The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02/11/2010 .------"N„ , - . Skaiie - Valle-- rti._ .......,,_ Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 11, 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER • II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING-CODE AMENDMENT,CTA-08-09,FENCING AND CLEARVIEW TRIANGLES-MARTIN PALANIUK PUBLIC HEARING-CODE AMENDMENT,CTA-01-10, CONDITIONAL USE OF SECOND-HAND AND CONSIGNMENT STORES IN AN I-1 ZONE-KAREN KENDALL STUDY SESSION-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS- MIKE BASINGER,CHRISTINA JANSSEN X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF JOHN G.CARROLL,CHAIR KATHY MCCLUNG,CD DIRECTOR CRAIG EGGLESTON GREG MCCORMICK,PLANNING MGR,AICP RUSTIN HALL SCOTT KUHTA,SR.LONG RANGE PLANNER,AICP JOE MANN MIKE BASINGER,SENIOR PLANNER,AICP MARCIA SANDS,VICE CHAIR CARY DRISKELL,DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ART SHARPE DEANNA GRIFFITH,ADMIN ARNE WOODARD \\.\\\\'.SPOKANI::VALLEY.ORG . or „ , ,. _ a] �_ LiJ Commission SCITY pokane sh -- -� p ��c, �. In Sheet 4. Valley DATE: °-/ C ( DAD NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS WISH TO SUBJECT E-MAIL SPEAK?qe /� /, / / PGt1l G 6-4” YV € �l0/Ai 4, (/f, L. X.- s Tee�-A = dC r-4vg al GL tAA-e_e, seQr ti —64ase. (� " CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 11, 2010 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-08-09 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A City initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 17.80 and 22.70. of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to require pre-application meetings for all commercial building permits, restrict fence heights in front yard setbacks, correct errors to clearview triangle regulations, add exemptions to the clearview triangle regulations, restrict the use of security type fencing, and clarify the use of barbed wire in residential zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission conducted a study session on January 28, 2010. BACKGROUND: Current building and planning practices are to conduct a pre-application meeting for all commercial building permits. The proposed amendment corrects omissions in Table 17.80-2 that allow a commercial building permit without a pre-application meeting. Currently fences of up to eight feet are allowed in the required front yards of all nonresidential lots. Additionally the code does not clearly address the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire in residential and nonresidential zones. Proposed amendments to 22.70 restrict fence heights in front yards, provide clarification and restrictions on the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire in all zones. Errors were found in the text and illustrations found in the section addressing clearview triangles. The proposed amendment corrects errors and omissions to clearview triangle illustrations and text and adds exemptions to the application of the clearview triangle requirements. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on January 22, 2010. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for text amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 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. • RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-08-09 1 of 2 OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented; recommend approval of modified proposal, recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Staff Report with exhibits Attachment B: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations Attachment C: PowerPoint Presentation for Public Hearing • RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-08-09 2 of 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE _ Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-08-09 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 3, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 11, 2010, 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 the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) restricting fence height in required front yards, correcting errors to clearview triangle illustrations, adding exemptions, restricting the use of barbed, razor, and concertina wire, and requiring pre-application meetings for all commercial building permits. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21 C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC. STAFF PLANNER: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Regulation of Sections 17.80 and 22.70 Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance January 22, 2010 (DNS): Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 22, 2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: January 26, 2010 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-08-09 II. SUMMARY OF TEXT AMENDMENT A. 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 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on January 22, 2010 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 completion 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. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the following City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. 1. Land Use Policy LUP-1.2 is to 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. Limiting the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire adjacent to residential uses protects them from impacts caused by these types of fences. 2. LUP-7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. The use of clearview triangles and the restriction of sight-obstructing fences within clearview triangles enhance the pedestrian environment. 3. Land Use Goal LUG-13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. Pre-application meetings provide valuable Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-08-09 information at the beginning of the review process. This meeting can be used by the applicant to address all issues of concern prior to submitting a permit for review. Clarification of ambiguous code content simplifies the review process and improves timeliness. 4. LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character...and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. Restricting the height and type of fences within required front yards is an important aesthetic component for maintaining a residential appearance and creating attractive commercial and office development. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Clearview triangles are designed for public safety and the proper administration of the standard is paramount to providing clear and safe pathways for vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Barbed, razor and concertina wire are designed to deter unwanted entrance and can inflict substantial personal injury. Limiting their use in residential areas and confining their use to those areas where valuable commercial or industrial property needs protection is consistent with protecting public health, safety and welfare. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-01-10 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the SVMC. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. A. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan; GMA Policies • Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-08-09 1. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Countywide Planning Policies 2. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through an intense and lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the countywide planning policies to maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies 3. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. Land Use Policy LUP-1.2 is to 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. b. LUP-7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. c. LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character...and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. d. Land Use Goal LUG-13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. B. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 1. Restricting the height and type of fences within required front yards will maintain or improve the important aesthetic component for creating attractive commercial and office development. Businesses will be certain a neighbor cannot create a sight obstruction that may hinder or limit their access or advertising effectiveness. 2. The use of clearview triangles and the restriction of sight-obstructing fences within clearview triangles enhance the pedestrian environment. Unobstructed clearview triangles increase vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and neighborhood safety. 3. The proposed text amendment will limit the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire adjacent to residential uses and public right-of-ways protecting them from the impacts caused by commercial and industrial development. 4. Clarification of ambiguous code content simplifies the review process and improves timeliness. 5: V. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CTA-08-09, a text amendment to Sections 17.80 and 22.70.020 of the Spokane Valley Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-08-09 Municipal Code (SVMC), restricting fence height in required front yards,correcting errors to clearview triangle illustrations, adding exemptions, restricting the use of barbed, razor, and concertina wire, and requiring pre-application meetings for all commercial building permits. Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. City initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 17; 1. Chapter 17.80, Table 17.80-2 — Add note that will require a pre-application meeting for all commercial building permits. Title 22: 2. Chapter 22.70.020 (A) - State that fence height may not exceed 36 inches in height or 48 inches in height for a non-sight-obstructing fence in the required front yard within any zoning district. 3. Chapter 22.70.020 (B) — State that fence height shall not exceed eight feet in any zoning district. Eliminate current section E which addresses fence height (redundant). 4. Chapter 22.70.020 (C) — Correct definition and illustration errors, update table figures, clarify definitions and clarify term used for traffic engineer. 5. Chapter 22.70.020 (D) — Add exemptions to uses not subject to the Clearview Triangle provisions of the Chapter. 6. Chapter 22.70.020 (F) Rename section E. Clarify the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire. Clarify the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire in residential zones. 7. Chapter 22.70.020 (G) Add a section to allow the use of barbed wire in residential zones in order to keep animals. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP-1.2 is to 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. 2. LUP-7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. 3. LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character...and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. 4. Land Use Goal LUG-13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to Title 19 and Appendices A (Definitions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Approved this 11th day of February, 2010 John G. Carroll, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VA! L FY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 11, 2010 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-01-10 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1)zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission conducted a study session on January 28, 2010. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Dwight Hume had preliminary discussions with staff regarding the proposed text amendment, prior to a formal submittal. The following is a summary of the applicant's reasoning as stated in the text amendment application. 1. Larger secondhand stores process larger volumes of merchandise and may distribute unused inventory to other locations; and 2. The larger stores will require bigger warehouse spaces and additional loading spaces for shipping and receiving; and 3. Real estate costs in commercial zoned properties are often 4 to 5 times more expensive, and the retail price of goods must remain competitive with the smaller thrift store operators who do not need to lease or buy larger facilities. Staff consulted with the applicant following the application submittal to clarify a few items with the proposed 'conditions' associated with the code amendment. As modified, the privately initiated text amendment is proposing for"secondhand stores and consignment sales"to be allowed in the light industrial (I-1) zone with the following conditions; 1. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and 2. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet(gsf). At the study session, Commissioner Woodard asked if multiple tenants within one (1) 15,000 gross square feet(gsf) space would meet the intent of the proposed text amendment. After discussion with the applicant, staff concludes the criteria for secondhand stores and consignment sales should be changed to require a single tenant to have a minimum occupied space of 15,000 gsf. The modified condition is incorporated into staffs recommendation. RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-01-10 1 of 2 NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on January 19, 2010. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for text amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 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. OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented; recommend approval of modified proposal, recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Staff Report with exhibits Attachment B: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations Attachment C: PowerPoint Presentation for Public Hearing • • • RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-01-10 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A :;:'.COMMUNITY:DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . .....PLgNNING:DIVI$lON %Siökane STAFF REP?ORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION 4.000 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 3, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 11, 2010, 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 privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1)zone. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21 C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington. APPLICANT: Dwight J. Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane, Spokane, WA 99218 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION:The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC, STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Regulation of Sections 19.70.010.B and 19.120 Exhibit 2: Application Materials Exhibit 3: SEPA Determination I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: January 5, 2010 Determination of Completeness: January 8, 2010 Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance January 29, 2010 (DNS): Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 19, 2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: January 19, 2010 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-01-10 II, SUMMARY OF TEXT AMENDMENT A. 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) on January 29, 2010 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. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed privately initiated text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Policy LUP-10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. b. Goal LUG-12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. c. Goal TG-8:Adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. d. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-01-10 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Light Industrial(1-1) zone and provide for adaptive reuse of existing structures. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) implements local and regional policy. Conclusion(s): The proposed privately initiated text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed privately initiated text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-01-10 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the SVMC. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. B. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan; GMA Policies 1. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Countywide Planning Policies 2. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through an intense and lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the countywide planning policies to maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-01-10 City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies 3. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. LUP-10.2 Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. b. LUG-12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. c. TG-8 adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. d. EDG-2 Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. C. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 1. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Light Industrial (I-1) zone and provide for adaptive reuse of existing structures. 2. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) is reflective of regional policy and implements internal plans. V. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CTA-01-10, a text amendment to Sections 19.70.010.8 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone. Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 Proposed Text Amendment CTA-01-10 Section 19.70.010.B 9. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores, consignment sales; a. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet(qsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. u) . _ 'C N o ((o • a) x N p RS ' -Fs a) E C d u) 0 S- co L = ti- Q� ^L L yvTs. _ •L Q. Q� w = p e- N M '[t' e1 N C) = 'a = w d d 0 V O o N 0 .� i • ZCD (15 x m P. = . N O .c i= E E 6 l: L to -i a cm _ '- _ o m � U 8 V w �� U 0o � U a- _ C4 . a. ow z 4533 Secondhand store, P P P P P P S SVMC consignment sales 19.70.010(B)(9) P Permitted Use A Accessory Only R Regional Siting T Temporary Permit S Conditions Apply • C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2-2-10 EXHIBIT 2 - o1 a CITY OF SPOKAN--'ALLEY I'—,or Staff Use Only) epDepartment �. 0Vailey CurrentCommunity PlannDingveloDivisionment DATE SUBMITTED: � Pa RECEIVED BY: 71 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 FILE NO./NAME: CTA -0 I-to Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Tel: (509) 921-1000 /00000x9 Fax: (509) 921-1008c r.-) CDr.,„ SOPA planning@spokanevallev•orq CURRENT PLANNING FEE: Ia ,..1C../0 ENGINEERING FEE: reD CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION -( �� °v �c NEp oPART I -APPLICATION N TYPE SPo -0/ kp1' t (Check One)M OOH , X Zoning Code Amendment 0 Subdivision Code Amendment 0 Other (List Code): PART II -APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: DWIGHT J HUME MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N MT.VIEW LANE CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99218 PHONE:(HOME) (WORK) (CELL) 435-3.108 SECTION(S)OF CODE TO BE AMENDED(GIVE CODE CITATIONS): SVMC 19.120.010 4533 SECONDHAND STORES CONSIGNMENT STORES SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENT(S): See Attached REASON(S)FOR REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENTS: SEE ATTACHED Rev 04/08 1 PART II —CODE AMENDMENT REQUEST Please either type or write the requested code amendment (s) below. For all code amendment proposals please underline proposed new language and strike out proposed revisions or deletions. Please use additional sheets of paper if necessary.) Amended language in bold. SVMC 19.120.010 Appendix LI L L 4533 Secondhand Store Consignment Store "S" � 1112-1P „8„ moi( �/MG� No consignment stores permitted 9 • Store must have frontage on and visibility from an arterial • Minimum gross square footage is 15000 gsf. Rev 04/08 2 1 Text Amendment Request Supplement Summary of Requested Code Amendment This request would allow larger secondhand stores to be located within the Light Industrial zone whereas they are not currently permitted.The use would have an"S"and the conditions would limit the possible location, size and type of secondhand store to ones that front along arterials;have a minimum of 15,000 gsf and does not allow "consignment"stores. Reasons for Requested Code.Amendment: 1) Larger secondhand stores process larger volumes of merchandise and typically export unusable inventory to other recycler's whereas,smaller stores discard unusable merchandise and donations without exporting to a recycler. 2) These larger volumes require both larger warehouse space for processing,more loading docks for shipping and receiving and more floor space for retail sales. 3) The cost of real estate in commercial zoned property is often 4 or 5 times more expensive and the retail price of goods must remain competitive with the smaller thrift store operators who do not need to lease or buy such large facility's. The exclusion of consignment stores is intended since such stores do not need the shipping and handling areas of a thrift store and can compete competitively from a commercial location. fr Qmou,1 cGt c� 1/�i/10 . PART III APPLICANT SIGNATURE I, _'_J 1r/ l7 1 4' , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESP NS A/`4 2 MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. •,../ / —DS=/0 (Sig re) (Date) NOTARY (For Part 1111 above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of_ ( )1/40.,{j , 20 k NOTARY SEAL O IGNATURE Notary Public(I). and fo the State of Washington \\``\\\""loll Residing at: `` FR i1j!i O C G u r\ M , ,t°4 „% 4- '�, MY appointment expires: \ . oT, 5U 'S , ti i i CD AI ., A /,iii n`U 34 h �Z '% i 1'd; WAS O\\1� '.: ,- : Rev 04/08 3 D HUM Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. NO. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509-435-3108 (V) 509-467-0229 (F) 12-31-09 Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Community Development Department E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: Text Amendment Request SVMC Chapter 19.120.010 Secondhand Stores Dear Greg: I am hereby submitting a requested amendment to the Zone Code to allow some secondhand stores within the Light Industrial zone. I choose the word "some" purposely, because I believe that there is a difference between secondhand stores and certainly between secondhand stores and consignment stores. Accordingly, I offer this amendment as one in which conditions apply to only allow those secondhand stores that are, by their nature of particular size and function to have many characteristics and needs of other light industrial uses. And it is because of this need for more space and more loading dock capabilities for shipping and handling, that the cost of commercial space renders this scale of operation non-competitive with its smaller counterparts in the market place. Will this amendment increase the availability of commercial retail space within the city?The simple and quick answer is no for the following reasons: a) It is a limited use of secondhand stores and above 15000 gsf; b) The use must be on and exposed to an arterial c) No other derivatives of this use classification are allowed Will this amendment set a precedent for other future retail amendments in this zone? The simple and quick answer to this is no because the proposed amendment attends to an intensity of use that truly has more characteristics and needs of other light industrial use in terms of size and shipping and receiving and processing requirements. That cannot be said of other retail commercial uses and should they exist, they must be amended and approved on their own merits and public scrutiny and if they too have merit, what difference does this make? I am available for any questions of staff as this is being considered for adoption. As you know, my client can meet these requirements and restrictions and has an urgent need to "set up shop" as soon as possible since the tenant's profits benefit so many other organizations and a facility such as this can improve their production levels for that purpose. Thank you for your assistance and coordination of this request. -spe ully su�ed, airy 'wigh J Hum- Land Use Planning Services Enclosure: Amendment Application, SEPA Checklist Application Fee en • KeKendall From: Dwight Hume[dhume@spokane-landuse.com] Sent: Tuesday,January 12,2010 8:12 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: CTA-01-10(Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Yes • Dwight) Hume Land Use Planning Services 9101 N.Mt.View Lane • Spokane,WA 99218-2140 509-435-3108(V) From: Karen Kendall [mailto:kkendall@spokanevalley.org] Sent:Tuesday,January 12,2010 7:23 AM To: Dwight Hume Subject: RE: CTA-01-10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Dwight, Thank you-For your response. To clarify. Item t in my email below;you are ok removing the criteria stating"No consignment stores permitted"? KAREN K.eNAALL Assistant Per,Covuvuum,it j DeveLopment Department city of.spolean.e • vaned 117Oy.East Sprague Avenue,suite sob spolecine vaLLT, WA99206 509.720.5026 direct 509_921.1008 fait wNw.spoleat evaLtey-ore Contents of this email.and amj repLJ are subject to public disclosure. From: Dwight Hume[mailto:dhume@spokane-landuse.com] Sent: Monday,January 11, 2010 12:02 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: CTA-01-10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Thank you Karen, I'm in agreement with the comments stated below. It is OK to use the full label of Secondhand stores and consignment sales and delete the phrase"visibility to and from an arterial". Dwight) Hume Land Use Planning Services 9101 N.Mt.View Lane Spokane,WA 99218-2140 509-435-3108(V) 1 From: Karen Kendall [maifto:kkendall@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Friday,January 08, 2010 11:21 AM To: Dwight Hume Subject: CTA-01-10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Dwight, Thank you for a little more than the 5 minutes you had to spare to speak with me today. I am following up with our discussion. For clarification purposes,please send me confirmation of your acknowledgement and/or agreement to the following. 1. We discussed the possibility of removing one proposed criteria from the text amendment,which is; "/\/o consignment stores permit-ted "As we talked,keeping this criteria would require additional changes to the Municipal Code not proposed in your text amendment. 5tafc feels the two remaining criteria would limit the number of secondhand and consignment stores and would not potentially open the doors for increased retail type uses. 2. We also discussed the second criteria Store must-have frontage on and visibility from an arterial."We discussed the possibility of removing"...and visibility from..."for the reason I mentioned of being too subject to clearly administer. I looked in the City's definitions and found keeping the proposed criteria., minus what's mentioned above,that"frontage"is defined clearly to meet the intent. 3. Lastly,I forgot to mention on the phone,buttust wanted clarification. The Schedule of Permitted Uses (19.120)states;"Secondhand store,consignment sales." I just want to make sure the title of the use is not being changed. I'll look forward to your discussion and responses to the above items. Lastly, I've listed below all the Planning Commission and City Council dates for the proposed amendment. 1. Planning Commission(PC)Study Session=January 28,2010 2. PC Public hearing= February 1 1,2010 3. Administrative Report to City Council(CC)=February 23,2010 1-. 1't Reading of Ordinance with CC=March 9,2.010 5. 2"8 Reading of Ordinance with CC=March 23,2010 KAREN KENDALL Assistant?Lanvier,Communitu Development Department citU of spolzane vaLLe j 1 Lyoo-East Sprague Avenue,suite io6 spazane va11e1j,WA 99206 509.y-20.502G direct 60-9921.1008 fax www.sp o lea vis va L i e u.o rg Contents of this email.and not.)repLu are subject b public disclosure. _ 2 EXHIBIT 3 ( - _: �._.....: an COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Spokane PLANNING DIVISION ®000Valley. 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 Fax:509.921.1008 planning@spokanevalley.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE File Number: CTA-01-10 Description of proposal: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial(L-1)zone. Proponent: Dwight J.Hume,9101 N.Mt.View Lane,Spokane,WA 99218 Location of proposal: N/A Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department,Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, 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 threshold determination is available to,the public upon request. DNS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) Responsible Official: Staff Contact: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner City of Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Department Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E.Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 PH: (509)720-5300/FX: (509)921-1008 PH: (509)720-5026/FX: (509) 921-1008 kmcclung@spokanevalley.org kkendall@spokanevalley.org Date issued: January 29,2010 Signature: (ULalA APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen(14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At the time of appeal submittal, required fees are due pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 11, 2010 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing El information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Review Session PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1st of the following year. Applications received prior to November 1st are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer. The Planning Commission will review the following Comprehensive Plan amendments and make a recommendation to City Council by the end of March. 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 one request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2010. The City initiated two site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The 2010 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. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 5, 2010 and each site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. Individual notice of the proposals was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each amendment. 1 of 2 SEPA REVIEW Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA RCW 43.21 C) environmental checklists were required for each proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Under SEPA, amendments to the comprehensive plan are considered "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the subject properties. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed amendments on February 5, 2010 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: To assist the Commission's review, staff has provided a table outlining the 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and an overview map identifying the site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment(s). STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Overview Map Exhibit 3: Copy of Power Point Presentation 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-01-10 Map NE corner of Park& Broadway (LDR to NC) CITY INITIATED COMPRENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-02-10 Map DOT Property- 45114.9009 (P/OS to 1-2) CPA-03-10 Map Crown West-45013.9104 &45013.9105 (C to 1-2) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-04-10 Text Chapter 2— Land Use: citizen survey update; Map 2.1 development agreement policies for site-specific map amendments; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-05-10 Text Chapter 3—Transportation: Incorporate Bike Master Map 3.1 Plan and bike facilities constructed in the 2009 Map 3.2 development cycle; update Arterial Street Plan to Map 3.7 (LASP) include Conklin and Indiana reclassifications; incorporate Local Access Street Plan; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-06-10 Text Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services: Map 4.2 update 6-year TIP; street improvement policies (street trees); LOS table; update Water Districts map; PAA evaluation; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-07-10 Map 7.1 Chapter 7— Economic Development: Update development activity; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-08-10 Text Chapter 8— Natural Environment: Map 8.6 Update Section 8.5.1 —Shoreline Management Areas and applicable goals and polices to reflect updated SMP; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; Updated: 11/01/09. P:\Community Development\06 Major Documents\Comp Plan\1 Comp Plan Amendments\2010 Comp Plan Amendments\A. Docket\2010 Amendment Docket.doc Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-01-10 Map NE corner of Park& Broadway (LDR to NC) CITY INITIATED COMPRENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-02-10 Map DOT Property-45114.9009 (P/OS to 1-2) CPA-03-10 Map Crown West- 45013.9104 &45013.9105 (C to 1-2) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-04-10 Text Chapter 2— Land Use: citizen survey update; Map 2.1 development agreement policies for site-specific map amendments; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-05-10 Text Chapter 3—Transportation: Incorporate Bike Master Map 3.1 Plan and bike facilities constructed in the 2009 Map 3.2 development cycle; update Arterial Street Plan to Map 3.7 (LASP) include Conklin and Indiana reclassifications; incorporate Local Access Street Plan; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-06-10 Text Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services: Map 4.2 update 6-year TIP; street improvement policies (street trees); LOS table; update Water Districts map; PAA evaluation; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-07-10 Map 7.1 Chapter 7— Economic Development: Update development activity; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; CPA-08-10 Text Chapter 8— Natural Environment: Map 8.6 Update Section 8.5.1 —Shoreline Management Areas and applicable goals and polices to reflect updated SMP; and implement policy language to supplement existing goals; Updated: 11/01/09. P:\Community Development\06 Major Documents\Comp Plan\1 Comp Plan Amendments\2010 Comp Plan Amendments'. Docket\2010 Amendment Docket.doc Proms. moi. 6f r 11� 2=00 �enr . �a►1�f� a ft F Exhibit 2 NM MIN ^ h� -4 2010 Comprehensive _ ranm 1 nreni�r ": t .,t W.�_e//. = 1 ; 1(- ii Plan Map Amendments 2� Webn6 �aU^yS�,n. 1 ,. ! r 1 aEl 1hiaE �� '-t 1 1 :Y �J 1 _ P Ile Wean I r:,± ' ' .,...,---";;;11 7m e. c I 1 �, 5 -pity of � �� ----1 !T' ; Ml ' CPA-03-10 Spokane ��\ ^ / �� Al�� F Legend ■;J_i �. ��. � naa^ Low Density Residential �r3IU I ��w��'I. 0 _ -0,,] L, c a m:. miz ra,.. C.•hne Hirer w — W 0 n 0 Millwood rr —„„i, OZ 1 : Medium Density Residential �c � � i �1iqE��, tin>s�' .'!` CPA= 0 IFINt`�„,i Ya _Id e9 . ''r \.; *„'"\�'\�� .. .- . or -High Density Residential ~Et •`�♦ ®. arc _ ��..�. '� J.. � . cF �� 0•,�\\ 11 Pm ....-: -In1 �� \ -N`,, PM �1 ne§ xed Use • i p \,�\�1.,. � 7L.. F Jr �� <. ^�• � .. .-_ �obt: V t -imur Corridor Mixed Use - \ � � j , ice, -ml MA II W Cit of `!CCPA-01-10 ir �m 1 f��i�i�i �� •sa'm berty , Office NW • ;\� 11111 k ? ._:. - �1 �,yy \ Lake -Ciry Center(to be determined) :11Pt4-111 II�).�m�a�1,111EIFIgr4 LEl �+ Pi -,..m m15.1.�? . n Public/Quasi-Pnblic I Mkt i � �imum ��Y�l.•j/: 1�ll•mwt.immov.aaf >ri. EMIlk ,.. {' '' g orhood Commercial ------ �• / ® iE. i iaNei hb..'is�•'_,.�� \'C.11..,q-.4 .. i ce \�mss.' sr EN Community Commercial .. ■■■elm" gra \ / / �.. ..�_N �,_—*".:�,u—_ \\\%~� �� :ne �� _..�,. � �;�,! `.�ti��/ a�w � `§ I a �r -Regional Commercial 3-}i!r_mu7.Wim. 'ZJd r♦ r t �— •PR IN Iley _ ,.��' 4th ate. i i� �� r iu■'�is� .'I \ lua■ liniM.MMal ISM m1= ;•■" G7 i iii `k '� c n 1 h 7 aR 11 N Light Industrial _ra_ �.�E'il■ tib•. .I+e 4) r-Y 1 EIVI1�tSal.y� 1_t tl_!I 9 �erl + T In. -Heavy Industrial r li_Illati7�y♦I ■ , ��'k. q � t IF 8_ .,' 1`� I.Park/Open Space €-� tea. lig 6 . . .. g 1 1, IP SD f•�E CItIa"" '� •�� `/ I t . .�.9 ��:1 ,+e_ 'JMM. II �� •, E y 1 `! I.V. =, .a.■w1= [+�� 0,� �� _ ; O Other Municipalities _■�_ , • IBIh' 1 1.. r ® ; p 111�s�yw!uu�� 1__• i -"- - Spokane Valley - - . I C • o _ _d�u flaw It► �`��`�tl� �a o`Ii� �sS... 1 I b P '__Lauri' mil 1h1""c a _ a_ , - ' M1^y `� - C�� N' ,��€�11 r milk �"" ,. 1---i UrbanGrowthArea '� - -1nin1 - V III5 rnus h �a10r 6I gWater Bodies istIST ssm qPart .I"au. ��_�6 rii., b. 1 1 1 S lTlh Sip Sd9 � _, `SY T .U.1 Ze.,r, X 6 1� _r.■r■lR�7�ll• s_al!_i WW1 , r "§• 1 MapLocation IF • lin 32nd d ....,• vrilir ; rE,lih 161.tIn na lo i_iir,.LYYI ® onddn P. 1Ill* 111 1 Tr'At3+ 391 9 ew��©( ? Wrvordl� 3 / Dale:01/26/2010 P a r■ z J 1IVr ' dl. � :1.111,d'-& 1� 4,,",". a. adS•k'1'rICA• 9lr -"d 41 Alit �1 caul -aiml]V M r as a °1n o Wiley artriA 0,..,,~ Con i 1 -�I'a' lLe#1; �'- - __-_ neon,.y ((,/, a a 0 0.5 1 2 Miles �(f $ 1 1 1♦ W. y�:yrtA "i_'L 4, I I I 1 1 I I I I 61/4 �� i'• ,-,., gEQye1^rta1 ---I� y�^A i''r-r a '1 Nnnre:]hoinfn+nnlionshoxnrmthlsmnpiuromplled(nunsrerrn(e 4. .:uy P ked' au AA.. .qu,ree rord is.nlalecl to eorafmtrevnion.The Cln•makernn chums .If � ♦ _ Arob.+l` `F nr gnarrndeer cutout enxvlvq•oe currency oflhin mmp mJ Plea`"♦ n. Ha„e t --_♦ ,.'i rrprrsrtyrhsclomsllohtllryfor erron andnrnrsnnnr Inns contents. `� "+near '1'u confirm accuracy roman the City of�S/w1:me Valley,Cmnmumq, `E 40' r,„d"`•^e„ ♦ - ilk ill It-di - 6n i'� Ikn•lopmrlsll)e(urrtmenl.Dh•(shon p(!'lromitryd.(509)921-1000 w Il.lkvAll remind of IIIc 1]IT^r'Jpk^nr Volley.(bmn■dh Development IkNrtnleM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. Privately initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19; 1. Chapter 19.70.010.B.9 — Add language pertaining to the allowance of secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone; and 2. Chapter 19.120 — Conditionally allow secondhand stores and contig 9 At sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone to the schedule of permitted uses (app ). Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP-10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. 2. Goal LUG-12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. 3. Goal TG-8: Adapt street and movemenadway tresolve n aafficiconflicts,es to manage nd compliment' land and, address the need for freight use and urban features. 4. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 2 Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACHMENT B { city of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The use is limited to major secondhand operators in 15K or larger buildings with frontage on an arterial and without the option of a consignment store. This will limit the use to similar light industrial activities of shipping and receiving and retail of incidental products. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are Limit the use to users of 15K or larger use and only with frontage along arterials. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It shouldn't increase demand as it is within existing buildings of light industrial activity or proximity of the same. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: the limitations proposed under"S" of the amendment. 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Unknown. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: /--/J S—/U Signature: A„1,110 Please print or type: Proponent: Dmv/ �G gni`°— / J ,/ _.tet_ Z Address: `�//> /1� Phone: •Y3,5--- 3/0g Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: - Address: Page 14 of 15 Effective October 28,2007 http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community—Development/ o 10 nts/F rms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This use would not involve manufatoring or assembly typical too the other allowed uses of the LI zone. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life?No a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?The use is less intense or demanding of resources than other allowed uses and activities of the LI zone. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? NA a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None Effective October 28,2007 Page 13 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15) Public services NA qtPC a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16) Utilities NA 1P2-0/M a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other-describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 4.10P / Signature; art��" Date Submitted: l 5 -7G D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Page 12 of 15 Effective October 28,2007 • http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_ Developme t/o 1 .do encs/ s/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13). Historic and cultural preservation NA a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or '�1 1`2(9!!-° local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to bp.on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14). Transportation NA �� a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed 1 access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 11-t- jiø/;b b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Effective October 28,2007Page 11 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.orgluploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10). Aesthetics NA non-project text amendment a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including I Ira antennas; antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11). Light and glare NA non-project text amendment a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of t�Z�d�� day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project.be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12) Recreation NA non-project text amendment PiN a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the I ��j immediate vicinity? erb b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Effective October 28,2007 - Page 10 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: • 9) Housing NA non-project text amendment a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether NA) high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate Effective October 28,2007 Page 9 of 15 http:/lwww.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forams/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc 4 � City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health NA non-project text amendment Pc• a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic '1 Iii/40 chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term Or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8). Land and shoreline use NA qt\- 1120110 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Effective October 28,2007 Page 8 of 15 httpJ/www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/F6rms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT ❑ evergreen tree: fir,cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5) Animals NA non-project text amendment OP. tv-1/7,100 a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle,songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6). Energy and natural resources NA non-project text amendment 4 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be Effective October 28,2007 Page 7 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.org!uploads/Community Development/Documents/Forms/Current_Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT of discharge. b. Ground: 1 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground �2 1�2�� water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: • 4) Plants NA non-project text amendment , r r7 !o a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ID deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Effective October 28,2007 Page 6 of 15 • http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 1 0-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3) Water NA non-project text amendment a. Surface: pc 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site !lO (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, 4 wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume Effective October 28,2007 Page 5 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only bre-P`' +0-t2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 14- by-rd 1) Earth (NA non-project text amendment) a. General description of the site(check one): ❑flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, -7 I b , ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other e''e.� b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? tav;Afte,::4 Yrb. 61-e) ek c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, i • gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2) Air Effective October 28,2007 Page 4 of 15 http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA)/Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of(including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NA 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? NA 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. NA 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NA b. Stormwater • 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock(if known)? NA 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. NA Effective October 28,2007 Page 3 of 1'S http://www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc �'...... City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. Agency requesting checklist: Community Development Department—Current Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Immediate upon approval by Council 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity relatedto or connected with this proposal? NA If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. NA non project text amendment 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Major secondhand store seeks location in LI zone 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. NA 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)Non project text amendment to allow secondhand stores of 15000 gsf or larger in LI zone. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. NA 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The General Sewer Service Area? The Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). NA non-project amendment Effective October 28,2007 Page 2 of 15 http:/lwww.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community_Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc • • City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT RECEIVED City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist �t � 0 t WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. COMMU7 SPOKANE V,4LLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST UEPAR7'MENT OF NITY DE1iELOPME�r Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non project proposals: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and "affected geographic area,"respectively. Note to user this is an electronic form and each dray box can be filled out on your computer. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Text amendment to SMC Chapter 19 2. Name of applicant: Dwight J Hume 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane WA 99218 435-3108 4. Date checklist prepared: December 30, 2009 Effective October 28,2007 Page 1 of 15 httpJ/www.spokanevalley.org/uploads/Community Development/Documents/Forms/Current Planning/Appendix 21-A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10-28-07.doc r N/A-No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION N/A-No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES N/A-No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES N/A-No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS 1. AIR The SEPA Checklist states that there will be no emissions into the air. No concerns noted. 2. Noise The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal would not result in more noise on site from lifestyle activities and traffic. No concerns noted. 3. WATER The SEPA Checklist does not comment on increased discharge to water. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS&ANIMALS The SEPA Checklist states that the effects on plants and animals in unknown. No concerns noted. 5. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal when implemented would be subject to concurrency and critical area requirements for development and services. No concerns noted. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREAS The SEPA Checklist states that if these elements were on a developable site,then development would. adhere to applicable standards protecting critical areas. No concerns noted. 7. SHORELINE AND LAND USES Development within shoreline areas would require conformance with existing shoreline regulations. No concerns noted. 8. TRANSPORTATION&PUBLIC SERVICES The SEPA checklist states that transportation impacts on a developable site would be reviewed at a project specific SEPA review. No concerns noted. 9. Does the proposal conflict with local,state,or federal laws requirements for protection of the environment? The SEPA checklist states that there are no known conflicts. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) File No.CTA-01-10 Page 3 of 3 REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA(CAIRA)l AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA(ASA) The entire corporate limits lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA). This is a non project proposal and will have no impact on the ASA. Staff notes stormwater issues are reviewed and addressed through the City's adopted 2007 Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Italics indicate potential mitigation measures, if any. Bold indicates unresolved issues or additional information that must be addressed by the applicant prior to final approval,as indicated. 1. EARTH N/A—No concerns noted. 2. APR N/A-No concerns noted. 3. WATER N/A-No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS N/A-No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS N/A-No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES N/A-No concerns noted. 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS N/A-No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE N/A-No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES N/A-No concerns noted. 9. HOUSING N/A-No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS N/A-No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE N/A-No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION N/A-No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) File No.CTA-01-10 Page 2 of 3 SpoitaPane Walley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106;Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 1 Fax:509.921.1008♦ planning@n,spokanevallev.org LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL C H b,CKLIST REVIEW DATE: January 29,2010 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER: CTA-01-10 2. DESCRIPTION: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial(L-1)zone. 3. PROPERTY Dwight J.Hume, 9101 N.Mt.View Lane,Spokane,WA 99218 OWNER/APPLICANT: 4. LOCATION: Not applicable,this is a non-project action City of Spokane Valley • Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of 3 File No.CTA-01-10 AGENCY RouTING OF CTA-01-10 DNS: 1. City of Liberty Lake, Community Development 2. City of Spokane,Planning Services 3. Spokane County, Boundary Review Board 4. Spokane County,Building and Planning 5. Spokane County,Division of Utilities-Information Services 6. Spokane County, Clean Air Agency 7. Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 • 8. Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 9. Spokane County,Regional Health District 10. Spokane Transit Authority(STA) 11. Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) 12.Washington State Department of Ecology(Olympia) 13. Washington State Department of Ecology(Spokane) January 29,2010 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) CTA-01-10 Page 2 of 2