Loading...
Agenda 06/12/2014 po ne .000Valley® Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 12, 2014 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 22, 2014 Minutes VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Findings of Fact: CTA-2014-0001 Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code B. Deliberations: Shoreline Management Program Update — Development Regulations C. Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code for Recreational Marijuana Regulations X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 12,2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ® pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2014-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation — Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A citizen initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010 (B-3-b), I-1, Light Industrial District to change the required side and rear yard setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts from 35 feet to 20 feet, and to change Table 19.60.1- Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setbacks adjacent to a residential use or zone be 20 feet in the I-1 and I-2 zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission conducted a study session May 8, 2014 and a public hearing on May 22, 2014 to consider the amendment. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the proposed code text amendment with modifications. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended modifying the amendment to include amending Table 19.60.1-Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the I-1 and I-2 zones adjacent to a residential use be 20 feet. They also recommended amending Table 19.60-1 Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setback in the I-1 zone adjacent to a residential zone be 20 feet and minimum side and rear setbacks in the I-2 zone adjacent to residential zone be 35 feet. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations B. Proposed Text Amendments CTA-2014-0001 RPCA(Findings and Recommendation) Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA-01-14 June 12,2014 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. This is a citizen- initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010 (B-3-b), I-1, Light Industrial District to change the required side and rear yard setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts from 35 feet to 20 feet, and to change Table 19.60.1- Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard adjacent to a residential use or zone be 20 feet in the I-1 and I-2 zones. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 22, 2014. The Planning Commission recommended modifying the citizen initiated text amendment by amending Table 19.60.1-Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the I-1 and I-2 zones adjacent to a residential use be 20 feet, and amending Table 19.60-1 Commercial Development Standards to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setback in the I-1 zone adjacent to a residential zone be 20 feet and minimum side and rear setbacks in the I-2 zone adjacent to residential zone be 35 feet. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval as modified to City Council. 4. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed citizen initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. ii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. iii. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious. iv. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): i. The proposed amendment will provide the opportunity for the 50 foot wide lots to be developed in the industrial zones consistent with the intent of the zone,as residential uses Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A transition out of the zoning district,while protecting residential uses located in residential zones located adjacent to industrial zones. . ii. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed citizen-initiated code text amendments to SVMC Chapter 19.70.010 (B-3-b) and Table 19.60.1 as attached. Approved this 12th day of June, 2014 Christina Carlsen,Vice Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT B Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards Office Commercial Mixed Use Industrial GO 0 NC** C RC CC' CMU* MUC* I-1 1-2 Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Flanking Street Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3520 3520 Residential Use or Zonc Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 Residential Zone Maximum Building Height(in feet) 45 100 35 35 100 Unlimited 50 60 40 65 Except as otherwise required "Townhouse development in the NC zone shall comply with setback and building height standards in the R-4 zone found in Table 19.40-1 19.70.0101-1, Light Industrial district.° SHRREJ A.The Light Industrial designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Typical uses would include technology and other low-impact industries. Light Industrial areas may also include office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for industrial development. B. Supplemental Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.060(B)shall apply to the 1-1 district. 2. Mobile food vendors shall be located on/within designated areas which do not interfere with parking or internal circulation with permission of the property owner, health certificate and permit. 3. Setbacks. a. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet; and b. Side and rear yard setbacks of feet are required only adjacent to residential zoning districts. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: June 12, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ® unfinished business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑study session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update—Deliberations—Development Regulations BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed the Draft Shoreline Development Regulations. This document completes phase seven of the City's Update process and introduces the regulations that will implement the SMP. The Draft Development Regulations were routed to the Technical Review Group and comments were received (see attached). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received comment. Staff has reviewed the comments and identified several issues that warrant discussion. The discussion will determine the response or an appropriate modification to the draft. Following deliberations the Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the City Council. Attorney Tadas Kisielius will not attend this Planning Commission meeting, but may be present at the next meeting to assist with deliberations if necessary. Primary Issues to be discussed include: • Buffers • Trail standards • Docks - 1) Location allowed; and 2) Joint use or community dock facilities for residential subdivisions with 4 lots or more • Piers and Docks regulated as instream structures • Utility maintenance allowed without review • Buffers associated with critical areas and additional reporting requirements — to be reviewed by URS consultant, Noah Herrlocher. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Study sessions were held on March 27, 2014, April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2014. A public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2014. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:The Planning Commission should consider the regulations, testimony received, both written and verbal, and begin deliberations. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACH MENTS: 1)Jaime Short, Ecology—April 22, 2014 Email 2) Hugo Flores, Department of Natural Resources—April, 22, 2014 letter 3) Robin Bekkedahl,AVISTA—April 22, 2014 letter 4) Kitty Klitzke, Futurewise—May 22, 2014 letter Note: Draft Shoreline Master Program Regulations, Definitions and Buffer Map were previously provided. 1 of 1 Cari Hinshaw From: Short, Jaime (ECY) [JSHO461©ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:20 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Ecology comments on draft City of Spokane Valley SMP work products Dear Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Spokane Valley's draft Shoreline Buffer map and draft Shoreline Management and Restoration Program. Given the time allotted for review and my other commitments, I was unable to review the Definition section at this time. I've organized my comments by document below: Draft Shoreline Buffers— I appreciate the City's effort to tailor buffers at the parcel level. They are a direct reflection of the work performed on the Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization. At this time, however, I cannot understand how the buffer depicted on the GIS layer can be implemented on a project-by-project basis. • SMP maps are only designed to indentify shoreline jurisdiction at the planning level—jurisdiction is refined at the project scale once the Ordinary High Water Mark has been delineated for parcel in question. In some instances, the buffer extends to the limits of jurisdiction. What happens to the buffer if that line ends up being further upland? For example, the OHWM location is mapped inaccurately at the Trailside development, OHWM being further landward than shown just upstream of the Centennial Trail Bridge. What happens to the buffer at that location? • How will the average project proponent mark the extent of the buffer "clearly on the ground" as is required in section 21.50.230(2)? • How do you implement the structural setbacks called for in Table 21.50-3 using these maps? We understand that the mapping is intended to depict the actual location of the buffer on each parcel, but these are not survey-grade map products and by nature have only limited accuracy. Again, we applaud the City's commitment to protecting and preserving riparian vegetation at the parcel scale, but the current approach is missing a procedure that will take the GIS map layer and translate it to implementation on the ground. Without clear direction, consistent implementation of the buffers is unlikely. Draft Shoreline Management and Restoration Program— • 21.50.030(D): Please amend to read "The Director `will consult with Ecology,at his discretion, to ensure..." per WAC 173-26-140. • 21.50.110(F): Please include the remainder of the definition in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) as it pertains to appurtenant structures. • 21.50.110(G): Please amend to reflect the new thresholds reflected in ESHB 1090 (effective date 6/12/2014). • 21.50.110(H): Please clarify the difference between activities covered under this exemption and similar activities described in section 21.50.090(C). • 21.50.150(B)(5): Please add to the end of the sentence, "or be authorized through the issuance of a Shoreline Variance." i • Table 21.50-1: We suggest removing the "Allowed Use" category. All of the activities in the table that have been designated with an "A" should be designated with a "P". They are exempt from issuance of an SDP but they are still subject to review and will require a Letter of Exemption. • Tables 21-50-1 and -2: We suggest using something other than a blank square to note "Prohibited" activities. At first glance it looks like the tables are simply incomplete. • 21.50.230(B)(3): This section is a little confusing. If you want to permit buffer reductions through a Variance, I would suggest removing the 25% limitation and note that applicants must meet the requirements of 21.50.140. Other SMPs allow for administrative reductions up to 25%with similar sideboards to what you have written in this section— is that the direction you meant to go? Buffer averaging may be a useful tool in those circumstances. See Spokane County's SMP, section 5.2.5(8) for sample language. • 21.50.260(B)(2)(c): Please provide dimensional and/or performance standards for new trails developed within shoreline buffers. See Spokane County's SMP, section 5.2.5(5) for sample language. • 21.50.340(B)(2): Please edit to read, "...surface water movement. They shall provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources in accordance with WAC 173-26-241(3)(g)." • 21.50.360(B)(5): Please add SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation to this list. • 21.50.370(B)(5): Is this section allowing structures to be built between the edge of the vegetated buffer and setbacks listed in Table 21.50-3? Wouldn't that run counter to the purpose of a structural setback? • 21.50.420(B)(3&4): These regulations appear to say that projects using vegetation to stabilize a shoreline will require a CUP—is that the City's intention? • 21.50.430: Please clarify where new docks will be permitted in accordance with SMP 12-27 in the Council approved Draft Goals and Policies Report. • 21.50.430: Per WAC 173-26-231(3)(b), please add to the list, "New residential development of two or more dwellings shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence." • 21.50.480(C)(4)(a): Please edit to read, "Legally constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches,..." • 21.50.510(B): Please add to the end of the sentence "consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines". • 21.50.510(D)(f)(i): Please edit to read "....temporary impact restoration and five up to ten years for compensatory mitigation;" • 21.50.520(C)(1): Please edit to read, "These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands except isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that:". This change will bring the section in line with Ecology's and Corps' guidance and the most recent and relevant scientific information. • 21.50.520(E)(1)(c)(v): Please edit to read, "Soil conditions based on site assessment and7Le.soil survey information;" My comments at this juncture represent a relatively high-level technical review of the documents. We will review these documents, in concert with the other documents constituting your SMP, in greater detail once the entire package is available for public consumption. One barrier to providing a complete review is the lack of a Cumulative Impact Analysis. A complete CIA is a necessary tool in our evaluation of the development regulations and helps ensure compliance with the No Net Loss standard. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thanks again! -Jaime Jaime Short 2 Shoreline Planner WA State Dept of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Spokane,WA 99205 509.329.3411 Please note:This communication is public record and may be subject to disclosure as per the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. 3 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources IIMIMIF Peter Goldmark-Commissioner of Public Lands April 22, 2014 Lori Barlow, AICP Planner Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Comments Dear Lori, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and your staff for the work completed to update the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program. As steward of more than 2.6 million acres of state-owned aquatic lands and their attached biological communities, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) takes responsibility for ensuring that the people of Washington benefit from the use of aquatic lands, while also ensuring environmental protection of our natural resources for current and future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I am including a table with DNR staff comments on the proposed City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program. The table identifies the issue/topic and provides a page number of the documents reviewed, along with DNR's comments and suggested language. I hope these comments are helpful to you and your staff. In addition to this, the City of Spokane Valley should be aware that DNR has been developing an Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and conducting extensive review and analysis on the environmental impacts of DNR-authorized activities on state-owned aquatic lands and the species that use those lands. From this research, DNR has concluded that the most effective way to provide sustainable stewardship for our aquatic lands is to manage through habitat stewardship review on individual use authorizations and leases on a case-by-case basis. The overarching goal is to first avoid and secondly minimize negative effects to submerged habitats and the species that depend on them. If you have questions, you may contact me at: hugo.flores@a,dnr.wa.gov or(360) 902-1126. Sincerely, Hugo Flores SMA Coordinator SMPs.SpoVa/14 Document/Location Text Comment Suggested Language Appendix A-1 Page 3 In-stream structures Consider adding piers and docks to the or other purpose such as piers definition. DNR believes that the placement and docks. of 30 piers and docks within a relative small shoreline segment may have impacts on the hydraulics of the river system. Shoreline Master Program Standards 6. Consider referencing SVMC 21.50.410 to this and SVMC 21.50.410 General Regulations. 21.50.310 Boating section. This would address cumulative regulations for specific facilities B. Standards. 6. Page 28 impacts analysis as well as habitat and shoreline modifications, as shoreline changes. applicable. Shoreline Master Program Shoreline/slope Consider including language that d. The Department of Natural Regulations. 21.50.420. B. stabilization acknowledges DNR's management authority Resources has approved or is Standards. 8. Page 36 for projects on state-owned aquatic lands. aware of the proposed project if it is on state-owned aquatic lands. Shoreline Master Program Piers and docks Even though there is an implication that 8. Piers and docks shall also Regulations. 21.50.430. B. SVMC 21.50.410 is also applicable to piers, comply with SVMC 21.50.410 Standards. Page 37 DNR believes that referencing it again in this General regulations for section would address the lack of cumulative specific shoreline impact analysis identified at the Inventory and modifications, as applicable. Characterization Report (Shoreline Modifications. Page 47)related to the 31 lots with direct access to the river where docks are allowed as a part of the development. SMPs.SpoVa/14 1% �� ;rrrsrra% 1411 East Mission Avenue Po Box 3727 Spokane,WA 99220-3727 April 22,2014 City of Spokane Valley cio Ms. Lori Barlow 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Leri: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Development Regulations on the Shoreline Master Program. Also,thank you for including public utilities as a section in the draft regulations. As a member of the Technical Advisory team for the development of the Shoreline Master Plan, I have some comments that would better clarify the areas of interest. Section 21.50.110(L)(4) Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit. This section says"The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions". Avista requests that this be deleted. This section refers to site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization etc. This usually means geotechnical borings of an area to determine the soils and stability. Boring test pit holes are not usually a big ground disturbance activity and restoration is fairly simple. The criteria of Section L indicates that this activity needs to be minor and not cause any significant adverse impacts so it would seem inefficient to have to post a performance bond to restore to pre-existing conditions. Performance bonds are usually for significant land use activities. Table 21.50.1: Shoreline Uses The table shows most of the routine maintenance of existing utility corridor and infrastructure as an allowed activity in the shoreline zones with the exception of Urban Conservancy-High Quality with a footnote that this activity may be allowed by a Letter of Exemption if the maintenance activity involves ground disturbing activity or is located within the Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment. Avista requests that this be an allowed use in all of the shoreline zones. The corridors in the City of Spokane Valley have existed for the past 60-70 years and have been maintained as such. The shoreline map has our corridors in many of the shorelines designated areas including Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment. Avista only removes vegetation capable of growing tall leaving the low growing vegetation. Avista requests that footnote#6 be revised to"Be allowed by Letter of Exemption if the maintenance activity involves over 500(or another specific and reasonable number)square feet of ground disturbing activity." The word`may'in the footnote places any of our maintenance activities, such as changing a pole, open to individual interpretation. The permitting requirement needs to be more commensurate with the maintenance activity. Section 21.50.260 (C)(2): Shoreline vegetation conservation This section states"Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both native and non- native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following criteria are met... Ms. Lori Barlow April 22,2013 Page 2 Avista requests that this be revised to state "Pruning, thinning, and removal within a utility corridor by the utility service..." Removal of tall growing species is important to the reliability of our system. Tall growing species eventually become a hazard to our system and compromise the integrity. Section 21.50.400(B)(3): Public facilities and utilities Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located in the Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment,then such maintenance, replacement and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption. If existing high quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy—High Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required. Avista requests that routine maintenance, replacement,and minor upgrades of existing utilities be allowed even if the activity involves ground disturbance and is located in Urban Conservancy-High Quality Environment. Most of our typical activities such as pole and conductor replacements, maintaining proper clearances or crossarrn work are very low impact. Avista has maintained the several affected line crossings for many decades, including some in Urban Conservancy, and has not impacted or affected that classification. We believe it would be better to qualify and quantify the amount of ground disturbance that needs a letter of exemption regarding the maintenance of utilities in the shoreline area. Thank you for providing a draft for my review. Please feel free to contact me at 509-495-8657 or robin.bek ked ahl(oiavistacorp.com. Sincerely, Robin Bekkedahl Sr. Environmental Scientist r...... ..... futü r Zvie se • Building communities •s. . Protecting the land May 22, 2014 Mr. Joseph Stoy, Chair Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 Dear Chair Stoy and Planning Commissioners: Subject: Comments on the Shoreline Master Plan Draft Regulations, General Provisions Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Shoreline Master Plan Draft Regulations, General Provisions. Futurewise strongly supports updating the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Since Spokane County's current shoreline master program was adopted we have learned a great deal on how to better protect water quality and other shoreline functions. The Washington State Department of Ecology has also adopted new shoreline master program guidelines. Those are all reasons why the Shoreline Management Act requires comprehensive updates to shoreline master programs for the first time ever. I participated on the city's Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee. I present these comments on behalf of my organization, Futurewise and The Lands Council, Spokane Riverkeeper, and the Spokane Chapter of Trout Unlimited. Futurewise is working throughout Washington State to create livable communities,protect our working farmlands, forests, and waterways, and ensure a better quality of life for present and future generations. We work with communities to implement effective land use planning and policies that prevent waste and stop sprawl, provide efficient transportation choices, create affordable housing and strong local businesses, and ensure healthy natural systems. We are creating a better quality of life in Washington State together. Futurewise has supporters throughout Washington State with many in Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. Futurewise supports many of the updated shoreline master program provisions. 21.50.260 Shoreline vegetation conservation p. 24 We support the Ecology recommendation to include maximum dimensional and performance standards for new trails or paths within vegetation conservation areas and buffers. 21.50.280 Archaeological and historic resources. We strongly support the provisions for protecting archaeological and historic resources. These provisions will help protect valuable cultural resources. Futurewise Eastern WA 35 W.Main Street, Suite 350 Spokane,WA 99201 p.509-838-1965 www.futurewise.org Spokane Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2014 Page 2 21.50.430. B Regulations on p. 35 We support the recommendation of the Department of Natural Resources that piers and docks should also comply with proposed SVMC 21.50.410 as applicable. This will clarify that important protections also apply to piers and docks. We support the Department of Ecology recommendation to add a new"8" to read as follows: "New residential development of two or more dwellings shall provide joint use or community dock facilities,when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence."As Ecology points out, this is required by the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173-26-231(3)(b). 21.50.470 Maps and inventories p. 36 While we recognize that the list of maps and inventories in proposed 21.50.470 is not an exclusive list, we suggest that a reference to the latest Department of Natural Resources (DNR)Natural Hazards map available at DNR's Washington State Geologic Information Portal. While the map does not show all geological hazards, it does include many. 1 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas p. 37 Critical areas, especially natural hazards, have the ability to affect development well beyond 200 feet from the development site.2 Similarly, some fish and wildlife buffers extend beyond 200 feet. So we recommend that critical areas that can either adversely affect the proposed development or that the development may adversely affect be identified in the critical areas report. We recommend that 21.50.500(D)(7) be modified to read as follows with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through: 7. Identification and characterization of all critical areas,water bodies,and critical areas associated with buffers located on-site,adjacent to, and within 200 feet of proposed project areas,any critical area buffer that includes any part of the project area,or any critical areas that has the potential to harm people or structures within the project area,whichever is farther. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap(such as buffers for a stream and a wetland),the wider buffer shall apply; 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations p. 49 Proposed 21.50.540(C)provides that"[Nutters shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA."However, buffers wider than 100 feet are needed to protect fish and wildlife habitats. For example, in urban areas great blue heron rookeries may require buffers as wide as 197 feet.3 WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii)requires that SMPs are to 1 Washington State Geologic Information Portal accessed on May 22,2014 at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geosciencesdata/pages/geology portal.aspx 2 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Significant Deep-Seated Landslides in Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris-Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on May 22,2014 at:http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger list large landslides.pdf and enclosed with this letter with the filename:ger list large_landslides.pdf. 3 J.M.Azerrad,Management recommendations for Washington's priority species:Great Blue Heron p. 6 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington:2012)accessed on May 22 at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01371/wdfw01371.pdf and enclosed with this letter with the filename: wdfw01371.pdf. Spokane Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2014 Page 3 "[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline area that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources." Limiting fish and wildlife buffers to 100 feet will not assure no net loss. So the 100 foot buffer limit must be deleted. 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations p. 51 The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority species and habitats databases include habitats depicted as points, areas, and lines. The area habitats include, for example, the communal roost of the bald eagle, a Washington State sensitive species. The proposed regulations, however, limit protections for nearby developments to den and nest sites and point locations. This is inconsistent with WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii)which requires shoreline master programs to"[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline area [including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas] that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources[.]"By failing to protect habitats depicted as lines and areas, the Spokane Valley SMP fails to meet this standard. Our suggestions to address this issue are shown below with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through. 2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a habitat with which priority species has a primary association den or nest site that the Director(in consultation with the WDFW)determines is likely to have an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat Management Plan,including: viii.The location of priority habitat types or priority species habitats point locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations p. 53 -- 54 Geological hazards have the ability to affect development well beyond 50 feet from the development site.4 They may also reach well beyond the height of the slope or 50 feet. The slope responsible for the Oso tragedy had a slope height of about 600 feet tall but ran out for nearly a mile from the bottom of the slope. While we recognize the that there are, no slopes in Spokane Valley this large until there are scientific standards, landslide hazard buffers should be determined on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that 21.50.550(C)(1) and 21.50.550(D)(2)be modified to read as follows with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through: 1. Any development or uses proposed for an area that may be subject to damage from witlEkio feet of a geologic hazard area shall prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E). 4 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Significant Deep-Seated Landslides in Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris-Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on May 22,2014 at:http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger list large landslides.pdf 5 Sandi Doughton,Expert baffled by ferocity, distance of freakish'slide Seattle Times(April 8,2014). Accessed on April 22,2014 at: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023331700_mudslidescientistxml.html Spokane Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2014 Page 4 2.Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. a. For landslide hazards, a Qualified Professional shall review the landslide hazard and determine buffers sufficient to protect proposed and existing development from the risk of damage.For erosion hazards the minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet,whichever is greater. b. For erosion hazards,the buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. c. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. 21.50.520(C)(1)Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations on p. 41 WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A)requires Shoreline Master Program regulations "to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions ...."Wetlands provide important functions that benefit Spokane Valley residents, property owners, and businesses. These functions include removing pollutants, such as nitrogen, that would otherwise get into surface waters and ground water drinking water supplies and recharging ground water. The city must adopt wetland regulations that achieve no net loss of wetland area and function which the proposed wetland regulations fail to do. Small wetlands provide important wetland functions. The Washington State Department of Ecology has summarized the science applicable to small wetlands: • The studies of the correlation of wetland size to wildlife use conflict somewhat in their findings, but most generally conclude that small wetlands are important habitats (particularly where adjacent buffer habitats are available) and that elimination of small wetlands can negatively impact local populations. • Small wetlands provide habitat for a range of species that are not a subset of the species found in larger, more permanently inundated wetlands. Small wetlands do not just provide a smaller area for the same array of amphibian species found in larger wetlands. • Small wetlands are very important in reducing isolation among wetland habitat patches. Smaller wetlands provide significant habitat for wildlife and affect the habitat suitability of larger wetlands by reducing isolation on the landscape. • The presence of small wetlands reduces the distance between wetlands and thus increases the probability of successful dispersal of organisms. This, in turn, likely increases the number of individuals dispersing among patches in a wetland mosaic, thereby reducing the chance of population extinction. Spokane Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2014 Page 5 • Isolated wetlands provide the same range of wetland functions as non- isolated wetlands. Isolated wetlands6provide important water quantity, water quality, and habitat functions. Failing to require buffers for smaller wetlands will result in a loss of wetlands area and functions. This violates WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A). So we recommend proposed 21.50.520(C)(1)be modified so the wetland buffers apply to all wetlands. Our recommended deletions are shown below with double strike throughs. 1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands except isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that: a. Arc not associated with riparian areas or buffers; b. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritag-c plant species identified by the WDNR; c. Arc not a vernal pool; d. Arc not an alkali wetland; and c. Do not contain aspen stands. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at telephone (509) 838-1965 or e-mail Kitty@futurewise.org Sincerely, /124-1,:p..y)i Kitty Klitzke Spokane Program Director Bart Mihailovich Futurewise Spokane Riverkeeper Center for Justice Mike Petersen Executive Director -1611414/11 The Lands Council Mr. Bill Abrahamse Chapter President Trout Unlimited 6 D. Sheldon,T.Hruby,P.Johnson,K.Harper,A.McMillan,T.Granger,S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale, Wetlands in Washington State- Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science pp.5-12—5-13(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#05-06-006 Olympia,WA:March 2005).Accessed at on May 22,2014 at:https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0506006.html Futurewise Eastern WA 35 W.Main Street, Suite 350 Spokane,WA 99201 p.509-838-1965 www.futurewise.org CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 12,2014 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information ® admin.report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2014-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session —Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code for Recreational Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)to amend SVMC 19.120 and Appendix A and adopt SVMC 19.85 to provide definitions and regulations for the zoning and buffering of production,processing,and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None by Planning Commission; City Council has adopted interim regulations governing state-licensed recreational marijuana. BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120 and Appendix A to providing definitions for and zoning restrictions upon the production,processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Additionally,the proposal would adopt a new SVMC 19.85 to provide limitations on certain marijuana production and processing uses and to create 1,000 foot buffers between state-licensed production,processing,and retail sales of recreational marijuana and the Centennial Trail,Appleway Trail,undeveloped and vacant public school property and undeveloped and vacant public library property. The City Council previously adopted interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana uses in addition to the state buffers described below to further protect and prevent distribution of marijuana to minors. The proposal tracks the interim regulations as adopted by the City Council. Pursuant to state law,the interim regulations terminate in August,2014 and final regulations must be adopted prior to such termination. Recreational Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 in November 2012. The state has worked over the last year to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production(growing),processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board(the "LCB"). The LCB has been accepting and processing applications since November,2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. Recently,the LCB conducted a lottery to select the three retail sales outlets that will be allowed within Spokane Valley. Under state law,there cannot be more than three retail sales outlets within Spokane Valley,but there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed. State law provides 1,000 buffers between recreational marijuana and several sensitive uses,including schools,libraries, and public parks,but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The LCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16,2014,a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state- licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers would be in addition to the state-mandated buffers and would be enforced by the City. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. However,the United State Department of Justice has released a policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. Further overview of current state and federal law and the interim regulations will be provided as part of the study session. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was sent to the Spokane Valley News Herald for publication on June 6,2014 and June 13,2014. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F)provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s)must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on June 26,2014. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen-Planner Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report B. Proposed amendments to SVMC 19.120 C. Proposed SVMC Appendix A D. Proposed SVMC 19.85 ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION SjOkane Valley' STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2014-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 26, 2014, 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: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend SVMC 19.120 and Appendix A and adopt SVMC 19.85 to provide definitions and regulations for the zoning and buffering of production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment. STAFF PLANNER: Christina Janssen,Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to amend SVMC 19.120 and Appendix A,and adopt SVMC 19.85 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Ordinance 14-002 passed, adopting interim definitions 2/11/14 and regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana Ordinance 14-004 passed, adopting amendments to the 4/22/14 interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana SEPA Threshold Determination TBD Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: 6/6/14& 6/13/14 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 6/6/14 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120 and Appendix A to providing definitions for and zoning restrictions upon the production,processing,and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Additionally,the proposal would adopt a new SVMC 19.85 to provide limitations on certain marijuana production and processing uses and to create 1,000 foot buffers between state-licensed production,processing,and retail sales of recreational marijuana and the Centennial Trail,Appleway Trail,undeveloped and vacant public school property and undeveloped and vacant public library property. The City Council previously adopted interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana uses in addition to the state buffers described below to further protect and prevent distribution of marijuana to minors. The proposal tracks the interim regulations as adopted by the City Council. Pursuant to state law,the interim regulations terminate in August,2014 and final regulations must be adopted prior to such termination. Recreational Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 in November 2012. The state has worked over the last year to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production(growing),processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board(the "LCB"). The LCB has been accepting and processing applications since November,2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. Recently,the LCB conducted a lottery to select the three retail sales outlets that will be allowed within Spokane Valley. Under state law,there cannot be more than three retail sales outlets within Spokane Valley,but there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed. State law provides 1,000 buffers between recreational marijuana and several sensitive uses,including schools,libraries,and public parks,but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The LCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16,2014, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state- licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers would be in addition to the state-mandated buffers and would be enforced by the City. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. However,the United State Department of Justice has released a policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Page 2 of 4 Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals by protecting residential areas, encouraging diversity among commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: LUP-1.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2 Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed recreational marijuana businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2014-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Page 3 of 4 No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends approval of the regulations for the production,processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Page 4 of 4 19.120.050 Permitted use matrix.[O SHARE ] Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-MF- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling P SVMC 19.40.150. Keeping of swine is Animal raising and/or keeping SSSS S S S S prohibited Animal shelter S P P SVMC 19.60.080(B)(6) Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S SVMC 19.40.150(C) Produce may be sold pursuant to RCW Community garden SSSS S S S S S 36.71.090 as adopted or amended Greenhouse/nursery, commercial P P P P Kennel S S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions Marijuana production S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P Riding stable C P P Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P P P Repeater facility PPPP P P PPPP P P Telecommunication wireless antenna array SSSS S S S S CCSSS S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC Telecommunication wireless support tower CCCC C C S S CCSSS S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC Tower, ham operator SSSS S S S S CCSSS S S SVMC 19.40.110(A) Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge PP P P P PPPP P Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and PPPPP P P P PPPPP house of worship Crematory P P P P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-MF- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Funeral home P P P Transitional housing C Day Care Day care, adult PPPP P P P P APPP A A Day care, child (12 children or fewer) PPPP P P P P A AP P P A A Day care, child (13 children or more) CCCC P P P P A AP P P A A Education Schools, college or university P P PP P P Schools, K through 12 PPPP P P P P P P P Schools, professional, vocational and trade P P P PP P P P P schools Schools, specialized training/studios P P PPPPP Entertainment Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Adult entertainment and retail S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC Carnival, circus T T T T T T Casino P P P P Cultural facilities P P PPPPP Exercise facility A A P P APPPP A A Off-road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Racecourse P P P P Racetrack P P Recreation facility P P PP A P P Theater, indoor P P P P P Food and Beverage Service Espresso establishment P P PPPPP A P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Mobile food vendors S S SSSSS S S S SVMC 19.60.010(L),19.70.010(B)(2) Restaurant, full service P P APPPP P P Restaurant, drive-through or drive-in P P ACPP P P Tavern/night club P P P P P P P Group Living Assisted living/convalescent/nursing home PP P P P P P Community residential facilities(6 PPPP P P P P residents or less) Community residential facilities(greater PP P P P than 6 residents under 25) Dwelling, congregate PP P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Explosive storage P P Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S SVMC 21.40.060 Manufacturing, heavy P Power plant(excluding public utility P facilities) Processing, heavy P Solid waste recycling/transfer site P P Wrecking,junk and salvage yard C P Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P P P P P Carpenter shop P P P P Machine shop or metal fabrication P P P Manufacturing, light P P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Marijuana processing S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P Processing, light P P Industrial Service Carpet/rug cleaning, dry cleaning, laundry, P P linen supply plant, commercial Contractor's yard P P Laboratories(bio safety level 2) P P P P Laboratories(bio safety level 3) P P P Laboratories(bio safety level 4) P P SVMC 19.60.050(B)(4), 19.60.060(B)(4), Recycling facility S S S P P 19.60.080(B)(5) Lodging Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-MF- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Bed and breakfast PPPP P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P P P Recreational vehicle park/campground C S SVMC 19.60.010 Medical Ambulance service P P P P P P P Hospital P P P P P Hospital, psychiatric and substance abuse RRRR R R R R R R R R R R Hospital, specialty P P P P P A A Laboratories, medical and diagnostic P P P P P Medical, dental, and hospital equipment P P P P P P supply/sales Medical/dental clinic P P PP P P P Office Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Chapter 19.60 SVMC. See also Animal clinic/veterinary P P P S P P P supplemental conditions for kennels Office, professional P P P P PPPPP P P Parks and Open Space Cemetery PPPP P Golf course SSSS S S P 5 PP Chapter 22.60 SVMC Golf driving range CCCC C C P C S PP Chapter 22.60 SVMC Parks PPPPP P P P PPPPP P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities SSSS S S S S SSSSS S S S See zoning districts for conditions Essential public facilities RRRR R R R RRRR R R Chapter 19.90 SVMC Public utility distribution facility SSSS S S S S P PP P P P P P See zoning districts for conditions Public utility transmission facility SSSS S S S S SSSSS S S S See zoning districts for conditions Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Tower, wind turbine support CSSS S S SVMC 19.60.050(B)(2) Residential Dwelling, accessory units SSSS SVMC 19.40.100 Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B)(1) Dwelling, duplex PPP P P P Dwelling, multifamily PP P P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)(2) Dwelling, single-family PPPP P P P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)(2) Dwelling, townhouse PPP P PP P Manufactured home park SSS S S SVMC 19.40.130 Retail Sales Antique store P P P P P Retail sales may be accessory in industrial Appliance sales/service P P P P S S zones, only if manufactured/assembled on Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 premises Floor area limited to 10% of gross leasable Bakery, retail P P PPPPP S S floor area (GLFA) not to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. Building supply and home improvement P P S S P P P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq. ft. or less and hardware store Candy and confectionery P P PPPPP P P Clothes retail sales P P P P P Convenience store P P SSPPP P P SVMC 19.60.020 Department/variety store P P S P P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq. ft. or less Educational and hobby store P P PAPPP A A Equipment sales, repair, and maintenance P P P P P Florist shop P P AAPPP P Food sales, specialty/butcher shop/meat P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3) Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 market/specialty foods General sales/service P P AAPPP P P Gift shop P P AAPPP A Grocery store P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3) Office supply and computer sales P P APPP P P Landscape materials sales lot and P P P P P P greenhouse, nursery, garden center, retail Manufactured home sales P P P Marijuana sales S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Market, outdoor P P PP P P Pawnshop P P P P Pharmacy P P APPPP P Secondhand store, consignment sales P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(B)(9) Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-MF- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Showroom P P P P P P Specialty stores P P AAPPP Retail Services Bank, savings and loan, and other financial P P PPPPP P P institutions Barber/beauty shop P P PPPPP P Catering services P P P P PPPPP Equipment rental shop P P P P P Personal services P P PPPPP Post office, postal center P P PPPPP P P Print shop P P APPPP P P Taxidermy P P P P P P Upholstery shop P P P P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Transportation Airstrip, private P P Heliport P P Helistop C C C C P Parking facility, controlled access P P P P P P P Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P Transit center P P P P P P P Vehicle Services Automobile impound yard P P Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and tires P P P P P P Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, Enclosed structure only. SVMC S S P P P repair, body and fender works 19.60.050(B)(3). Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Carwash P P S P P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B) Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P PAPP P P Heavy truck and industrial vehicles sales, P P rental, repair and maintenance Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV sales, P P P P service and repair Towing P P P P Truck stop P P Warehouse,Wholesale, and Freight Movement Auction house P P P P Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-M F- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P Cold storage/food locker P P Freight forwarding P P Grain elevator P P Storage, general indoors P P AAAPP P P Storage, general outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for conditions Storage, self-service facility PP P P P P P P Tank storage, critical material above S S SVMC 21.40.060, Chapter 21.50 SVMC ground Tank storage, critical material below SVMC 19.60.040, 21.40.060, Chapter 21.50 S S S S ground SVMC Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060, Chapter 21.50 SVMC Warehouse P P P P P P Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R- R- R- R-MF-MF- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1-1 1-2 1 2 3 4 1 2 Wholesale business P P P P P P A=Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use R = Regional siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T =Temporary use APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products, packaging and labeling useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sale of useable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Industrial, light use category." Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Agricultural and animals, use category." Marijuana sales: Selling useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Retail sales, use category." Propose to adopt SVMC 19.85: 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line of the uses listed in subsection(A)(1) and(2) of this section. Distance shall be measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production to the nearest property line of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A: and 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW. B. Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only be permitted indoors. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line of the uses listed in subsection(A)(1) and(2) of this section. Distance shall be measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing to the nearest property line of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; and 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW. B. Marijuana processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall be limited to packaging and labeling of useable marijuana. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. Marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line of the uses listed in subsection A through D of this section. Distance shall be measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales to the nearest property line of the following uses: A. Centennial Trail; B. All proposed,contemplated,and constructed multi-use trail and linear park uses on the Milwaukee right-of-way, as identified and contemplated in the interlocal agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley,dated June 27,2012; C. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; and D. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW. Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, May 22,2014 Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Christina Carlsen Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Robert McCaslin,Absent-Excused Cary Driskell,City Attorney Mike Phillips Micki Harnois,Planner Chris Sneider,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton,Secretary Steven Neill Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Hearing no objections, Commissioner McCaslin, Sneider and Stoy were excused from the meeting. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the May 22, 2014 agenda as presented, motion passed four to zero. Ms. Horton noted an amended set of minutes for May 08, 2014 had been emailed to the Commissioners with some suggested changes. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the April 24, 2014 as presented. Motion passed,four to zero. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the amended minutes for May 08, 2014. Motion passed,four to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reported the City Council was still working on Comprehensive Plan Amendments , but had voted to approve CPA-01-14 and CPA-02-14 during a motion consideration. CPA-03-14 was not approved with a six to one vote. All of the proposed text amendments had been approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: Scott Cooper, Catholic Charities, Spokane,WA: Mr. Cooper stated he works for Catholic Charities and with the Association of Manufactured Home Owners(AMHO). Mr.Cooper asked the Commission to place a Manufactured Home zone on the Comprehensive Plan docket. Mr. Cooper said low-income people need a place to live and stay. He remarked that manufactured homes are the only source of low-income housing,which is not subsidized. Mr. Cooper said people who own manufactured homes are doing it on their own and owning their own home. However all over the state,property owners have the ability to decide to sell the land and then leave the people who live on the land with little warning to move their home. Other cities around the state are creating ordinances to protect people who live in manufactured home parks. Mr. Cooper asked the Commission to please consider adding the manufactured home park zone to the Comprehensive Plan docket and adopting a manufactured home park zone. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-01-14: Planner Micki Harnois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b) and Table 19.60-1 to change the required side and rear yard setbacks from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential use or zone. 05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Ms.Harnois showed some examples of lots in the Yardley area of the City where some of the lots are only 50 feet wide. She stated it is difficult for people to develop a lot this width with the current 35-foot setback against a residential property. Ms. Harnois also showed a chart comparing the setbacks in the same zones for Spokane,Liberty Lake,and Spokane County. Jurisdiction Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Spokane Valley Prior to 2007 5 ft 5 ft Spokane Valley after Nov 2007 35 ft adjacent to residential use/zone 35 ft adjacent to residential use/zone City of Spokane 10 ft adjacent to R zoned lots 10 ft adjacent to R zoned lots City of Spokane 0 ft adjacent to residential use 0 ft adjacent to residential use Spokane County 20 ft adjacent to residential zone 100 ft adjacent to residential zone Liberty Lake 20 ft adjacent to residential zone 20 ft adjacent to a residential zone Liberty Lake 0 ft adjacent to residential use 0 ft adjacent to residential use It was noted that the setbacks in Liberty Lake and Spokane are at zero feet when adjacent to a residential use. Ms. Barlow stated that when an area, such as the Yardley area, begins to transition there are less regulatory accommodations given to the nonpreferred uses . The regulations support and encourage uses consistent with the intent of the zoning district. Commissioner Anderson stated the commercial development standards allowed heights between 60 and 100 feet. Which would be difficult to handle next to a residential use or zone at the current setbacks. Commissioner Phillips asked if the Fire Dept. had any comments regarding the proposal and was informed that none had been received. Vice Chair Carlsen opened the public hearing for CTA-2014-0001 at 6:23 p.m. John Renshaw, 1718 Tilsley Place, Spokane: Mr. Renshaw stated he and a partner own property in the Yardley area. They discovered if their building burned down they would only be allowed to replace it with a commercial bldg. However buying a 50-foot lot and getting 15 feet of usable space seemed unreasonable. Mr. Renshaw said in the area there are many under used lots because of stalled development. He felt it would make sense to have the setbacks consistent. Seeing no one else who wished to testify,Vice Chair Carlsen closed the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. Commissioner Neill moved to approve CTA-2014-0001 as presented by staff. Commissioner Anderson clarified that on a commercial lot you could build up to the property line. Commissioner Neill asked if landscaping would be required,and Mr.Kuhta responded that a new proposal adjacent to a residential use or zone would require some site obscuring landscaping. Commissioner Carlsen said she was concerned about the height a commercial building could be next to a residential building. She said she would prefer not changing anything about the setbacks in the 1-2 zone. She said she would prefer to not discuss changing the 1-2 at all. The Commissioners discussed this possibility and if it would create an inequity. Commissioner Carlsen moved to amend the main motion to remove all references to side and rear yard setback changes in the heavy industrial zone. This amendment passed four to zero. Commissioner Carlsen also said she preferred the way Spokane and Liberty Lake separate the residential zone from a residential use. Commissioner Anderson said he was not in favor of separating the zone and use. Commissioner Carlsen felt the Spokane example would assist in solving the problem of the small lots but would still protect neighborhoods,which were abutting against industrial zones. Mr.Kuhta said a line could be added to the table to differentiate between the use and zone. There was discussion about the setbacks being 20 feet next to a use but 35 feet next to a zone. Commissioner Phillips felt it should be one number,20 feet or 35 feet. Mr.Kuhta brought up the fact that there are many homes still in the 1-2 zone. 05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Carlsen moved to amend chart 19.60-1 to create a separate row for setbacks when adjacent to a residential use to be 20 feet, leaving the setback for adjacent to a residential zone at 35 feet. Commissioner Anderson said he did not see the need to separate the setbacks. Commissioner Neill commented that separating the setbacks created another hardship on the property owner; it was creating another limiting factor. Commissioner Anderson said he would be more agreeable to the separation if it was 10 feet for uses and 20 feet on zones,but 35 feet was too much. Vote on the amendment was one to three, motion fails. Commissioner Neill moved to amend the motion to return the references to all original references to Heavy Industrial setbacks. Motion passes four to zero. Commissioner Anderson asked if the chart could be amended to separate uses from zones even if all the setbacks stayed the same, so if there was a time in the future when the desire to change them to separate numbers. Mr.Kuhta said it was possible to do just that. Commissioner Carlsen moved to amend chart 19-60-1 to add for side and rear yard setbacks to separate numbers. The motion was approved four to zero. Commissioner Carlsen said she would be comfortable with I-2 zone setbacks at 35 feet, but changing the use setback to 20 feet. She felt this would allow the industrial zones to change Commissioner Phillips said he would agree to changing all setbacks to 20 feet. Commissioner Neill said he still felt a 35-foot setback on a 50-foot lot was too much. He said he thought a 20-foot setback for I-1 and I-2 adjacent to residential uses and I-1 adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35-foot setback for I-2 when adjacent to residential zones. Commissioner Anderson said he could support this suggestion. Commissioner Neill moved to amend table 19.60-1 to set a 20 foot side and rear yard setbacks for I-1 and 1-2 when adjacent to residential uses and I-1 adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35 foot side and rear yard setbacks for 1-2 when adjacent to residential zones. Amendment passed, three to one with Commissioner Phillips dissenting. Motion to recommend approval of CTA-2014-0001 to the City Council with an amended table 19.60-1 to reflect a 20 foot side and rear yard setbacks for I-1 and 1-2 when adjacent to residential uses and I-1 adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35 foot side and rear yard setbacks for 1-2 when adjacent to residential zones. Motion passes four to zero. B. Public Hearing Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations: Senior Planner Lori Barlow introduced the public hearing for the draft Shoreline Master Program regulations. Ms.Barlow said the purpose was to conduct a public hearing to accept testimony on the draft Shoreline Master Program regulations. She anticipated deliberations would occur June 12.Staff would return at that time to discuss comments received. Chair Carlsen opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Jamie Short,Dept.of Ecology(DOE),4601 N Monroe:Ms. Short shared Ecology's appreciation for all the time and efforts the City has put into the SMP which include tailoring regulations specifically to condition in the Valley She noted that DOE appreciated the creative approach used in developing the the buffers. She noted that Ecology had met with staff to discuss the buffers and get a better understanding of the method. Ecology is"on board"with our buffers and thinks its an interesting approach. However, she would like to address docks on the river. The City's regulations provide dimensional standards, but do not state where they would be allowed. She said approximately three years ago the City Council conditionally approved Goals and Policies which prohibit docks on free flowing stretches of the Spokane River. This is consistent with the recommendation with the Citizens' Advisory Group, and it is consistent with Spokane County's Master Program. The regulations say they would be allowed in Waterfront Residential. In some cases, this designation overlaps the free flowing portions of the river. The DOE requests the regulations geographically define where docks will be allowed. She said Ecolgoy has weighed in before on this subject. It was a large discussion item for the Citizens' Advisory Board. She encouraged the Commissioners to look at the City's Inventory and Characterization Report, which describes the area and also suggested review of the city of Spokane's Upriver Dam Project Boundary. 05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Kitty Klitzke, Futurewise, 35 W. Main: Ms. Klitzke stated she participated in the Technical Advisory Group. She said she represented Futurewise, Lands Council, Spokane River Keepers, and the Spokane Chapter of Trout Unlimited. She said the groups have issues with docks and where they should be allowed on the river. They don't feel they should be on the free flowing sections of the river. She said there are issues with the buffers. She said the groups feel the buffers are shallow, not exceeding 100 horizontal feet from the ordinary high water mark at times. Species such as the Blue Heron might need 179 feet for shelter. She said there might be places where the critical areas overlay the buffers and they might need to be wider. Commissioner Carlsen asked if Ms.Klitzke had a specific example where she felt the buffer was not wide enough and she responded she could not be specific off the top of her head and the letter submitted did not address any specific area. She said there are places on the map where the habitats are mapped with a straight line and nesting areas do not follow straight lines. She said the letter contains suggested language changes,which also references areas the Dept. of Natural Resources and Dept. of Fish and Wildlife have mapped. In the geologically sensitive areas the group is proposing setbacks which would be more site specific to keep geological areas from becoming a danger to people and the environment. She said the group does not feel that wetland buffers should not be required for smaller wetlands, and the No Net Loss standard would be better served if some of the smaller wetlands required a buffer. Ms. Klitzke submitted a comment letter which was given to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anderson asked about the Upriver Dam Project Boundary information. Ms. Short from DOE said she would be able to provide a copy to staff,who would then disseminate the information to the Commissioners. Bill Abrahams, 1718 S Mamer Rd.:Mr.Abrahams said he was a member of the Shoreline Advisory Group. He complemented Ms. Barlow and staff for the hard work on the SMP. He said the rules as proposed are pretty good. He felt the suggested changes proposed by DOE and DNR were good ones. His goals are to preserve the river as a corridor as wild as it can be kept. He said for him,it was an escape. He said in most cities you cannot find a river running through it in such a`wild' state. He feels the City should encourage `wild'nature;it should be a draw to the City. He offered the river has value and needs protection. Seeing no one else who wished to testify,the chair closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta informed the Commission that he had resigned his position and this would be his last meeting. The Commissioners wished him well and thanked him for his service. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Christina Carlsen,Chair person Date signed Deanna Horton,secretary 05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4