( Map 4.2 (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure consistency. Map 4.5 Amendments will update special purpose district's and other city service provider's facility and service data, Capital projects such as city hall,parks, and public works storage facility will be included for the use of REET funding. Maps 4.1,4.2,and 4.5 will display updates to reflect the latest capital facilities and public services. Amendments will also update the growth assumptions to reflect population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. CPA-07-11 Map 7.1 Chapter 7 - Economic Development: Map 7.1 will display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle. CPA-08-11 Map 8.3 Chapter 8-Natural Environment: Map 8.3 will display the field Map 8.4 inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream tping in S.okane Valle , ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments to the comprehensive plan do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, After a thorough review of the completed environmental checklist, the lead agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley,Washington. 4 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley,WA APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) an d Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Pape 1 nf5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the f proposed text amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF PLANNER: Mike Basinger,MCP,Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS; CPA-04-11: Chapter 2-Land Use CPA-O5-11: Chapter 3-Transportation CPA-06-11: Chapter 4-Capital Facilities CPA-07-11: Chapter 7--Economic Development CPA-08-11: Chapter 8-Natural Environment • I, BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. 'Applieation.SubMited " November 1, 2010 Deteiirii a iori`o .,Coi pieteness: November 1, 2010 ,I<ssuarice of Il'eterrn nation of Non-Significance (DNS): February 4,2011 ri`d ofApeal Period for DNS: February 18, 2011 ,Published,ly'oticeof,Public Hearing: February 4,2011 :l!Maile.d::itice 6i PubliC,Hearin February 4,2011 ( II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC),the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. • Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings; Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response; The Washington State Growth Management Act limits the City to amending the Comprehensive Plan to once a year. The City provides a process each year for individuals, groups, Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 City departments, and elected officials to propose updates to address changing conditions so the plan ± will reflect ongoing work or new information. The proposed text amendments add or modify policy direction in specific policy areas and update information in the plan. The 2011 proposed text amendments will ensure that internal plans such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), special purpose district's and other service provider's plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring the Comprehensive Plan is reflective of regional policy and current with other plans. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are not in conflict with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act) and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the plan itself. 3. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; • Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific. This approval criterion does not apply. 4. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments will not result in changes to specific properties. 5. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The majority of the proposed text amendments either update or correct information contained in the plan. At this point, staff has not identified any deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides the following factors that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The factors are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The effect of the physical environment; Staff Response: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. 1 The effect on open space,streams,rivers,and lakes; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are,policy oriented and non-project amendments. 3. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. 4. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks,recreation,and schools; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The Parks and Recreation Plan provide an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. 5. The benefit to the neighborhood, City,and region; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments add or modify policy direction in specific policy areas and update information in the plan to ensure consistency with other internal plans within the City. The public benefit is furthered by ensuring the Comprehensive Plan is reflective of regional policy and current with other internal plans. 6. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations. 7. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis; however,population projections and capacity numbers were updated through this amendment process. 8. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments are consistent with the approval criteria and factors contained in the SVMC. 13. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: The Department of Commerce (DOC) sent confirmation that materials were received on February 4, 2011 and processed with the Material ID No. 16608. The City is required under RCW.70A.106 to send comprehensive plan amendments to DOC for review 60-days prior to adoption. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed amendments and applicable approval criteria and factors recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA-04-11 through ( CPA-08-11. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 -7, PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS i'he Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140)when recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Planning Commission,by separate motion,should adopt findings of fact. Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Comrniss'on Findin•s and Factors Section 1 7 18O.140H of the SVMC• Findings a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring the Comprehensive Plan is reflective of regional policy and current with other internal plans. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36,70A RCW (Growth Management Act). c. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. This approval criterion does not apply. d. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not correct mapping errors. This approval criterion does not apply. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive PIan. The t`. majority of the proposed text amendments either update or correct information contained in the plan. At this point,staff has not identified any deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not affect open space,streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not impact adjacent land uses or surrounding neighborhoods d. The adequacy of community facilities is determined on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. e. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations, f The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis. g. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. Recommended Motion:. The Planning Commission finds the 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be consistent with Section 17.80.140(H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the r staff report and recommends approval of CPA-04-11 through CPA-08-11, amendments to the comprehensive plan text Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of April 7, 2011; 2:00 p.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 #2 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday,April 14, 2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, CenterPlace Auditorium, 2426 N Discovery Place April 19,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 11] ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading, Comp Plan Amendments Ordinance(s)—Mike Basinger (60 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 3. Disaster Cost-Recovery(FEMA) —Gerry Bozarth, Spokane Emergency Management (20 minutes) 4. Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal—MaryKate McGee (15 minutes) 5. Railroad Quiet Zones—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 6. Mission Trailhead—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] #3 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday,April 21, 2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Seth Woodard Elementary School, 7401 E. Mission Ave. April 26,2011,Executive Session 5:00 p.m. To evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office, Council#5 Vacancy April 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 18] Proclamations:Public Service Recognition Week; Worker's Memorial Day;Municipal Clerk's Week 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes, Resolution set Planning Com. Street Vacation Hearing)(5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Livestock in Mixed Use—Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Comp Plan Amendments Ordinance(s)—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal—MaryKate McGee (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Motions for May 10 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position#5 -Mayor(10 min) 6. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] #4(and final)Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday,April 28, 2011; 12:30 to 1:30 pm, CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N. Discovery Place May 3,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 25] 1. Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2. Investment Accounts—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] May 10,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 2] Proclamation:Lilac City Wings Motorcycle Awareness Day 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-008 Comp Plan Map Amendments—Mike Basinger(5 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Authorizing Investment Accounts—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 5. Mayoral Appointment: Planning Commission Vacancy—Mayor Towey (10 minutes) 6. Council Position#5 Interviews—Mayor and Council (90 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 4/7/2011 3:12:32 PM Page 1 of 3 [*estimated meeting: 150 minutes] May 17,2011,Executive Session 5:00 p.m. To evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office, Council#5 Vacancy May 17,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 9] 1. Motion Consideration: Appt of Candidate to Council Position#5 —Mayor No public comment) (20 min) a. Nomination&2nd of candidate: vote. b. Clerk Administers Oath c.New Councilmember Takes Position at the Dias 2. Admin Report: Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 minutes] May 24,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 16] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Spokane Regional CVB Presentation- CEO Cheryl Kilday (10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: 2011 Budget Amendment—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 5. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] May 31,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 23] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Amendment—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 20 minutes] June 7,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 30] June 14,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 6] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] June 21, 2011, Possible no Meeting, (AWC Conference, Spokane, Wa.) June 28,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] July 5,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 27] Draft Advance Agenda 4/7/2011 3:12:32 PM Page 2 of 3 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Alternative Analysis (contracts) Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions) Budget 2012 (August/Sept 2011) Capital Projects Funding CDBG(Fall 2011) Centennial Trail Agreement Clean Air Agency Commute Trip Reduction Program Renewal East Gateway Monument Structure # Eastern Washington University Regional Services Presentation Economic Development Flashing Beacons Governance Manual (resolution) Update Joint Meetings: Planning Commission; BOCC Liberty Lake City Sign Lodging Tax Funding for 2012 (Oct 2011) Milwaukee Right-of-way Monument(Veterans') Sign Old Mission Ave Trail Access Outside Agencies 2012 (August 2011) Parking/Paving Options (for driveways, etc.) Pavement Management Program Update PEG Funds: Allocation of P&E Funding Permit Tracking System Public Input Process for Capital Projects Reimbursement Assessment Amendment Retreat, Summer 2011 Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 1 Sidewalks Signage (I-90) Site Selector Update Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Sprague Avenue: One-way vs.two-way Sprague Beautification WIRA,Water Protection Commitment, Public Education #=Awaiting action by others * =doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 4/7/2011 3:12:32 PM Page 3 of 3