Loading...
Agenda 05/22/2008 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS-CITY HALL 11707 E. SPRAGUE AVENUE MAY 22, 2008 6:00 To 9:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS-CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING-CPA-03-08, APPENDIX 19-A, MAP 2.2 POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS NEW BUSINESS- PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, CPA 07-08, CPA 08-08 DELIBERATIONS OF THE SUBAREA PLAN-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, GATEWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND CENTERS, CITY CENTER,ZONE DISTRICT CHARTS, SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (BUILDING USE) X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT .PFc$Y4.w'.,p.4w't (';ara-.•Wi.-',n,t...w:'3n'i%r'+i.i4 F+a[t..'wr'i51RP.yLFu1..;ass.-..w- Y.^.iYLCi N✓l�cWd..✓:r:' -.IM.moi' :.Ki+TY.-.HfX'.wR=§.9�APl.w.t'D?+RJ_'.}4-..».. !'-.i14 COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF IAN ROBERTSON, CHAIR KATHY MCCLUNG, CD DIRECTOR FRED BEAULAC, VICE-CHAIR GREG MCCORMICK, PLANNING MGR, AICP JOHN G. CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA, LONG RANGE PLANNER, AICP CRAIG EGGLESTON MIKE BASINGER, SENIOR PLANNER, AICP GAIL KOGLE CARY DRISKELL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH, ADMIN ART SHARPE VVWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG City of Spokane Valley Request for Planning Commission Review DATE: May 22,2008 TYPE: ❑ Consent ® Old Business n New Business ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Legislation ❑ Information ❑ Administrative Report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Planning Commission Summary of Previous Actions and Adoption of Findings of Fact. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: Public hearing on May 8,2008 BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan provides for an annual amendment process. The Community Development Department received eight requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2008. City staff also initiated a number of Comprehensive Plan text amendments. Amendments are proposed to Chapter 1 —Introduction; Chapter 2—Land Use; Chapter 3 —Transportation; Chapter 5—Housing; Chapter 7—Economic Development; Chapter 8 —Natural Environment and Chapter 9—Parks,Recreation and the Arts. On May 8, 2008,the Planning Commission reviewed CPA-01-08 thru CPA-06-08. Further research was requested on CPA-03-08 (See attached memorandum). The Planning Commission also deliberated on the proposed staff initiated text amendments. The Planning Commission's recommendations on CPA-01-08 thru CPA-06-08 are summarized below: File No. CPA-01-08: Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R-3)and Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Medium Density Multi- family Residential District(MF-1)on approximately 2.07 acres of land. Applicant: Greg Arger,300 North Mullen Road, Suite 204, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Amendment Location: South of Mission Avenue on Maurer Road at 1204 North Mamer Road and 1112 North Mamer Road;specifically located in the NE'/4 of Section 15,Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number(s)45151.0926 and 45151.1216, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Recommendation: Change to Medium Density Residential and zone MF-1 File No. CPA-02-08: Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use;corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential Suburban District(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use District(CMU)on approximately.23 acres of land. Page 1 of 3 Applicant: Joe Stoy, do Baker Construction,2711 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane,WA 99202 Amendment Location: North of Trent Avenue(SR290)at 8124 East Carlisle Avenue; specifically located in the NW% of Section 7,Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number 45072.7003, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Recommendation: Change to Corridor Mixed Use and zone CMU File No. CPA-03-08: Further research was requested Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R- 3)and Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Garden Office(GO)on approximately 3.1 acres of land. Applicant: Dennis Raugust,do Boulder Creek,Inc., 19012 Nevada Road,Spangle,WA 99033 Amendment Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of Marguerite Road and Alki Avenue addressed as 8902 East Alki Avenue,420 North Marguerite Road, 500 North Marguerite Road,508 North Marguerite Road and 510 North Marguerite Road; specifically located in the SE'A of Section 18, Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number(s)45184.0804,45184.0805,45184.0807, 45184.0819 and 45184.0820, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Recommendation: No recommendation File No. CPA-04-08 Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Corridor Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential; corresponding zoning map amendment from Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) to Multi-family Medium Density Residential District(MF-1)on approximately 3.0 acres of land. Applicant: Stephen H.Ford&Victor N. Cooper Amendment Location: The proposal is located south of Sprague Avenue on Tschirley Street at 120 S. Tschirley, 106 S.Tschirley and parcel to the north of 106 S. Tschirley; specifically located in the NW 1/4 of Section 19,Township 25 North,Range 45 EWM;parcel numbers 55192.9029,55192.9051,and 55191.9052, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Recommendation: Change to Medium Density Residential and zone MF-1 File No. CPA-05-08 Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential Dist'let(R- 3)to Garden Office(GO)on approximately 1.56 acres of land. Applicant: TNJ on Broadway,LLC Amendment Location: The proposal is located between Cataldo and Broadway Avenues east of Pines at 11901 E.Broadway Ave; specifically located in the NE 1/4 of Section 16,Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number 45161.1171, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Recommendation: Change to Office and zone GO File No. CPA-06-08 Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R- 3)to Garden Office(GO)on approximately 4.82 acres of land. Applicant: Nick Abariotes Amendment Location: The proposal is located between Cataldo and Broadway Avenues east of Pines at 11813 E.Broadway Ave; specifically located in the NE'A of Section 16,Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number 45161.1127, Spokane Valley,Washington. PC Reco.i i mendation: Change to Office and zone GO Page 2 of 3 Orm 40.11111/11%4111111111Z:„ politane .00,0Valley 11707E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ® Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000® Fax: 509.921.1008 ® cityhall@spokanevalley.org ________ _ _ ________ . _ __ _ _ _ Memorandum To: Spokane Valley Planning Commission From: Greg McCormick, AICP— Planning Division Manager Date: May 14, 2008 Re: CPA-03-08 On May 8, 2008 the Planning Commission elected to continue the public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment File# CPA-03-08 to May 22, 2008. Discussion occurred during the hearing regarding the proper zoning which would accommodate the applicant's intent of building an elderly housing facility. The application states the requested zoning as Garden Office (GO). The submitted environmental checklist describes a proposed 80-unit residential facility for the elderly. The written narrative attached to the application mentions the proposed facility for elderly persons and the desire to obtain the Garden Office (GO) zoning as it allows senior citizen housing. This use would also act as a transition from the existing office uses along the Argonne corridor and the single family residences to the west. This information has been discussed with the City Attorney, Mike Connelly. It is Mr. Connelly's opinion that consideration of the Medium Density Residential comprehensive plan designation and Medium Density Multifamily Residential District (MF-1) zone is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission due to the following factors: 1. The application clearly indicates the requested comprehensive plan and zoning designations; 2. All notification indicated the Office comprehensive plan designation and Garden Office zoning district for purposes of the public hearing; 3. Staff's opinion is that development under the multi family designation would potentially have greater impacts to the surrounding residential area and would not have recommended approval of such a proposal; and 4. The intent of the comprehensive plan for the Mullan/Argonne Corridor is to develop primarily office uses. In an effort to minimize non-conforming situations, areas designated multi family in this area is primarily existing multi family developments. Moreover, Mr. Connelly has indicated that if the applicant desires to pursue the multi family comprehensive plan designation and zoning district, the proposal would have to apply for the 2009 cycle. File No. CPA-08-08 Scheduled for hearing on May 22,2008 File No. CPA-08-08 Scheduled for hearing on May 22,2008 File No. CPA-09-08 thru CPA-15-08 Planning Commission concurred with staff recommendations on Chapter 1 —Introduction; Chapter 2—Land Use; Chapter 3 —Transportation; Chapter 5—Housing; Chapter 7—Economic Development; Chapter 8—Natural Environment and Chapter 9—Parks,Recreation and the Arts. Staff added Map 2.2 indicating potential annexation areas (PAAs) for the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8,2008,to consider the proposed amendments. After hearing public testimony,the Commission made recommendations on five of the privately initiated map amendments and all of the staff initiated text amendments. The Commission continued the public hearing for CPA-03-08 to May 22, 2008. Due to a noticing error, CPA-07-08 and CPA-08-08 will be heard on May 22,2008 to ensure consistency with Title 17.80.120B. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150)when recommending changes to the comprehensive plan. Each staff report contains findings applicable that particular request. At the conclusion of the hearing for the comprehensive amendments the Planning Commission should,by separate motion, adopt the findings of fact. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum regarding CPA-03-08 Map 2.2 Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) Revised Permitted Use Matrix (single family and duplex dwellings) STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner • Page 3 of 3 a) .�' �) - w 0 Schedule of o LI o _ LL Permitted Uses U0 a; g .2 m ' t u •� c Reference Conditions e 2 , N V v Appendix 19-A . 0 0 a) m s E E E o E E °1 w NI LL < Q x f�0 O , •N O O •C)O O O e- N ii & & LL ix m m z z 0 U co O Z V U ) CLI..) — + o 81 814 Dwelling,accessory apartments SVMC 19.40.100 81 814 Dwelling,Caretaker's residence SVMC 19.60.060(1) • • 72 7213 Dwelling,Congregate 0 to 0 • 0 • • • • 81 814 Dwelling, Duplex • 5 • 81 814 Dwelling,Multifamily 0 to it ° SVMC 19.60.020(2) • • • 5 • • 81 814 Dwelling,single family 4, SVMC 19.60.020(2) • • • 81 814 Dwelling,Townhouse 5 0 0 • Community Development Department cm.� � � Planning Division Spokane 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 —/� Phone: 509.688.0036 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Fax: 509.688.0037 WAC 197-11-965 and Title 21, Environmental Controls ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Description of original proposal: The City of Spokane Valley proposes to adopt a Subarea Plan for the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard corridor. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes the adoption of Subarea Plans that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Description of addendum: This addendum incorporates the final transportation report that updates the transportation analysis of the circulation alternatives by using the updated 2030 regional traffic model. The Environmental Summary Fact Sheet, Project Description, and Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts sections that relate to transportation have been modified to include the current traffic analysis. The attachment indicates modifications in bold text. Proponent: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Location of proposal: The Plan Area begins at the I-90/Sprague interchange on the west and ends approximately 1/4 mile to the east of Sullivan Road along the Sprague and Appleway corridor. Title of document being supplemented: Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Agency that prepared document being supplemented: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. Date supplemental document was prepared: January 18, 2008 Comment Period: Comments on this Addendum will be accepted until June 4, 2008. If document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: N/A The document is available to be read at: Spokane Valley City Hall, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 The City of Spokane Valley has filed an addendum to the existing Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard Corridor Sub Area Plan. The original document was issued on January 18,2008. This addendum is being distributed pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 197-11-625. It has been determined that this new information does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts in the existing environmental document. Name of agency adopting document: City of Spokane Valley Contact person (If Other Than Responsible Official): Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Phone: (509)688-0049 Responsible Official: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Phone: (509)688-0030 Address: 11707 EAST SPRAGUE, SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99206 DATE ISSUED: May 20, 2008 SIGNATURE: M ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) (Addendum Issued May 20, 2008) Fact Sheet Proposed Action: The City of Spokane Valley proposes to adopt a Subarea Plan for the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard corridor. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes the adoption of Subarea Plans that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Subarea Plan includes the following elements: Book 1 - Community Intent: Sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the plan intends to orchestrate as new investment creates change. A strategy for revitalization is articulated in the form of strategic action priorities. Book 2- Development Regulations: This book will govern all future private actions in the Plan Area. These standards and guidelines will be used to evaluate private development projects or improvement plans proposed for properties with the Plan Area. These regulations will apply only to property within the plan area. Book 3— City Actions: The revitalization of the Plan Area and the development of a City Center will be a program of actions and investments in capital improvements. The prioritization of City Actions will be guided by the goals and strategies outlined in Book I. Book 3 also describes recommended circulation and streetscape improvements for Sprague and Appleway. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan will be adopted as part of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (SVCP). The land use pattern proposed in the Draft Subarea Plan further refines the adopted land use map for the corridor. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) analyses two alternative land use scenarios and four alternative street configurations for Sprague and Appleway in relation to the proposed land use pattern. The City of Spokane Valley adopted a Comprehensive Plan (SVCP) complying with the Growth Management (GMA) in 2006. Draft and Final EIS's for the SVCP were published in 1 2005. This EIS supplements the Comprehensive Plan EIS and it focuses on probable significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the Subarea Plan. Location: The Plan Area begins at the I-90/Sprague interchange on the west and ends approximately 1/4 mile to the east of Sullivan Road along the Sprague and Appleway corridor. Alternatives: The land use pattern of"Centers and Segments" proposed in the Draft Subarea Plan is a refinement of the SVCP land use map adopted on April 25, 2006. The adopted land use map envisions retail centers at major crossroads, such as Argonne, Pines, McDonald and Sullivan at Sprague and a mix of uses between the centers. The SVCP also supports creating an identifiable City Center that serves as the social, cultural and economic focus of the City. This DSEIS analyzes two alternative land use scenarios, including the No Action alternative (or the adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan) and the Centers and Segments land use plan proposed in the Subarea Plan. Four transportation alternatives are also evaluated in the Subarea Plan and are described as: No Build: Preserves street configurations as they exist today with an improved eastbound cross-over from Appleway to Sprague at University Avenue. Appleway Boulevard would not be extended and the existing couplet system would remain one-way from 1-90 to University. Extend One-way Couplet: This alternative extends the one- way couplet system eastbound to the City boundary from its current terminus at University. Appleway would be extended east past Sullivan Road as a four-lane, one-way eastbound street. Sprague Avenue would be converted to five westbound lanes east of University. Hybrid Couplet/Two-Way: This alternative preserves a one- way couplet in the section between the 1-90 interchange and Dishman-Mica. East of Dishman-Mica, both Sprague and Appleway would be converted to two-way streets; Sprague would be five lanes and Appleway would be three lanes. Two-Way Streets with Roundabout: In this alternative, the existing one-way segment between the 1-90 interchange and University Road is converted into a two-way system and Appleway is extended east from University as a two-way street. A roundabout would be constructed at the 1-90 interchange. 2 A summary of the updated transportation analysis is found on pages 19 and 20 of this document. SEPA/GMA This DSEIS integrates the environmental analysis required Integration: by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with the Draft Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, pursuant to authorization in the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-210, 220, 228, 230, 232 and 235). Document Being This document supplements the Draft and Final SEIS's Supplemented: prepared for the adoption of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, (published on May 19, 2005 and November 4, 2005 respectively). Action Sponsor & City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Department Lead Agency: 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Ste 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Responsible Official: Kathy McClung, Director, Department of Community Development DSEIS Contact: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Senior Planner(509) 688-0049 Required Approvals: Adoption of the Subarea Plan by the Spokane Valley City Council. Principal Authors & City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Dept. Contributors: 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Location of City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Dept. Background Data: 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Date of Issuance: January 18, 2008 Comments Due: March 3, 2008 (comments on the Addendum are due June 4, 2008) Public Hearings on Proposal: To be announced. Cost of Document: Cost of reproduction. 3 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. Proposed Action and Location The action proposed by the City of Spokane Valley is adoption of a Subarea Plan as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, in conformance with the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The Subarea Plan includes three elements, or books, including: Book 1 - Community Intent Sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the plan intends to orchestrate as new investment creates change. A strategy for revitalization is articulated in the form of strategic action priorities. Book 2-Development Regulations: This book will govern all future private actions in the Plan Area. These standards and guidelines will be used to evaluate private development projects or improvement plans proposed for properties with the Plan Area. These regulations will apply only to property within the plan area. Book 3— City Actions: The revitalization of the Plan Area and the development of a City Center will be a program of actions and investments in capital improvements. The prioritization of City Actions will be guided by the goals and strategies outlined in Book I. Book 3 also describes recommended street and streetscape improvements for Sprague and Appleway. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan will be adopted as part of the SVCP. The land use pattern proposed in the Draft Subarea Plan further refines the adopted land use map for the corridor. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) analyses two land use alternatives, including No Action (current Comprehensive Plan and zoning) and 4 alternative street configurations for Sprague and Appleway in relation to the proposed land use pattern. B. Location of Planning Area The Plan Area refers to all private and public properties fronting, and located in between, the Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard rights-of-way, extending west from the Interstate 90 interchange to Conklin Road. The Plan Area generally lies between Main Avenue and Riverside to the north and 4th Avenue to the south. C. Planning Process While the development of the Subarea Plan is a local process, it is also occurring within a framework of state laws and regional policies, including the Countywide Planning Policies. The City's plan and regulations must be consistent with these policies, as well as the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Subarea Plan process included opportunities for early and continuous public participation, as required by the GMA and the Cities public participation guidelines. A summary of the public workshops is located in the Subarea Plan under Appendix C. 4 D. SEPA/GMA Integration The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-210 through 197-11-235 authorizes and provides guidance to jurisdictions planning under GMA to integrate the requirements of SEPA in the GMA planning process. The WAC encourages SEPA/GMA integration at the early stages of plan development (WAC 197-11- 229(c)). This DSEIS supplements the City of Spokane Valley's Draft and Final SEIS prepared for the adoption of the SVCP and adopts and/or incorporates by reference relevant environmental information contained in these prior documents prepared in connection with previous GMA actions. It contains new information and analysis regarding alternatives, impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed action. The DSEIS must be prepared in the same way as a Draft and Final EIS, except that scoping is optional (WAC 197-11-620). The City will not conduct a scoping process as a part of this DSEIS. Rather, the scope of environmental review is limited to the two land use alternatives and four transportation alternatives evaluated during the Subarea Plan process. The environmental review is based on an assessment of probable significant adverse impacts that may result from the proposal, to the extent that they have not been addressed in prior environmental documents. E. Planned Action The City of Spokane Valley is considering designating the City Center portion of the Subarea Plan as a "planned action" pursuant to the State Ef ivil ut ii t lei Foiiuy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules (RCW 43.21 C.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164). Planned actions are project (development) proposals located within a designated portion of the City. Qualifying projects include those that implement a Comprehensive Plan or Subarea Plan and whose probable significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared for the subarea. To designate a planned action, a city must adopt an ordinance or resolution that describes the types of projects to which the planned action applies and how the planned action meets the criteria in the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-168). It must also specifically find that the environmental impacts of the planned action have been identified and adequately addressed in the SEIS. It should identify any specific mitigation measures that must be applied for a project to qualify as a planned action. The ordinance may specify a time period that will apply to the planned action. When an implementing project is proposed, the City must follow the review procedures set forth in the SEPA Rules. It must first verify that the proposal is the type of project contemplated in the planned action ordinance and that it is consistent with the applicable Subarea plan. It must determine that the probable impacts have been adequately addressed in the planned action SEIS and that it contains any applicable conditions or mitigation measures, if probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not adequately addressed in the planned action SETS or if the proposed project does not qualify as a planned action. 5 F. Prior Planning and Environmental Review Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. The City of Spokane Valley adopted its first Comprehensive Plan on April 25, 2006. This DSEIS supplements the Draft and Final SEIS's prepared for the adoption of the SVCP (published on May 19, 2005 and November 4, 2005 respectively). These documents are herein adopted by reference. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the City's incorporation on March 31, 2003, the project area was under the jurisdiction of Spokane County. Spokane County conducted a Draft and Final SEIS to support the adoption of their Comprehensive Plan in 2000 and 2001. The adopted land use plan for the Sprague corridor was similar to the one proposed under the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan as the County's plan identified mixed-use centers at major intersections. The U-City area was identified by the County as an Urban Activity Center where an intense mix of commercial, office and residential uses were encouraged to locate. G. Land Use Alternatives The Draft and Final SEIS prepared for the adoption of the SVCP included an analysis of 3 land uses scenarios, including No Action, Urban Activity Center and City Center alternatives. This DSEIS evaluates two land use alternatives, including the No Action and Subarea Plan alternatives. The No Action alternative is the current SVCP and regulations. The Subarea Plan alternative proposed in the Draft Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan further refines the land use plan adopted in the SVCP. The alternatives are described in detail below. 1. No Action Alternative (Current SVCP): This alternative utilizes existing conditions in terms of land use and zoning as its basis. The adoption of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (SVCP) and subsequent zoning map begins to transform Sprague Avenue from a commercial strip into a land use pattern of commercial centers at major intersections with mixed use segments in between the centers. The SVCP discusses locating a City Center along the Sprague Corridor and includes policies to support the Auto Row area at the west end of the Plan Area. The City's adopted zoning map includes Community Commercial zoning at major intersections along the corridor and Corridor Mixed Use zoning for property in between the centers. The auto row area is zoned Regional Commercial, recognizing the regional draw of the auto dealers. The south side of Appleway Boulevard is zoned for retail, office and multifamily residential uses between the 1-90 interchange and Dishman-Mica. East of Dishman-Micah zoning along the south side of Appleway is largely multifamily residential with some Corridor Mixed Use zoning between Dishman-Mica and Pierce Road. The north side frontage of Appleway includes Community Commercial and Corridor Mixed Use zoning. 2. Subarea Plan Alternative: The proposed centers and segments land use scenario refines the adopted land use and zoning maps of Spokane Valley. 6 The envisioned future corridor will transform from a commercial strip to a pattern of distinct centers and segments, described as follows. a. City Center: The proposed land use concept identifies a City Center District at the intersection of University and Sprague. The City Center includes a Core that will offer community services as well as commercial goods and services that cater to the entire City in lively pedestrian friendly environment. The City Center Core will include a main street with ground floor retail, upper floor residential and office, civic buildings and public open space. The surrounding City Center Neighborhood will encourage a wide range of housing types, offices and lodging, all within walking distance of the City Center Core. b. Neighborhood Centers: The Subarea Plan identifies Neighborhood Centers at the major corridor intersections. These centers evenly distribute neighborhood-serving convenience uses, such as grocery stores, and will encourage an urban and pedestrian environment. c. Mixed Use Avenue: In between the centers, Sprague Avenue is proposed as a Mixed Use Avenue. Similar to the current zoning designation of Corridor Mixed Use, the proposed Mixed Use Avenue designation will allow a mix of residential, office and medium box retail stores. d. Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Centers: The west end of the Plan Area is proposed to change from Regional Commercial to Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Centers. The Gateway Commercial Avenue is a specialty segment that supports the region's premier destination for automobile sales and supportive services. The Gateway Commercial Centers are located at selected intersections and will appropriate locations for shops and restaurants that provide service to the auto row area. e. Appleway— Residential Boulevard: Both the north and south frontage of Appleway Boulevard will include a mix of high density residential and office uses, with an allowance for corner store retail shops. Appleway will be extended east of University as a "Grand Boulevard", lined with trees, decorative lighting and pedestrian amenities. A separated multi-use path will be constructed with the potential to be converted to high capacity transit in the future. f. Development Regulations - Form Based Code: The Subarea Plan proposes new, form based regulations for the Sprague and Appleway corridor. Form based codes control the physical aspects of new development, such as building placement, facades and massing with a lesser focus on the actual use of the buildings. The intent is to create a more predictable, compatible urban form as the corridor is redeveloped. 7 H. Comparison of Land Use Alternatives Comparing the land use alternatives is best accomplished by examining how the two alternatives might instigate positive change along the corridor. 1. City Center. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Map (No Action Alternative) does not identify the specific location of the City Center. However, the SVCP includes Goals and Polices that support the creation of a City Center (see Goal LUG-6 and LUG-7). The Subarea Plan implements the SVCP goals and policies by identifying a location and initial boundary for the City Center in the vicinity of University and Sprague. The Subarea Plan also establishes a regulatory framework that implements all City Center related policies included in the SVCP. A City Center will not likely be built if the City takes the No Action alternative. 2. Sprague Avenue. Under either alternative, Sprague Avenue will likely take many years to transform from strip retail to a mixed-use avenue. The corridor is very long, with thousands of acres of underutilized land and vacant buildings. Market factors, public investment and regulations will dictate the length of time it takes to transform the corridor. The most significant difference between the alternatives is found in the development regulations. The Subarea Plan proposes new regulations that focus on building form, placement and architectural standards, while existing zoning under the No Action alternative is the same use-based zoning that has regulated land use in Spokane Valley area since the first zoning code was adopted. While the mixed use vision for Sprague Avenue is similar under both alternatives, it is less likely to occur under the No Action alternative. Under current zoning, any type of building can be constructed along Sprague, making it very unattractive to office and residential development. The development regulations proposed in the Subarea Plan allow a mix of uses along Sprague, but requires compatible building types. Regulations that control the form and design of buildings are critical to achieving the mixed use vision. 3. Appleway Boulevard Under the No Action alternative the north side of Appleway would allow retail uses while the Centers and Segments alternative calls for both the north and south sides of Appleway to be developed with residential and office uses. 4. Auto-Row The auto row area lies between the I-90/Sprague Avenue interchange and Dishman-Mica Road. The SVCP recognizes the importance of the new automobile dealerships that are located within the auto-row area. The SVCP discusses adopting an "auto-row overlay" zone that would include special regulations that apply only to new auto dealers. 8 The Subarea Plan designates the auto-row area as "Gateway Commercial" which includes customized regulations that will allow the area to maintain its position as the region's top new auto sales area. For example, the Gateway Commercial area will allow used car sales only if the dealer primarily sells new cars. 5. Development Regulations The most significant differences between the No Action and the Subarea Plan alternatives are in the development regulations. Under the No Action alternative, the current zoning regulations would continue to regulate property in the same fashion as in the past 30-40 years by focusing on the use of property rather than form and design. Current zoning regulations will not instigate change; rather, they reinforce the development patterns that contributed to the economic decline of the corridor. To the contrary, the regulations proposed in the Subarea Plan will immediately instigate positive change once adopted. New development will be designed so that residential, office and retail uses could all coexist on the same block. Development will be a higher quality and pedestrian oriented. Transportation The Subarea Plan process included an analysis of circulation alternatives for the corridor in relation to the envisioned Centers and Segments land use pattern. The analysis was conducted by Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin, Inc. the City's transportation planning consultant. Glatting's analysis and findings are included in a report titled Analysis of Circulation Alternatives for the Sprague-Appleway Corridor, attached to the Draft Subarea Plan as Appendix D. The transportation alternatives analyzed by Glatting Jackson are described as follows: No Build The street configurations would be preserved as they exist today with an improved crossover that brings the one-way eastbound traffic back to Sprague from Appleway at University Road. Extend One-way Couplet The alternative extends the one way Appleway eastbound to the City limits and converts the existing two-way Sprague east of University Road into one-way west bound, resulting in a complete one-way couplet system. Two-way "Hybrid" System In this alternative, Appleway would be extended eastbound as a two-way road and the existing one-way couplet system west of Dishman-Mica would be preserved. Complete Two-way System The final circulation alternative is to convert the existing one-way couplet to a two- way system while extending Appleway east bound from University resulting in a complete two-way system. Sprague would be reduced to 5 lanes, 2 lanes each direction with a center turn lane. 9 The performance measures used to evaluate the four circulation alternatives included corridor travel time, intersection levels of service, vehicles miles/distance traveled, bike and pedestrian accommodation, access and business visibility. The clear winner in terms of moving cars only is the complete one-way couplet system. However, when considering all performance measures, the complete two-way system outperforms the one way system. Therefore, the initial recommendation presented in the Subarea Plan is to extend Appleway east as a two-way boulevard and, over time, convert the existing one-way system to two-way. The City's transportation consultant is currently updating their analysis using a new addendum to this DSEIS. The initial evaluation of the four circulation alternatives were modeled using the 2025 regional travel demand model. The City's transportation consultant, Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin, updated this analysis using the newly adopted 2030 regional travel demand model. The primary difference between the two models is that the rates of volume growth for the Sprague/Appleway corridor in the new 2030 model are lower than the interim 2025 model. As a consequence, the results of the revised 2008 analysis reflect generally lower travel times and greater average travel speeds in all alternatives of the model. The primary differences are express in the table below. In general, the recommendation to implement a complete two-way system for Sprague and Appleway remains unchanged. Though the difference in travel times is slightly greater from the volumes forecast by the new 2030 model, the complete two-way alternative offers the greatest opportunity to achieve the land use vision expressed in the Sprague-Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. 10 MARCH 2007 ANALYSIS MAY 2008 ANALYSIS BASED ON I BASED ON 2025 INTERIM NEW 2030 SRTC MODEL SRTC MODEL Total Average Corrid Total Average Corrido Alternative Corridors Used Travel Travel or LOS Travel Travel r LOS Time Speed Time Speed 2030 No-Build EB - Appleway - 36.2 Thierman to University - min 9.3 mph F 19.0min 15.8 mph D Sullivan Sprague WB - Sullivan to Sprague 48.6 6.8 mph F 22.8 20.3 mph C min min Thierman 2030 Couplet Extension (referred to in March 2007 memorandum as Alternative 4) EB 16.8 19.7 13.4 Thierman to Appleway min mph C min 25.9 mph B Sullivan WB 16.2 20.2 14.4 Sullivan to Sprague min mph C min 27.0 mph B Thierman 2030 Hybrid Couplet/Two-Way ( referred to in March 2007 memorandum as Alternative B) EB 19.6 17.2 14.4 Thierman to Appleway min mph D ,, n 24.1 mph B Sullivan WB - 20.9 15.7 13.8 Sullivan to Sprague min mph D min 27.1 mph B Thierman 2030 Two-Way Streets ( referred to in March 2007 memorandum as Alternative C2) EB - 19.8 16.5 16.5 Thierman to Sprague min mph D min 21.0 mph C Sullivan WB 15.0 21.8 14.9 Sullivan to Sprague min mph C min 26.2 mph B Thierman 11 II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Draft SETS prepared for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan included a summary of existing environmental conditions for the entire City. The existing land use and development conditions of the corridor are described in detail in Appendix A of the Subarea Plan document and in the attached Sprague/Appleway Economic Analysis document. This report preceded the development of the Subarea Plan. 12 III. Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This section of the DSEIS documents significant impacts of the land use and transportation alternatives and identifies potential mitigation measures. As noted in Section I, this document supplements the environmental analysis contained in the Draft and Final EIS's prepared for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with SEPA rules, a supplemental EIS adds to the information and analysis in a prior environmental document but does not repeat it. It is focused on new information about significant impacts not previously identified (WAC 197-11-620). The City conducted a phased environmental review of its Comprehensive Plan and with the adoption of the Corridor Subarea Plan. More detailed analysis of certain issues may occur in the future when more information is known about specific elements of the Subarea Plan or in connection with site specific development proposals (WAC 197-11-060(5)(b)). Further detailed environmental analysis will be conducted for the City Center area as a part of an EIS/Planned Action Ordinance process. The following sections discuss the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the various elements of the environment. A. Natural Environment Significant Impacts of the Alternatives In general, the corridor is characterized by urban development and is covered by hundreds of acres of asphalt, concrete and buildings. There are no streams, wetlands or other wildlife habitat areas present. Differences between the alternative land use and transportation alternatives are not significant in terms of their impact on the natural environment and are not discussed separately. 1. Water Quality and Quantity The entire corridor lies over the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie aquifer and is highly susceptible to contamination. Increased urban development can result in increased runoff with a greater potential for pollution and contaminants to impact groundwater. However, development within the corridor is not likely to significantly increase impervious surfaces because the corridor is almost entirely developed with buildings and parking lots. Impacts to groundwater may actually be less in the future as development occurs and stormwater systems are upgraded to meet current regulations. Water demand is not likely to be significantly different under either alternative. 2. Air Quality Impacts to air quality are primarily associated with construction activities, residential wood burning and auto emissions. Higher densities and concentrated development 13 under both alternatives would likely generate incrementally lower air quality impacts. Changing Sprague and Appleway from one-way to two-way may degrade air quality with the increased number of intersections along the corridor and with the general growth in automobile trips. Over time, this may partially be counteracted by people living in units closer to work and using transit. Mitigation Measures "Best Management Practices" are commonly used techniques that are typically applied to construction activities to mitigate soil and water quality impacts. Strict adherence to stormwater, grading and building regulations will mitigate potential impacts to water quality. All transportation improvements will be modeled to ensure that air quality standards will be met in the future. B. Land Use Significant Impacts of the Alternatives This section of the DSEIS examines potential changes to land uses and land use patterns for the No Action and the Subarea Plan alternatives. In general, there is not a significant difference between the alternatives in terms of envisioned growth for the corridor. The following summarizes the potential impacts of each alternative. 1. No Action (current Comp Plan and Zoning) The current comprehensive plan and implementing zoning map identify retail centers at the major intersections along Sprague with mixed commercial, residential and office uses in between the centers. The area between 1-90 and Dishman-Mica is designated Regional Commercial, an appropriate category due to the new auto dealers doing business in this area. The south side of Appleway is largely designated for residential uses while the north side is zoned for mixed uses. It is unrealistic to expect a significant amount of change along Sprague Avenue in terms of office and residential development until the streetscape is reconfigured to complement the desired land uses. The current pattern of disconnected, suburban, low intensity retail land uses will likely not change under current regulations. The Uniform Development Code does not regulate the design of buildings, which is critical if a mix of uses is desired. Residential development along Sprague is not likely to occur under current regulations. 2. Subarea Plan Implementation of the Subarea Plan will result in revitalized corridor over time. The amount of time will depend on many variables, including market factors and the City's ability to finance infrastructure improvements. The combination of form-based regulations and reconfiguration of Sprague and Appleway will provide a sound foundation for redevelopment. The Subarea identifies a City Center in the vicinity of Sprague and University. Adverse impacts could result from the development of the City Center where more intensive commercial and residential uses will be allowed. The impacts will likely be 14 experienced in the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the City Center area. Such impacts may include increased traffic, noise and light where new, intensive development would occur proximate to existing, less intensive land uses. Such changes and contrasts between existing and new uses are typical in cities. Neighborhood centers are identified along major intersections, similar to current zoning. However, the Subarea Plan designates less land than the current zoning for these retail centers, resulting in more compact centers. Appleway Boulevard is proposed as a residential/office street on both frontages. Current zoning allows commercial uses on the north side of Appleway. Residential growth along the corridor will increase the number of automobile trips and will increase demands on police and fire. Although the Subarea Plan regulations are less focused on use of land, there are some restrictions in terms of use that may impact certain properties. For example, sit down type restaurants will not be allowed in the Mixed Use Avenue designation along Sprague. The intent is to use regulations to encourage these types of restaurants to locate in the City Center and Neighborhood Centers. Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with the intensity and proximity of uses and buildings will be mitigated by regulations proposed in the Subarea Plan. For example, in the City Center area, buildings can only be 4 stories on streets adjacent to residential areas. Design guidelines will make new development more compatible with adjacent single-family neighborhoods. C. Population, Housing and Employment Adopting the Subarea Plan would not likely cause more significant impacts to population, housing and employment than that already evaluated during adoption of the SVCP. Both alternatives encourage residential growth along the corridor, the nature of which will be higher density apartments and townhouses. Housing choices will likely increase under both alternatives. The corridor will also see increased employment, particularly in the City Center area. D. Aesthetics and Urban Design Impacts to aesthetics and visual character associated with urban development typically relate to development intensity, building height, blocked views, light and glare and shadowing/shading. To some residents, the existing state of the corridor may reflect a desirable character. However, improving the aesthetics of the corridor was a priority for citizens who attended Subarea Plan workshops. 15 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 1. No Action Under the No Action alternative, the visual character of the corridor is not likely to improve. Design guidelines and architectural standards have not been adopted, with the exception of commercial landscaping and signage. The current zoning regulations encourage the same type of development that has occurred over the past 30-40 years. 2. Subarea Plan Regulations contained in the Subarea Plan will provide flexibility with regard to use of property but will be very specific in terms of building placement and design. The regulations will ensure that buildings are compatible regardless of use. The Subarea Plan includes street cross-sections that complement the proposed land uses. For example, Appleway Boulevard would include wide sidewalks, planting strips and street trees. Mitigation Measures Adopting the Subarea Plan will improve the aesthetics of the corridor over time as new development occurs. E. Public Services and Utilities Significant Impacts of the Alternatives Demands on police, fire, schools, parks and utilities are not anticipated to be significantly different when comparing the alternatives. Demand for all services and utilities will increase as growth occurs. Schools may see limited impacts as the type of housing envisioned along the corridor will be less attractive to families with children than single-family neighborhoods. Mitigation Measures Service and utility providers will have to monitor level of service standards and plan for growth anticipated in the Subarea Plan. New development will generate increase property tax revenues which will help pay for the extra required services. Water districts are required to update their comprehensive water system plans every 5-years with review and comment by the local planning agency. Spokane Valley will work with all service and utility providers to ensure that their plans reflect projected growth. F. Transportation Significant Impacts of the Alternatives 16 Transportation planning and analysis for the corridor was integrated into the Subarea Plan process and recommendations for transportation improvements are presented in Book Ill: City Actions. Using information from the Existing Conditions report, Glatting Jackson examined four circulation alternatives by evaluating corridor travel time, intersection delay, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and business access and visibility. This analysis is presented in the attached Transportation Technical Memorandum prepared by Glatting Jackson. The proposed complete two-way street network balances mobility and access for all forms of transportation, including transit, autos, bikes and pedestrians. Travel time through the corridor will be slightly lower as a two-way system compared to one-way, however; the two-way system is better for business access and visibility, accommodates bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed two-way system will require more intersections and turn movements, which may increase air pollution due to the increased idling vehicles. The extra turn movements may increase the potential for pedestrian/auto/bike collisions. Transportation impacts along the corridor would be similar under both land use alternatives. The corridor has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth in automobile trips over the next 20 years. Implementing the circulation system proposed in the Subarea Plan will greatly improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility while also accommodating auto trips. Intersection levels of service are not projected to fall below the adopted standard. The Subarea Plan alternative could bring more traffic to the City Center area as it develops over time. Mitigation Measures The transportation system impacts identified in the DSEIS would be addressed through a combination of ongoing planning, engineering, monitoring, construction of improvements and project level mitigation. The cost of facilities and how they would be financed are not known in detail at this time. The City is preparing high level estimates for the circulation network proposed in the Subarea Plan. Some facilities may require partnerships with state and/or federal government. Subsequent planning will include more detailed engineering and financial analysis. Mitigation for transportation impacts would likely involve a combination of development regulations and standards, capital improvements and project specific mitigation. Great specification of mitigation programs will occur as the Subarea Plan is implemented and in tandem with SEPA review. The City will prepare a SEPA/Planned Action ordinance for the City Center that will analyze potential transportation impacts and propose project level mitigation measures. 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION oatti:Spokane \ STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 40010 Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-07-08 STAFF REPORT DATE:May 1,2008 )BEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 22,2008,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: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (C); corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) to Community Commercial(C)on approximately 1.24 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal is located southwest of the intersection of Carnahan Road and 3rd Avenue at 228 S. Carnahan Road; specifically located in the NW %a of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 43 EWM; parcel number 35232.1509, Spokane Valley,Washington. OWNER/APPLICANT:HA Tombari,LLC;2129 E 491 Avenue; Spokane,WA 99223 APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Dwight J.Hume;9101 N Mt.View Lane;Spokane,WA 99216 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provisions);Title 19 (Zoning Regulations),and Title 21(Environmental Controls)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION:The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends that the Planning Commission approve CPA-07-08. STAFF PLANNER:Michael Basinger,MCP,Senior Planner,Community Development Department REVIEWED BY:Greg McCormick,AICP,Planning Manager,Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3: 2007 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Exhibit 5: Transportation Map Exhibit 6: Application Submittal Exhibit 7: SEPA Determination Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-07-08 Page 1 of 5 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: November 1,2007 Determination of Completeness: November 1,2007 Isstaance of Determination of Non-Significance(DNS): February 15,2008 End of Appeal Period for DNS: February 29,2008 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: May 9,2008 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: May 1,2008 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 1.24 acres in size. The SEPA checklist states the site is flat. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban District(R-4) Existing Land Use: Two single-family homes SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—Community Commercial Zoning—Community Commercial Existing Land Uses—Single-family residences and retail South Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential Zoning—Single Family Residential District(R-3)and Single Family Residential Urban District(R-4) Existing Land Uses—Single family residences East Comprehensive Plan Public/Quasi-Public and Regional Commercial Zoning—Community Facilities and Regional Commercial Existing Land Uses—Commercial Offices West Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential Zoning—Single Family Residential Urban District(R-4) Existing Land Uses—Single family residences H. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's Threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). No appeals were received. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-07-08 Page 2 of 5 M.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H.(Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria)Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it fords that (analysis is italicized): I' a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment; The public health, safety, and general welfare will be promoted in accordance with standards established by the state and the City of Spokane Valley's regulations. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error;or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Further environmental evaluation may be required at the time of development. b. The effect on open space,streams,rivers,and lakes; The SPA checklist states that there is no sui face water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to Regional Commercial and Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan designations. The proposed amendment is also located adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood(west of CPA-07-08). At the time of development, standards in Title 22(Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70(Fencing,Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation, parks,recreation,and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-07-08 Page 3 of 5 and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan,which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. The proposed amendment will not have an impact on schools considering the request is for a commercial designation. e. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region; The proposed amendment will provide retail,service and office establishments for thesurrounding neighborhood. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The proposed amendment is approximately 1.24 acres in size and will provide additional office and light retail uses. The potential demand for this type of office development is unknown. g. The current and projected population density in the area;and The proposed amendment will potentially decrease population density. The proposed amendment does not demand population analysis. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19(ZONING REGULATIONS)OF Int,SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.60.050(Community Commercial District)Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Community Commercial (C). The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail, service, and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15 to 17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Conclusion(s); The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is approximately 1.24 acres in size and will be adjacent to other commercial uses in the area furthering the existing business cluster to the south. CPA-07-08 is consistent with the intention of the Community Commercial District. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail,service,and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Staff analysis is italicized. 1. LUG-3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages transforming various commercial business areas into vital,attractive, easily accessible mixed-use areas that appeal to investors,consumers,and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. Staff Comment: At the time of development, the developer should consider LUG-3 to promote economic development and an attractive community destination. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-07-08 • Page 4 of 5 2. LIJP-4.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends integrating retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. Staff Comment: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is located adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood(west of CPA-07-08). At the time of development, standards in Title 22(Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70(Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. 3. LUP-4.5 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulating height,scale,setbacks,and buffers. Staff Comment: At the time of development, height, setbacks, and buffers will be required to ensure compatibility with existing residential development. 4. LUP-4.9 Identify and designate streets where on-street parking can be safely provided without unduly slowing traffic flow or jeopardizing traffic safety. Staff Comment: Community Development,Development Engineering Division will require street improvements at the time of physical development of the property to allow for on-street parking, this may require dedication of property. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES Findings: The property is currently served with public water and sewer. Access is provided from 3rd Avenue designated a Minor Arterial in the Arterial Street Plan(Exhibit 5). E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-07-08 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. F. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Agency comments relate to the physical development of the property. These comments will be addressed at the time of development. Comments are attached as exhibits to the staff report. Conclusion(s): Staff has reviewed comments and no concerns are noted. IV.OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Community Commercial and change in zoning classification to Community Commercial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA-07-08. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-07-08 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map f;ttu.f:il omme el. ... ...... ...... ....... :::(moi n n 1 ........:..... . Commercial t w Regional < l4ti _ .,mmerem .. a �; .:? CPA-07-08 F ttom�,, PublidQuasi- III v c! Public 11111 MI I II �, ,,..,. 3rd 3rd I 90 E:'"1^.)17.10 7 190 4th 4th 4th n1 Low Bettsii}�Residen1 I IIII �I !.dI . 5 5th 'Ii b ..,, ciiiiiiir SII i i 1 11 ■11,11.4,,,/,,,, h,,,, PulilidQuasi- „ ii II i Public _, _______ ., CPA-07-08 bequest: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to C;change zoning from R-4 to C. Community Development Department Exhibit 2: Zoning Map Ko 1 i rague 1 I • , d 51 ...... .... ....... 1st 1 j Ts Q _ CPA-07-08 • . .. : . :_:. -......-: - 2nd 2nd Eti •Iii=i ...Z7-5F":::._____: , ilMill 11ip -_- - II 11.- NM - ing:.,7„.,.„. 3rd . 3rd 3rd 1 I 90 I 90 W285 ON 1_90 I90 . 4th 4th 4th 4th WM MI= Wal i ■ mai , 11111 ■..7 MMIIIIMIF liLA ' - - i CPA-07-08 I Re nest: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to C;change zoning from R-4 to C. Community Development Department Exhibit 3: 2007 Aerial Map 3 r- r 'F _ ' - _ __ —= nr. 4_ - [pQ 'oi-=:,--.4 Y sx S.. 2oxilal4 L',L' ... r Y 4 7 1 r r- • '-'4'-`7, .;,34t - ....- 1-2,,....: tr-,,,,z,,, , i . ..i.,...-. •.,-Fns- 7... ....!.%::: I: lot CI 7 8 r,'. ' N,..: f '�_L, z I �' . �'... _ .: -. w � 7fjir�w,.i !Ih � ate �.. ' ''CCN'' ., , v t'. .... 3 • '..tic .,w; • ,,-.4-.7.....0,2,-..2,-.z•- x- C ...4.. .. _ � . r .i AF 7 `•r s..•1 2.,,,-..... 2,.;-,0 fav '` 1, ,[ L .1a.X .. _ w f - 1 Yg �'_ f AB �'�S,` •o.,� „s `.i� `-r., r''. �1 }f `tir _ i� .-v' +_ 1..,:•d,. ,;t-',14!.';?:'''''...! t. [ ; .ri :4'[ • x`' ', 'K^R r>.•� _—t .� -•4• W..0., i '� "s .Lrt h - Gati at : 1,•;.-..,--si ..,�� •zr (L !'' tiY • 1��-�_�—��: a..- s •-400.... Ll ''a'i * 1 1(( .nom' tyy 1 Yj tJ 4�>�c3,? 1- , , Its .[tom'' s. • 1 I '1-- 1 :..i 'S, {t. ".4•c i n'G'- 1�'X.R.4• E I 1 a Y. i .t f, p r.`1F --e:;-;.:';•17.,--:77,- 1,?_..iLF,i I ,a .2 ' a* ' ..:: Y yt� . r! •� . .�-- ��'--S•*1: �' • � ; - j -- R -.'r'�.,,'Le CI,"C ilr Y.•.4.. 4R'. a .,�'r - .•!•c "'tetJ! 4t - , - G 'L , - ..i q a $ . 3k A'» 1< 3f .. • f d s r q --..,;•J7 t --.1•,,:t• p' z f `S .: t Y a r.,�r k. Li•: ... -• •5f , ",.... i -i t u a .41.' t • t •� .'f em..4-4„,...,0,.. - ? E:.t t ? .,. t • , 4 • _ - =3��1 ---. .._ -:;:r-7,;•.-r--: __ _ ... .._ _. • t z xr 3►,d . • .,. a•'_' +mow Z:..' •:.'. w. � s s-- ..:',—?..-:',1%%: _ ^""yr • tr - V .� Ii 90; Vii285jy,QNI II-9'01• CPA-07-08 City of Spokane Valley Request: Change'the Comprehensive Plan map designation Community Development Department from LDR to C;change zoning from R-4 to C. . i Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map , ..�. I IIIIi Fairgrounds ■ filly l ' s Valley Valleywa. aS,_ Washington State „_ _ I University Coop ,_ —_ — Main _• I r 1 i CPA-07-08 i ..ra•u ME-- Spra a 1,.1-11U1 Sprague Immiliii.1 I P.S:£lle 11111.1 ItIlii 1 L 1 -'-'• A 1st 0 L 11�II1! _�I :1111it1 ■ �E 41.0 .40 2n. 11111710 2nd IIIMI1 �' i .11111111111 I _ I Muumuu 1nin �i IN NI Ord III3rdII o11 gun swim3rd n _- - I90 _ 4Ih 4th 4th If!!! It■1111 1 >. �1: �111/1�II� �� gi 1� % ramil is_ Q 1_uEl - Ilu� _ ow in c,���m_� s o � C 1 MI 1111 1111111 111 �i 1 �� A_ = .: �.th MI 0� :E 6th SII �� i `� . :'� I !�11..■ liiI mums.,.�y-anCte I,�-LIM Emil: F .11 xh l��.■��m`� ����J1111 �_ T2s o° -o°aaiin /I' 1 II 1IIIII�� Instructional 711 U III ■ dillOPIII/ " 1 ii II 8Ui ° , 8th A Support Ctr ma,Is I lull II 9th1 II 119th IL j_ ii iii11iiii� 10 11 IL ,-II IL1th 1114 11111PWIIIIPIMIIIII Rita11 K 1 MINIM- •-lisii um mmt A. item. .ME:___ ___________ CPA-07-08 Request: Change the Comprehensive P an neap designation City of Spokane Valley1 from LDR to C;change zoning from R-4 to C. Community Development Department ( I Exhibit 5: Transportation Map - ' .'i .f -1iv......... — 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1- 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I • 1 Sprague d + , U 1 • IBti 2 Ist 1 • a CPA-07-08 A . . i U -2nd • . • I .1 1 • 3rd— _.___..�..___._,___ — I90 I90W285ON _ —.- _ _ — — I90 — - 4th� — _ _ — — m. . - .---__— . . , ______ . __________.. Ell .s iiimii \ l'.. s ----Po • 5 t h r NUII_ �!i® I' Legend 1 ® 1 I Current Classification J �� • ® • NM 2 o State or Federal III ■ Principal Arterial Minor Arterial mil 1. 4t*vt 4 alir . 6 Collector Proposed Principal Arterial ® Granite point .. _ . _ Proposed Proposed Minor Arterial 1®� 1 ,, - Proos - Proposed Collector il ,_-____. li.®.. ■ ■ IIISth• 11..11.: Instructional Tech Support Ctr INIM Iu .LiMI®.>. t . • 044-97-08 City of Spokane Valley Request Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation Community Development Department from LDR to C;change'zoning fromR,.4 to C, i I i i i . I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (For Staff Use Only) Community Development Department DATE SUBMITTED: I TS I/I RECEIVED BY: 1 3 Current Planning Division 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 FILE NO./NAME: PR'- r —h(6 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RECEIVED Tel: (509)921-1000 RECEIVEDC�7 rn�-t 3 4 Fax: (509)921-1008 PLANNING FEE: planning(a)sookanevallev.orq NOV 0 12007 SEPA FEE: SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF �� . __ , .. ...� ..._ - s .R_:.., COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I—APPLICATION INFORMATION (Check One) ® Map Amendment 0 Text Amendment PROPERTY OWNER: H A TOMBARI LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 2129 E 49'}'AVENUE CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ZIP: 99223 Email: N/A PHONE: (HM) (WK) N/A (CELL) APPLICANT: DWIGHT J HUME MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N MT.VIEW LANE CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ZIP: 99218 Email: dhume(c�spokane-Ianduse.com PHONE: (HM) (WK) 435-3108 (CELL) RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER: Agent PROPERTY LOCATION(ADDRESS AND/OR DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM NEAREST CROSS STREET): 228 S CARNAHAN ASSESSOR PARCEL No.: ' 35232.1509 PROPERTY SIZE:54000 SF CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C(COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-4 PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: C BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(ATTACH FULL EXPLANATION): SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJOINS I-90 AND 3RD AVENUE A PLANNED HIGH SPEED FRONTAGE ROAD. IT IS ACCESSED THROUGH MAJOR RETAIL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. Page 3 of 27 • SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: .ee DATE: SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT: �I.� % �• ✓es°1.� DATE: 1/-e di PART III ®SUB ITTAL -EQUIREMENTS MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MAP AMENDMENTS A. One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria contained in Part IV of this application packet and adopted by Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses specific factors contained in Part IV of this application packet and adopted by Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. B. 0 Notice of Application packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the Notice of Application packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) C. 13 One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) D. E I Required Comprehensive Plan amendment and SEPA processing fee. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS A. 0 One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by str-iketh-re44 and additions by underline. B. 0 One (1) copy of a written summary of the proposed amendment that describes the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 2. How the proposed change meets the approval criteria contained in Part III of this application packet and adopted by Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. C. 0 No fee for Text Amendments. Please submit only (1) unbound set of the above information. Spring binder clips are preferred. Do not spiral bind or staple your application packet or include dividers, 3- ring binders or plastic covers. Page 4 of 27 PART III: APPROVAL CRITERIA Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020 establishes the following approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. Proposed amendments must meet all applicable criteria to be considered for approval. The City,may approve comprehensive plan amendments if it finds that: • A. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; C. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; D. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and E. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020 cites the following specific factors that must be addressed in order for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to be approved. Please address the following factors: A. The effect upon the physical environment; B. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; C. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses.and surrounding neighborhoods; D. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation and schools; E. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; F. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; G. The current and projected population density in the area; and H. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Page 5 of 27 PART IV APPLICANT SIGNATURE I, V1-0/6//r , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND 0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 40f,f' (Signal (Date) NOTARY (For Part IIII above) STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) S�- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I day of \\ OU `\ , 20 01 NOTARY SEAL 1� J " ,.\\\`�� �olif NOTARYrJSIGNATURE P,SS�O,�iI'°,e, Notary Public in ca.nd for the State of Washington -=ayARy�,�s% Residing at: Jr GUA _ Z . , ° U : o ;�'u � doll • % av`hh_- : My appointment expires: {� 7 8-22' 11- OF \NI\ Page 6 of 27 Owners Authorization To Represent CPA City of Spokane Valley I,' • t:5 ,owner of the above-described property do hereby authorize Dwight J Hume to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application.- CI OWLED E 11 fin STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) On this 3)6-1r day of 00.L.1jet_ ,20U7 ,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared ,to me known to be the individual that executed the foregoing instrument and aclmowledged the said instrument to be free and his/her free and voluntary act and deed,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. t'' 7211,1) /„/i 7 R`YNN >l‘ otary Public in and for the Stat- _r as . gton, &$0 sow Expo 4411 residing at vt\C° `mss p 0�� PUl3L w VIA or WP . • • I � t Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative LDR to Community Commercial 2m to 3r1 at Carnahan • Reason for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request The subject property is wedged between Community Commercial zoning to the north, Regional Commercial zoning to the east and fronts along 3`d Avenue which is planned to become a high speed frontage road as part of the I-90 adjustments to accommodate the proposed N/S Corridor.It is not suitable for LDR uses. Even the East Central Neighborhood Plan Update prepared by none other than the Urban Planning Department of Eastern Washington University foresaw the need to designate all of the land between Sprague Avenue and I-90 as Major Commercial and that sub-area plan received national awards for its efforts.We believe this to be the highest and best use of the subject property and eventually all of this area in-lieu-of residential. Applicable Approval Criteria A. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment; The Proposed amendment is consistent with the existing Community Commercial classification located nearby north of the subject property and adopted by this legislative body as part of the existing comprehensive plan. There is no changed circumstances to indicate any dissimilarity to render this inconsistent.Accordingly, the proposed amendment bears the aforementioned substantial relationship. B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's plan not affected by the amendment. This proposed amendment is consistent with the current comprehensive plan in that it request one of the existing land use categories. As stated above, this category is located adjacent and north of the subject property. It is therefore consistent with RCW 3670A and is not otherwise inconsistent with the remainder of the plan. C. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property Owner's control applicable to the area with which the subject property lies. N/A D. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error. The current comprehensive plan replaced Light Industrial with Low density Residential, an obvious error to move from one extreme to the other. E. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the comprehensive plan.N/A. • Specific factors To be Addressed: A. The effect upon the physical environment; The proposed change is consistent with the land use designation adjacent on the north side of2"d Avenue. The site is served with all utilities and fronts along 1-90 and the proposed high speed frontage road thus, no impact to the physical environment is anticipated B. The effect on open space,streams rivers and lakes; There is no effect upon these elements of the environment. C. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The area is a mix of major retail, strip commercial and mixed use residential. The location along the 1-90 corridor and at the back edge of a big box retailer reduces the impacts if any from this becoming a Community Commercial site. D. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads, public transportation,parks recreation and schools; The only impact this could have is upon roads. This will be addressed during the project specific review if approved for Community Commercial.All utilities are available and there is no impact to community facilities from the proposed use. E. The benefit to the neighborhood,city and region; There is no neighborhood along the edge of1-90. Previous land use plans had this area designated light industrial and residential uses are not being built in this proximity. The benefit of new retail uses within a Community Commercial District is synergetic and increases the tax revenues for local government services. F. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and the density and demand for such land; This is a 54000 sf addition to the Community Commercial District of this area and does not significantly change the quantity loss or gain of either category. G. The current and projected population of the area; The population projection for this area is notaffected by this change. The site would yield approximately 6 dwelling units. This option is eliminated if the property is changed to retail use. H. The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. As stated above, the proposed change is the same as what the plan supports along the area along rd Avenue frontage adjacent to the subject property. Due to the nature of the change from residential to retail, there is less impacts upon public facilities,parks and schools.Accordingly, this proposal does not affect the other aspects of the comprehensive plan. 1 Legal Description CPA 228 S Carnahan LDR to Community Commercial(C) Lots 1-4 and Lots 9-12 Block 15 Sprague Street Addition,records of Spokane County, WA. Consisting of 54,000 sf. 1 1 1 I 1 i I I , i i i I i �,r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Spokane PLANNING DIVISION Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 Fax:509.921.1008 cityhall@spokanevalley.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE File No.: CPA-07-08 Description of proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) to Community Commercial (C) on approximately 1.24 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. Proponent: HA Tombari,LLC Location of proposal: The proposal is located southwest of the intersection of Carnahan Road and 3rd Avenue at 228 S. Carnahan Road;specifically located in the NW 1/4 of Section 23,Township 25 North,Range 43 EWM; parcel number 35232.1509,Spokane Valley,Washington. Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department,Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DNS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) Responsible Official: Staff Contact: Kathy McClung,Community Development Director Mike Basinger,AICP-Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Department,Planning Division 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) 688-0030/ FX:(509)921-1008 PH: (509)688-0045/ FX: (509)921-1008 kmcclung@spokanevalley.org mbasinger@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: February 15,2008. Signature: -A/crew, �►lL. APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community.Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued specifically by February 29, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.. This • appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the City's Uniform Development Code,and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11=680,appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. I f 6TAT£ !, 54, • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4601 N Monroe Street •Spokane, Washington 99205-1295 a(509)329-3400 RECEIVED February 28,2008 MAR 0 5 2008 City of Spokane Valley Ms.Kathy McClung,Director City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Ms.McClung: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,File No. CPA-07-08 (Proponent-H A Tombari, LLC). The Department of Ecology has reviewed the documents and would like to submit the following comments: Water Resources Program On-site septic tank and drainfield systems are designed to treat and dispose of domestic wastewater or its equivalent only. Commercial and industrial operations discharging wastes other than domestic wastewater to on-site systems may result in ground water contamination and could cause the facility owner or operator to incur severe liabilities. Water Quality Program Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water. Local stormwater ordinances will provide specific requirements. Also refer to the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/storinwater/eastern manual/manual.html). All ground disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When appropriate,use native vegetation typical of the site. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground Injection Control program(UIC)at Department of Ecology prior to use and the discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement(nonendangerment standard)at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program,Department of Ecology,P.O.Box 47600,Olympia,WA 98504-7600, (360)407-6143 or go to http://www.ecy.wa.g_ov/programs/wq/Qrndwtr/uic/registration/reg info.html for registration forms and further information. Ms.Kathy McClung February 28,2008 Page 2 Stormwater runoff may contain increased levels of grease,oils,sediment,and other debris.. Stormwater Best Management Practices(BMPs)should be installed and maintained so that any discharge will be appropriately treated to remove these substances. Dumpsters and refuse collection containers shall be durable, corrosion resistant,nonabsorbent: rionleaking,and have close fitting covers. If spillage or leakage does occur,the waste shall be picked up immediately and returned to the container and the area properly cleaned. Routine inspections and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs)are recommended both during and after development of the site. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Ecology's comments are based upon the information provided with the SEPA checklist. As such, they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. Sincerely, • • Terri Costello ' • • SEPA Coordinator Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office 4601 N.Monroe Street Spokane,WA 99205-1295 Phone: (509)329-3550 Email: temi461@ecy.wa.gov 2008-1087 cc: H A Tombari,LLC • • . i • • - I CPA-C1-08 thru CPA-08-08 Page 1 of 1. Micki Harnois From: Red, Jim[JRed@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 05,2008 10:48 AM • To: Tavis Schmidt; Micki Harnois; Micki Harnois Subject: CPA-01-08 thru CPA-08-08 -1i, all Compehensive Plan Amendments are within sewer projects and will be required to connect to sewer as properties are ieveloped. Plans,fees, security and so on,wil be required as needed. r"you have any questions, please contact me at 477-7279. thanks, lir • • • • /5/2008 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION S°To` kane ' pSTAFFP®RT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMESSION 40,0 CPA-08-08 STAFF REPORT DATE:May 1,2008 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 22, 2008, 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: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential(LDR)to Office(0); corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District (R-3) to Office (0) on approximately 1.02 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal is located east of Sullivan Road and one lot north of Century Avenue at 604 S. Sullivan Road; specifically located in the NE 'A of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM; parcel number 45231 2244, Spokane Valley,Washington. OWNER/APPLICANT: Joseph L. Sherick,LLC;3721 South Union; Spokane,WA 99206-6321 APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Dwight J.Hume;9101 N Mt.View Lane; Spokane,WA 99216 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2 (Urban Land Use) of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (General Provision), Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends that the Planning Commission approve CPA-08-08. STAFF PLANNER:Michael Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner,Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Greg McCormick,AICP,Planning Manager,Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3: 2007 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Exhibit 5: Transportation Map Exhibit 6: Application Submittal Exhibit 7: SEPA Determination Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-08-08 Page 1 of 5 L BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: November 1,2007 Determination of Completeness: November 1,2007 Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance(DNS): February 15,2008 End of Appeal Period for DNS: February 29,2008 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: May 9,2008 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: May 1,2008 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 1.02 acres in size. The SEPA checklist states the site is flat. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—Office,Medium Density Residential,and Low Density Residential Zoning—Medium Density Residential(MF-1),Office(0),and Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses—Single-family residences,apartments,and office uses South Comprehensive Plan—Public/Quasi-Public and Low Density Residential Zoning—Single Family Residential Urban District(R-4)and Community Facilities(CF) Existing Land Uses—Duplex subdivision East Comprehensive Plan— Public/Quasi-Public Zoning—Community Facilities(CF)and Multifamily High Density Residential District(MF-2) Existing Land Uses—Central Valley High School and apartments West Comprehensive Plan—Public/Quasi-Public Zoning—Community Facilities(CF)and Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses—Episcopal Church II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). No appeals were received. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-08-08 Page 2 of 5 HI.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COIVIPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H.(Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that (analysis is italicized): a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment; The public health, safety, and general welfare will be promoted in accordance with standards established by the state and the City of Spokane Valley's regulations. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Further environmental evaluation may be required at the time of development. b. The effect on open space,streams,rivers,and lakes; The SEPA checklist states that there is no sur face water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to an Office Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed amendment is also located adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood(south of CPA-08-08). At the time of development, standards in Title 22 (Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation, parks,recreation,and schools; Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-08-08 Page 3 of 5 The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. The proposed amendment will not have an impact on schools considering the request is for an office designation. e. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region; The proposed amendment will provide office establishments for the surrounding neighborhood. These uses may include medical and dental facilities, educational services, insurance, real estate,financial institutions, design firms, and legal services. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The proposed amendment is approximately 1.56 acres in size and will provide additional office and light retail uses. The potential demand for this type of office development is unknown. g. The current and projected population density in the area;and The proposed amendment will potentially decrease population density. The proposed amendment does not demand population analysis. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19(ZONING REGULATIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.60.050(Office District) Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from Low Density Residential to Office and corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R-3)to Office(0). The Office designation is intended primarily for medium-to high-rise office development with limited retail or commercial uses. Retail and commercial uses are limited to those that are clearly subordinate to the primary office use or the retail function primarily serves the office uses in close proximity to the retail or commercial use. Primary uses including medical and dental facilities, educational services, insurance, real estate, financial institutions, design films, and legal services are representative of the office district. Office uses can act as buffers or transition areas between higher intensity land uses and lower intensity land uses. Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is contiguous to other office uses and multi-family development. The office will provide a transition between the medium density residential use and single-family residences located south of the site. Office uses work well for this because they tend to generate less traffic and noise, and operate shorter hours. CPA-08-08 is consistent with the intention of the Office District. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive plan states that the Office designation is intended primarily for medium-to high-rise office development with limited retail or commercial uses. The plan further states,that Spokane Valley has areas of existing quality office development. Several developments within the Argonne/Mullan Couplet,Pines Road,and Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-08-08 Page 4 of 5 Evergreen Road corridors embody good design and are representative of desired future office development. Office development on Sullivan Road will provide new job opportunities within the community. Staff analysis is italicized. 1. LUG-8 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages appropriate development standards for Office designated areas. Staff Comment: At the time of development, standards in Title 22(Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70(Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. 2. LUP-8.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends integrating sidewalks,bike lanes,landscaping,and area lighting in office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment. Staff Comment: At the time of development, landscaping and lighting will be required for the new office development complying with Title 22 and other applicable regulations. There are existing sidewalks on Sullivan Road. The Bike and Pedestrian System map in the Comprehensive Plan proposes bike lanes for Sullivan Road. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES Findings: The property is currently served with public water and sewer. Access is provided from 3rd Avenue designated a Minor Arterial in the Arterial Street Plan(Exhibit 5). E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-08-08 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. F. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Agency comments relate to the physical development of the property. These comments will be addressed at the time of development. Comments are attached as exhibits to the staff report. Conclusion(s): Staff has reviewed comments and no concerns are noted. IV.OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Office and change in zoning classification to Office is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA-08-08. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-08-08 Paste 5 of 5 ( l Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map %uJ rr LI i ///�� 4th 4th _ ____ ' .__ - --._- - ::: VVI .(t'.t�s� s :,jMedium % ._ >. r s4 =x a A ti,,„4,'. sit'1eighborhoo'cl ,- �` v k I3enstyGo """ • Residential 4`sL-w `,.i"9'.4 se l i" .c.`r l jj�{�i�a,,`� � �fee prztft-Tern ,t,. I r fid r l . . • % /j % 1 I 11 CPA-08-08 41 millia _set,' Ell Nil 11 IIII 111 - c-s"?'5 ill a U Public/Quasi- (12N INLoei) Public - iResdentiai illi 11 111 .11aminiii ..1 sat 8th im !nEIigh CPA-08-08 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to 0;change zoning from R-3 to O. Community Development Department i Exhibit 2: Zoning Map i a I 4th 4 ' 4th U . i iI 5th 5th I. _J is I m sy=y�{ I 1 1 CPA-O8-OsRI i_ i1 r 1 6th 1: R-3 t,i lir -2...7.. - F=7'=.,....:7•••—=-•-• ,.:=--- , H=7:77:2=L-Ckilitil:i ...!:.:„..-4:::-',,,Eii.---!..:_,,. ....':-- . ..._..._..._ , .._..._..._ ii -1::..:'-'-"="=:----- ,:.7:-.-+:::::•=,,-- • - — — • 8th 8th f rz 1 ' Cii Central Valley• i. Senior Wah l' . . , . ,.. .... . . . . . . , CPp`'08"08Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan Wrap designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to 0;change zoning from R-3 to 0. Community Development Department ---r i Exhibit 3: 2006 Aerial Map r- 1.,:,.. -,. - L. 7 1 ., _ .. -..-... < _' t` Y •, Cas-L • .-411 _i` ' -. a , �' a .. 1 •I.1. •),...\-' tib:, T. - •L ) 1 j� fr • ,r .1.-0- ,MS 1 ' '` -}- �� ...• - "; itr §116'. y _ 'r• � i .5 '�{ Ail. ,�' _ f "_ ; _ � ¢3r# fp '..;.6.':-, 1I ° i� j T '' .. • . ...( i yam' 4 k gji. .+' i:_•.1.-.Z• .Cj 1.[f. .i. L� �. J. •. _ al ��* Y�PI T -• N -.- . - ` i:I: i'l%Pa:. t $.` ` _'_X.�,. -:•S--e_77;; - r t'_�. \. w.. ' ,: '�j t t•t .ate .1.,:_- xa441. {I r' ; y ,.. •_y.z.,� ; I F.7",..„..„-.-. .7,,.,.--",:--. ' -1. 1 3 , 1 -•" '' 1 , ti,> Y L"'' y. M� } ,t•.'- F�fS i,�i'. 7 ! - t ! b ri T \ L3 �3"X\Y[r v:- - f:'''.7.:7;-..://t '• _ _ �j.•y.;� `']a1p� - l r •a ,..,.",..,4•41. A. �'{ 1.I._. z / ,i '•', •, ..-�`' i ilii' F ' ,1:,) 7 �',_ . 4 �.,,•. .s f ,.'�. 3 _'.r vi� i i _ a. _ • 9ht a R. ,,tti-[ •*-1. •t ?r�l4 w . }..1111Q t'�,:lirr ;�(,�r-��i°�t _..*. may` ; fNK1 i-1--7 ,.;.• C� • L � �� — ,.,;... �. � . ; y a� ''..,..".--I•S r'}^yr .,y,4 a#.-�7� .1• _ � rx i. )..7----...-----;:._�z..y• .♦�.- �"lc.r- •s,".•:- . • i ,• ��. .i"' r• ria ` '•`( _.. a 'd .••r'� : _ ", �•>--•.L-i.K.rw.td:.'1 .f?x lY' = CPA-08-08 vl t "Y„, 1, -;',..-`,:":14-':„. r-+g Nf. x- t : �. ` ,.7:,• EA:^h-a � ca 4'P.r r•--u ;1e�� - � ,, ,,a.• •1,kj 40.::',..*:;:.',,�y; ,',' /---,•, �-� � Lr'ai. J 41C t; + Y' 1;44- r•te* v1,•.41T-...,,s ) f ;,il$ • 3 rT' yt w„�•{t-` s: _ }�• , •tY`. ,-•.* + •k •..,/,••-•:1•-_:w .t i•1 1 . r,P• -4 • x:- r tl yam.:r.- r� .\1 s+ ;: • s --;-0,;,t,-1%., .[- ! • L`j. irr•. + Y r i) yL, t r .l r 1 5 {}�} .\'J'i • `. _ • • ''S- :-4,',. .', .'4. ti�tA , +r 5 �- , < r. ^t r A, = "7�" ` t -.�yN r} ru..x•Zt-.,•-;,..,.: •,�. t.teFa,-r�t ,-c•t_ y 'OT`"^• I_Ta� r-r. ..'xr,�� {ar ba. 1 • J ! ,-.....1,i',-;',..•.* t4a4. • `S ' • a _ !t 4 f..h�� „ 1Y 1. t • • .4:44+.1.1.• -.,,....,, }£K 7/2:•.-'-' y .14,---1.1,41,1„,..,•,,,-.., -.. . • .yR �,...` .'y'-tf.Sa` 1� r a �� .t r•o.; 114 ! • •. i ` yam.-1 a. ! r Y..-_, t • ri. 4 a.. �a• I ,�, .rte ` .i .trl! 7 'j+� t --''.‘f,":.Tl •aX� .Y 4 ` • % i .1 t K fa •▪';`1,',", 1 � } ` � j,j'S^ y - tT! f•$ r - .w� lip�j' ' '''''- t.• _ -,..,:i'j�; iF .. •r ....;::',,l'..,...-.7.-. 4.I-. fy,:i�.�•., �` ..-4..4. 4"-.:. � •2.7.7r-'''ya▪..: ..4i''.t 4:.:::1.-rr r f� aw: - - 1 : r 71 ".`,1 r:---7-c),I'Plitt_ /J t .r I 175t4 -,'''' ',;•'...7. l a 5. " ► -' ,i, \ •I •;:•t.1.4•-• -{ 1w ai C 4 f .a k r , "' rr '' d' i. t"Ca'v" . f f r� --f- } Y ¢ 7 - • f is', L +s•.•'s K K"ts •';',.'-',:,7';'.t\ " tY1 kY:� • �j - _ )V 10,,_,_,`t )5.,+4t 't. 'a la.� rVtl • i}nd•.--•; t,+ '.P.4"•a J IF-4,4' S'> � • -i ,..`� . _ f, ,,, a ,.t.7:' ""..-- i r,, • ti ; >> , • L' r,,i. k. •;_,:{�-ha.74 g• --`y -,- t, ' 0_ri • t t - + a i r \ Z Y t fe}�r1., .\syr'4▪ /• -e-',11k,_,,-.C.,..-V:., _ 1 a,, -,a: s` 1 _ * +. ' , r . x .. q E•i7.,F i r•: La'r tit".ry';-_ •. R}.': '2;l,,*1 ;Ili. .. A'4,�S. 4. ....::•--„,f-::--,-. i' s t , �'1t r '' 1 s j �?.-'.��St.,<Fx'y„N.�:Y 'rat,-- "gi"'siv •ft' 3F ?• �.. I; . , r '+k �h jr '< > - `x ?)�, • • •,,. t �k�',t it"`,-tv.?4+.4scE:14,. rtt4',a`,-. a"v,' .tt Y ,r i •• Ip, .•' Ti s G-`] "`t 3 .,.•ice !'z a�.t-s_+1 .}c, , ' . r vs .�/ w j_:• •'t3a•f .,`L•s., `( f eta 2 4+"7 rv' t_.. t. L `7� .� t is -*' rt i•� i L' .t R ), ',4- ...M.1:.l :a ( i. _ i- _:1 . . •--,,4"---' .......... ... -. S. .. .. .v --- _ CPA-O8-08 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LIAR to 0;change zoning from R-3 to 0. 1 Community Development Department Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Riverside I i 10 ir • L ■ Sprague Sprzwe Spraaue Jilu rlst 1 _I 'I I. HndrlLi r■■ ■ MITi iLiTh 74 ❑ U 1■■ ■ ■■ ill f 4th I ■ 4th n Mill 4th II" y ■ G n • _ ■ ■■, 5th. 3 ■ ■ L five_1 � . a. ■ 5th - o � Soo ' .. mff . CPA-08-08 40 1 !- �ff0ff8 ■ �r■■r SAa • r� v• ; i L11171 � �Gentury 1.it , 'I5Adamsf ElementaryILIAric,..7 ■ ■ n8th 5111 its:111 Central • 1F1 Salley ' 1 —' ]Senior Hifii mill nal MI o 11111 111;ice 10thAEI sth I �_ nom. ❑ IrIIII I T �■, , U ! liii t: , o� �'j. ❑ 1-1 th ■ ■ ]] h 1ti • mi ow 111 U I�?th M „ fq . 1=!th b 13 • th b 1111 65 I ji U !Al 111 III Pal n Eli ....... .; 4, S 1.111L11111111- =- It MENEM= II 14th • ! ims 14th .. minsmimmi .ftAllb .I*. i CPA-08-08 , ; Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley 1 Community Development Department from LDR to 0;change zoning from R-3 to 0. , ( ,, Exhibit 5: Transportation Map U / 1 E z J 1 3rd / U i _____--1_ - - - - _ IM 6.4 4th _ -._ ,= . - _ MI C- 1 _5th�u I I. .1CPA-08-08 . %. X6th / -N i t� N lb ( ,„.. 15 1 II . U Legend th ---- Current Classification o...== State or Federal . -:. Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector P Central Valley Senior High — - Proposed Principal As-terial c6 o - Proposed Minor Arterial •• • Proposed Collector 9th CSpoka ©S Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane rt Dep from FUDR to 0;change zoning from R-3 to 0. Community Development Department EXHIBIT 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (For Staff Use Only) Community Development Department �j Current Planning Division DATE SUBMITTED: (I / w' _ RECEIVED BY: ! j 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 FILE No./NAME: -P --O<6 -051) Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Tel: (509) 921-1000 (5 1 (�O`(Ll n L7 Fax: (509) 921-1008 RE ENED PLANNING FEE: planning@spokanevalley.oro NOV 0 12007 SEPA FEE: c-.KAN E VALLEY COMPREH �'�, '10EMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I—APPLICATION INFORMATION (Check One) 0 Map Amendment 0 Text Amendment PROPERTY OWNER: J. L. SHERICK MAILING ADDRESS: 3721 S UNION CT. CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ZIP: 99206-6321 Email: N/A PHONE: (HM) (wK) N/A (CELL) APPLICANT: DWIGHT J HUME MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N MT.VIEW LANE CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ZIP: 99218 Email: dhume(cr�spokane-landuse.com PHONE: (HM) (WK) 435-3108 (CELL) RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER: Agent PROPERTY LOCATION(ADDRESS AND/OR DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM NEAREST CROSS STREET): 604 S. SULLIVAN RD - ASSESSOR PARCEL No.: 45231.2244 PROPERTY SIZE: 45.112 CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: LER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OFFICE CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-3 PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: OFFICE(0) BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(ATTACH FULL EXPLANATION): FLANKED BY ARTERIAL, OFFICE USES AND APARTMENTS, HIGHEST AND BEST USE FRONTING SULLIVAN IS OFFICE. Page 3 of 26 r � SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: %,/ 'ST / DATE:- SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT: f�r ,t ; , /_aim����/ DATE: // PART'!II —SUBMITTA._ REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MAP AMENDMENTS A. El ( ne (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria contained in Part IV of this application packet and adopted by Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses specific factors contained in Part IV of this application packet and adopted by Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. B. 0 Notice of Application packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the Notice of Application packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) C. laOne (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) D. ❑' Required Comprehensive Plan amendment and SEPA processing fee. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS A. ❑ One (1) copy of the text prop sed to be changed, showing dale '.� by strikethrough and additions by underline. B. 0 One (1) copy of a written summary o the propos-- amendment that describes the following: 1. Why the change is needed and th ote . 'al land use impacts if approved; 2. How the proposed change meet. e approval criteria contained in Part III of this application packet and adoptee y Spo ane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020. C. 0 No fee for Text Amendments. Please submit only unbound set of the above infor ation. Spring binder clips are preferred. Do not Pira) bind or staple your application packet or include dividers, 3- ring binders or plastic covers. Page 4 of 26 PART HI: APPROVAL CRITERIA Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020 establishes the following approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. Proposed amendments must meet all applicable criteria to be considered for approval. The City may approve comprehensive plan amendments if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; C. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; D. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and E. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-020 cites the following specific factors that must be addressed in order for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to be approved. Please address the following factors: A. The effect upon the physical environment; B. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; C. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; D. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; E. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; F. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; G. The current and projected population density in the area; and H. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 26 l PART IV APPLICANT SIGNATURE I, A,4r-- . ,tl,-, , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPON A E MADE TRUTHFULLYA ND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. (Si97' (Date) NOTARY (For Part IIII above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ! " day of NI 260 1 NOTARY SEAL "- NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and r the State of Washington :-SSMQ <<��t Residing at: Jpo L-)P' 400 =g oRaRy cos , My appointment expires: o - z P uss h'`_ 0 1 9t F O `�FS�� Page 6 of 26 Legal Description CPA 604 S. Sullivan Rd. LDR to Office • The North 141.21 ft.of Tract 141 Vera. Together with the S. %z of 6th Avenue vacated ling adjacent thereto. Except the west 5 acres Except any dedications for Sullivan Rd. Consisting of 45,112 sf Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative LLDR to Office at 604 S. Sullivan Rd. Reason for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request The subject property fronts Sullivan Road and is in close proximity to other office,retail and multi-family uses. Central Valley High School facilities are directly across the street and the Sullivan frontage parcels are no longer being developed as LDR projects. This property should enjoy the same rights and privileges of other nearby office sites. The application meets the applicable and specific criteria as described below. Applicable Approval Criteria A. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment; The Proposed amendment is consistent with the existing Office classification located nearby north of the subject property along Sullivan Rd. and adopted by this legislative body as part of the existing comprehensive plan. There is no changed circumstances to indicate any dissimilarity to render this inconsistent.Accordingly, the proposed amendment bears the aforementioned substantial relationship. B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's plan not affected by the amendment. This proposed amendment is consistent with the current comprehensive plan in that it request one of the existing land use categories. As stated above, this Office category is located nearly adjacent and north of the subject property. It is therefore consistent with RCW 3670A and is not otherwise inconsistent with the remainder of the comprehensive plan. C. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area with which the subject property lies. N/A D. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error. The subject property contains a very dilapidated structure that is being demolished. Apparently, the planners or Planning Commission felt that the existence of a single- family residence warranted a zone consistent with the use rather than the trend for the area. This corrects an obvious error. E. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the comprehensive plan.N/A And he specific criteria of Ordinance No. 06-020 as follows: Specific factors To be Addressed: A. The effect upon the physical environment; The proposed change to office use from low density residential is consistent with the nearby land use pattern of office uses fronting Sullivan.Adequate infrastructure of roads and utility services exist as evident by the service to the same uses of the area and the construction of the medium density apartments adjacent to the site. The subject property fronts on a major arterial and does not have a significant effect upon the environment if approved for office use. B. The effect on open space, streams rivers and lakes; There is no effect upon these elements of the environment. Presumably, an office use in-lieu-of more apartments produces less bulk and mass, thus preserving some degree of open space light and air. C. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: First of all, this is not a suitable location for low-density residential and the indication is that higher density apartments and/or offices are replacing the previous residential uses, especially in proximity to the arterials. The subject property fronts along Sullivan Rd and therefore does not have to rely upon access through the surrounding neighborhood streets whereas a residential use would plug into that street system. When choosing between apartments and office use as a neighboring land use to residential low-density, ti is better to have office than apartments due to the off-setting hours of activity. The offices are occupied while the residents are at work and vice versa. For similar reasons, the traffic impacts are off-setting, the employees come and go while the resident neighbors are away. In contrast, an apartment use compounds the impacts of residency and traffic to an existing residential area. Finally, the zoning performance standards can buffer the office better then an apartment project due to the lifestyle differences between office and residential uses. D. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads, public transportation,parks recreation and schools; An Office use cannot and does not have the impacts on the above like residentialuse does due to the off-setting hours of use and the lack of demand for public facility services. E. The benefit to the neighborhood,city and region; The present use has been eliminated and will not be replaced with another residence due to the surrounding land use, noise and proximity to other non-residential uses. Accordingly, the city will of benefit from the highest and best use of the property and corresponding tax base until such use is allowed. Once this is done, the City will enjoy the revenues from the business and real estate assessments and the public will et?joy the convenience of services and businesses close to home. F. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and the density and demand for such land; The location is already demonstrating compatibility for office use and this adds one acre of land area to the city-wide inventory of available office land Due to the various mixed use possibilities for office uses, it is not possible to quantify the need • for additional office space against the potential availability of the same. However, it is possible to determine the most compatible use of this site given the location, configuration and surrounding land use pattern and office use would be the highest and best use and most compatible fit to the surrounding land use pattern. G. The current and projected population of the area; The population projection for this area is not affected by this change. The site would yield approximately 4 dwelling units after platting and dedications of roads. This option is eliminated if the property is changed to office use. H. The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. As stated above, the proposed change is the same as what the plan supports along the Sullivan frontage almost adjacent to the subject property. Due to the nature of the change from residential to office, there is less impacts upon public facilities,parks nd schools.Accordingly, this proposal does not affect the other aspects of the comprehensive plan. EXHIBIT 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Sikikane PLANNING DIVISION Valley® 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 Fax:509.921.1008 cityhall@spokanevalley.org ® DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE File No.: CPA-08-08 Description of proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District (R-3) to Office (0) on approximately 1.02 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. Proponent: J.L Sherick Location of proposal: The proposal is located east of Sullivan Road and one lot north of Century Avenue at 604 S.Snilivan Road;specifically located in the NE 1/4 of Section 23,Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number 45231.2244,Spokane Valley,Washington. Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department,Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 2 c . This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DNS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) Responsible Official: Staff Contact: Kathy McClung,Community Development Director Mike Basinger,AICP-Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Department,Planning Division 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) 688-0030/ FX: (509)921-1008 PH: (509) 688-0045/ FX: (509) 921-1008 kmcclung@spokanevalley.org mbasinger@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: February 15,2008 Signature: GLS^ A , ef2t4-146-- APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued specifically by February 29, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.. This appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the City's Uniform Development Code,and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680,appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. EXHIBIT 8 19307 EAST CAT.ALDO I\� SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99016 (509)228-3400 CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT#356 RECEIVED April 29, 2008 APA 3 0 2008 Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner SPOKANE VADEPARTMENL EY City of Spokane Valley COMMOF UNITY DEVELOPMENT 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: CPA-08-08 Dear Mr. Basinger: Central Valley School District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject plat application. Although Central Valley School District does not see any issues between the proposed plat application and the district's present facilities and properties; it should be noted that the district cannot_ensure students within the proposed plat will attend the closest school...,. Based upon current enrollment growth rates the potential exists to transport students to schools in various areas of the district based upon availability and enrollment at that point in time. The district expects to have room for students from these proposed new homes if they are occupied before Fall 2008. If, however, they will be completed after that time, Central Valley School District asks that the City of Spokane Valley 1) postpone approval in line with provisions of state law(RCW 58.17.110(1«2), the Growth Management Act, Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, pending availability of additional school facilities, or 2) condition approval on payment by the developer of a per dwelling unit fee equal to the district's eligibility for school impact fees. Again, thank you for the chance to provide comments to the subject plat application and if there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at 228-5411. Sincerely, / 4 -- ;Bradley A.,.Wayland Director,:Facilities & 015ei-ations- Q4 — c '�1SSA STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4601 N Monroe Street a Spokane,Washington 99205-1295• (509)329-3400 RECEN ED February 28,2008 MA�� 5 200$ Ms.Kathy McClung,Director Citi SPO ne Vale City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Ms.McClung: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,File No. CPA-0808 (Proponent-J.L. Sherick).The Department of Ecology has reviewed the documents and would like to submit the following comments: Water Resources Program On-site septic tank and drainfield systems are designed to treat and dispose of domestic wastewater or its equivalent only. Commercial and industrial operations discharging wastes other than domestic wastewater to on-site systems may result in ground water contamination and could cause the facility owner or operator to incur severe liabilities. Water Quality Program Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water. Local stormwater ordinances will provide specific requirements. Also refer to the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/eastern manual/manual.html). All ground disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When appropriate,use native vegetation typical of the site. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at Department of Ecology prior to use and the discharge from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement(nonendangerment standard)at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program,Department of Ecology,P.O.Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360)407-6143 or go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/registration/reg info.html for registration forms and further information. - - i Ms. Kathy McClung February 28,2008 • Page 2 Stormwater runoff may contain increased levels of grease, oils, sediment, and other debris. Stormwater Best Management Practices(BMPs)should be installed and maintained so that any discharge will be appropriately treated to remove these substances. Dumpsters and refuse collection containers shall be durable, corrosion resistant,nonabsorbent, nonleaking, and have close fitting covers. If spillage or leakage does occur,the waste shall be picked up immediately and returned to the container and the area properly cleaned. Routine inspections and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs)are recommended both during and after development of the site. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Ecology's comments are based upon the information provided with the SEPA checklist. As such, they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. • Sincerely, • Terri Costello SEPA Coordinator Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office 4601 N. Monroe Street Spokane, WA 99205-1295 Phone: (509)329-3550 Email: temi461@ecv.wa.aov 2008-1088 • cc: J.L. Sherick CPA-01-08 thru CPA-08-08 Page 1 of 1 Micki Harnois From: Red, Jim[JRed@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:48 AM To: Tavis Schmidt; Micki Harnois; Micki Harnois Subject: CPA-01-08 thru CPA-08-08 Hi, All Compehensive Plan Amendments are within sewer projects and will be required to connect to sewer as properties are developed. Plans, fees, security and so on, wil be required as needed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 477-7279. Thanks, Jim 05/2008 Spokane Department of Community Development J‘41.§, _ (Nanning Division 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments File Number CPA-03-08 continued Public Hearing File Numbers CPA-07-08 and CPA-08-08 Public Hearing spN,aT Department of Community Development jwuq„....,. [Manning Division CPA-03-08 Continued Public nearing • Location:Southeast corner of the intersection of Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road • Size:3.1 acres • Current Uses:4-single family residences with detached garages.One parcel contains only a pole building +lJa Ne 2 t.ml�+��Hm,lmmfmiu:m6 SD46aaDepartment of Community Development jtal Planning Division Vicini Map 3: lice • •V `. __,P� may. Q4.^. -i. C:'� S — .. '4 1 Department of Community Development f�7masl.r Planning Division 1 ' ). yii/ •Viewrsecfromonof the ■ii r int .- •. etiAlki Avenue and Marguerite Road looking southeast •View from Alki Avenue looking southeast Val,,0. rmdtravalvrw.Ion**xma /\ Department of Community Developmentj �-1„�.. Ptanoins Division Comprehensive Plan --- — 'CPA-45-03 4.5§2M/1..;;;; ',... ...0 - tiw,n..s .;.A.d.>.;K itm n•..w.ou:OA •/\ Department of Community Development jNONIu.naa•• Planning Division Zonin s .,a ,. _I " . —.. AIV I �;, wa<u.a rorepdagerK n..Am*..sen 2 Spa.arc Department of Community Development jNalk.„•� Planning Division Comp Plan Policy LUP-9.2 The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include: • A variety of housing types including apartments,condominiums,town houses,two- family and single family dwellings on small lots; c1.+..W.t C .r n.,nnra.mou Mat /� Department of Community Des elupment Jkulk;•�,,. Planning Division Residential in CMU and MUC Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mud Oae cornea I canter Mumu use I Dwelling,accessory aparhnents Dwelling,Caretakers residence Dwelling.Congregate L_ • Dwelling.Duplex I 1 Dwelling.Muaifamly _ • 7l___ Dwelftardyg,single fay I Dwelling.Townhouse I • I • No.s Can,.IN,.c 1, ,aoi.wnu,11m I SSppAAh/\ Department of Community Development Planning Division :' ,.: r -tom t; tt - Alklinotlooay.. - hIA IYgiaI• o '" 'j_5:±4.1- „� -4a�} 1. e_ >o-s ?a�'�: a8 1 s, 1� 2 I-T -.4, ''jlr,."?•,.;? �` -741i-c7:.0 '` i —j • _ 3 Department of Community Development jIS•aoFaa Planning Division CPA-07-08 • Location:Corner of Carnahan and 3rd Avenue • Size: 1.24 acres • Current Uses: 2 single-family homes m,....m.ntI,...mom m• cam/`.— Department of Community Development � .,.�..:. Planning Division Vicinity Map Lowes • ,r•!•w• •T! ,i eaneercare Interstate 9D int-`ry'*- '47.s.•.'._�•aa=".p_':.•' — UW4Dm1 F s ._ •.90 p Department of Community Development J �..�r Planning Division •Northern view of parcel from 3"' Avenue fi Lowes North of CC r o' ! U ' e t., 'Vacant property to the ,• v Cancer Care Facility to west %n' the east NNWAmhenuvc _vu 4 cf,Noole Department Community Development Planning Division Comprehensive Plan ra • I - 0. mar Department of Community Development J�vllg��, Planning Division Zoning rf ®= i MEIN ®� I, ..Lmri.cnaMmbmu Spii.am Department of Community Development Planning Division CPA-08-08 • Location: E.of Sullivan Road and one lot north of Century Avenue • Size: 1.02 acres • Current Uses: Vacant land KIxL�'a 15 C Aver.I1 .Mmndmo b hot 5 y,anv Department of Community Development email ......°‘all}`•-.m.. Planning Division Vicinity Map LAparnnetns I . - -, °'Vie•. — central Duplex -R,� Valley Division H.S. ..�,._.m Corr.hmt.iriarr Mu YZt St+xa •.-- Department Community DevelopmentjN"f4:�...... Planning_Division •Looking N.E.of CPA Aparmuints and Of iixs r• Duplex Division r �` •South of , < or .tt1iiik.- r, ' CPA I ., •Looking north of CPA llmAdnmir•IWAnm4mm_u0t 'so,./''...,,,, Dc rtmem it of Community �� Pa Y Develoment P jtal ......r Planning Division Comprehensive Plan t,off,JJ °to. -_._ HI1PI —L / Pit,l IS Nul Macn_..hmirc Ion MnNrar.N. 6 st ,..-".. Department of Community Development a...... ......*NO1§.......... Planning Division Zoning o..+' : • 1 i Comprastv<I Ian Aurraimcne N.ii Department of Community Dmelopment -0.°‘.115Losno..- Planning Division Questions? namprchuanc WA Ammernaus NOS 7 m -' Schedule of o RI u. Permitted Uses o c c ` E` @ 7 r Reference Conditions 4t co N co Appendix 19-A o S . EEE `o E E E 0) E E E TE E d' th th R' 2 2 Z Z 2 0 V C, 0 Z 0 0 0 Ce 0 U J.. w _ - 81 814 Dwelling,accessory apartments SVMC 19.40.100 81 814 Dwelling,Caretaker's residence SVMC 19.60.060(1) • • 72 7213 Dwelling,Congregate 0 0 0 0 • • • • • 81 814 Dwelling, Duplex • 0 • 81 814 Dwelling,Multifamily 0 0 • SVMC 19.60.020(2) • • I • • • 81 814 Dwelling,single family 4. B' SVMC 19.60.020(2) • • I 81 814 Dwelling,Townhouse o 0 0 0 SCITY OF1111°.\1111111111ft 7‘ 40. -7-z:')11 `---5, --- .' IT' F --' '7 '''' /7"'\ -":7'C) 1--- -• Ir ---,-1 `- — — •Li Li (-Cji —1 Li Li li L.1 ri—Li cs.----!1 t \----1Q,i)L Li LI 1,111 d d c:-..'( D[i (r--: rfi p.okane .,,.. Valley®. c-r.-J in 7 Ti] . DATE: NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS WISH TO SUBJECT E-MAIL 4,A,4 ,t,-?_,2/ SPEAK? PeAtITMN-7 Lt: 9/0/ 4/1,),"a ez,f) ,/,‘, r, ,,4 -0 1111-4(6- rka r id Pe /1 7446c/6g/7-6- / ' "^`-' \ .„.. l""Y-M1ul-r- 4p1.7Z..I- - S ”. '---..-------__-I ��`I- b� _ Fn n,00a " MaP c -1 2643 ! _ I — 12644 � 9 I 164�� _ °` _1 i... •-" „,a T;"t r Z I _ 1; Potential 35 Urban Mmaeley. -'3'1' 1 .y-1J 32 I 33 I _ '1�•pn_- _ 1`' c\ .. G •,....e,..!"II Urban 11 I 32 I Renee\e I' fti s.+`.`I.�° = "° [ _a e 3 cn.,a ., •,.,•.•^. '; j�ReserveG Annexation Areas 1 rnny r, I.\••,r _ - Y-rte a h` 13 I �-nnt'�" { _ °rd7tr' Cron: y•' r re_r I t 2 e� _._ _, , le _,T N'.Mln.__-t•Y._____.�..______h_.._ __ _.-. udu•+�_. _ .__ _ .. rl �tlroe"�._ __�___..____.._.____�q _ ___.__ _.�$� " •'"' ._____ . _: P;,4 1 r•:$ s ,..'ye r - /Ilrhan, -Ikea -.. ,- I..<hn,i,",_ :fir- '-ir. - I .k�1t3r,Of I Il use a ..Y - ._—... 1'----1 Ri#enH 3 are _ _ al<n yi i 1 Spokane s° 3 �:„�� '.. .3---. ., ,I��� • ' 1.,.. f17 ' .1c s'"+yn<1= 3 it- a_ _ I - .. Ill _ i u_ Iw .UPPP" ! m, r 1 Legend I. 01 -I--,aaar1 �_ I I iii. .• . m 1l i 7 I ' ^• �''tljal y9.l a .,_ _ i P ;rrr I £ ill r rv,rrrr ' -! n / e DI"" r e1 e u _ I i Potential Annexation Areas c - S dk3a,RI•cr - 'a - ■ r'>>_ Miliw.00c� fes . �mw ` j •,F , � m I ' i �- e ` ^n�drn ' , i n,a"a'n,\r,. Ci of Spokane Valle Il�bne City P Y i, aeo:ere I �a1 ara'a, -s - n 1 •1 _ 4;1:aale 'ReaerG'e , x ' c n 1r t • Other Municipalities 7 _� � P� I nJ 1 0 € I ._ ��' �j` IN)._ P If/ AI I' _- (T'RS_i. •!{IR , r�"'� 9 1 a !,,,„„„4:-- nc.n. ��� —!e - -- """"' --' _; -Urban Reserve .o�' y,.�61. _ -� _ 7i � 3 !hila -*. ore '--- I:Existing Urban Growth Area /--- JM,,, 1.1-- - II .. L------* -* - _ ,a„ ly Q.� Ltr�T rv1MM.22, �-Y r _ - - MMM, - Water Bodies .1�., ,. _ mitr � k Slmo e r_ c N.m I�.� _.- a et;ty,c S 1 N m.n I*-1 arotr"T c ° Pro< grmtP.a-_. 2 I eLak { lm1i1-� neM _I .- same b e.- AJa1e133 �' c 1v,,. Id, rl.Doe y I Ids J ,t"a E 17 fu t C 1S 1 roe r• 161 1 11 I "N Y\- �. 7 - --p-- ._ 4Q.viii 11<rt� I . .d \' rvw,' 1- .-_. --_ - .Alli- :-- .. S_ _ _ -i .:- IN --4.,,„,:m - _ s- 1. - ..-2,...— me e P Ico u. K'mA4 .N1. I Al,�, I _ - Ir,M'n I g _ yeaa A'+e' I 1 E d -- A' " ••1� ��' a to c 1. I ons C "P � --.' u / d P-$ 1 _'!�,^.'-_. \ +m ,.- - - - Slielln a 1b:5ra E.__ 3 2545+n _1 tr'nNn �i.—s Is, k1 g_rah - ' t6 a I ''- t -LG rak .__'f _ _srG___ nn ..Lake M.Hn nA „� ,__I~_ 1 iR, i _ -ill u a ] \ , - orb— _ I ._- , m I i I,.< 1 I Y , tin, i -I 1,_` 9 r. t. la l" pp iy_ia ,A6 ,6--`___ 'a I1n 1 1Iy<s, a:{ I .s. A+-Ilii _f 1116 3 ,n .Ism L , I e 'en mqUrban S Ill 1]ik I r } I SI s� e1 $ Ji'm 3 °F E H 1 nY. {�mrReceeve 8 II Iti_ '1 Ian - j {,lro __ P l'.:, -wAa c E s inti d I l� 2 S t71A� jJ \ \ '1Mih E '�Ik1 4. 3 t r.1,i 1n µ- A �"ffi_fi e HN 7P hi _4'• �!•'� .i 1 , \ \ °a'_ _ Nqn 1,4 Sne� <+Ib 'P* \S"" ! 1--� {�. a I oa t ..". 1 r 1 r-4., �, 3.-- 714 J !tit '•,.';InA. ..,ar p Fe° SA I3 N F. I.pA r 1 I I ? 3 e ora wa"',• a-. ,i.,- "ora- „p" y y+ j !k , 74,0 2y a. 1 7 s '\ .au f ~'ya :LnS -! LJ0 r l-tlelln ori 2v i 7^4 a6 - 3 'r- 'd._. .+e- r f Reserve. I sr ° r-r„_- "ore i.1 5 , , !Perk I AA_ Xm - 1,v'rx. - h c 1 ]� ...4'?: I �• ; s I 1 nm , Map Location , alx I , .. Id ..,...„ Urban -'`,1 r ! 31 .iva ry*, .ql t - !..tl .__ 3,1 ndl.' - is .1 32 r._ t $ YN Resers•e'II'1 ,�„ aI'^ Date:5/8/2008 f I aam ;� i \.: ' z-I'1r'''� , ) n' :r0.<;,q_ o I I ' ,+ore - c • - - . am ' 4 p -nisi`---- ...I srnswc I 14 I { 9Jmb..t,-....,--'.i_.- 7r.1rc1' L _ UfBA ..I- _ li .I •�:(_.. ' [Im7 IB' „ Reserve•10 - i 1 n. I j t _ .,,n16 Ip. r I 1 1 I e.-, ,- __ +em`, I - 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1b •�Rr I ? I I Xa-7{'+"n! raTg _ _ ,r -1`m";.•” 45 1 i I , t I I I 1 1 I 1 1 sr r UI • .I 06 I US -1_1 I, �-;0) 27 },n�wl �1�-1 INotice:Me y y j ,\ lltjarmnnar shown at this mop!r compiled rola Inrlans 1 �y I ?rei ^`1 1 U-'p4 s 1 n5 sources and is sub/act le constant recision,lye Cly makes/16 claims Isim (^ °2443 `` ^/ ! s �'r n4 �' I 245 or gua amces about du otturo ynr torraoq•oJihlrmay and r.V`r I I -1 -s,.• 's I S expressly disclaims/lablllyjar errors and emissions In Hs contents. 13 � I I .� -�' ! "_s I I a I I To calnrm accuracy eonlod Ira Ciy r7JSPcknne Palley,Community 61 1 X ~ K A \I _ I I tpo. I d ` to>•t': 7yo I I I lhwe/ mem rinuu,Division o!'lambs SD 9:f-lIMO. �?.t1 I 1 1 I Hel • __�tk___ __-_______ __ -.:p.-::------ _-,,Pruduclar ifie Clty ofSlwkene l'alkry,Community tk.'rMPmml lkperimenI __;C,(,l�vA i i- eco / [ awl 03 5/20/2008 bu k tit n - - -a• - w "' _ .. Ill - _ syr _ A 525 N.Marguerite Rd. 505 N.Marguerite Rd. } ra.r f r Old chicken house,rabbit hutch 423 N.Marguerite Rd. },1 y . a • • �:.:;. Vii;.— -,- ''°•. __ __ • _.- J9 -� • 417 N.Marguerite Rd. 8821 E.Valleyway 1 5/20/2008 r..„ ti: -.. 1i , . 1 ,,r Marguerite Rd.looking north from Valleyway West Valley City School&Dishman Baptist Church t 440 t, • • t Ix ry - - . ��A I ,.`t'ti•. �� ._ •• r =.gym„ School field at Marguerite and Valleyway 420 N.Marguerite Rd. r F J IrT . ,r rr - - :V gaitt . F'1 c. I {_ 500 N.Marguerite Rd. 510 N.Marguerite Rd. 2 . , . 5/20/2008 ..., • -'. , ,A,....- 47,../..( •., 4.:,,.: ... ,..-...."....e...,... - , -". • - - - -,-,1,1`, . ..,- --ti,. :-` ' - -- An -.A. - . .. . ..,..... . ikrii:a;. J. - .... .: _ : • .. -, ... -...,.. • 10 .),' • - -. .... `,,'!- . • ' 111 ''''.--'.%:::/: `1. , .—x . •,- It.'''. ,. '_F-.-, - •'''.1 ', lailla;.....44'...if dr.._ :-, ' .. -• ..-- 1 in .._-_, i iv RIF ,-, • I; -_ - - •-,' _ _ .- . , , ,. ..,. 8902 E.Alki Ave. - — i Alki Ave.from Marguerite . .. -... • . _,.., . .., • _ --:, . -: 1 : ,-4' .r. --. .-.. t ',-,... •.1 .0, e -..• ••le, 3 r , • ... + •••• . . .44 . a.-... 4%f:•K -- ..1:,‘' li,V 4 _. .:- .. -. • .:.,,,, 1 .• p.t • '''''fi - . • _: • . ., ''..., 1 ''' . .,,- •A..-.i, . ....111ww, , .,., , ,. , ..)... -.- l' - _....Id r tia•r:: ." - ." .4 i_•(Al:,._ 6.10, 1- '-'4.-: -'• : k ' - ..,•,•.!-:,`-' '1. ' , , ,•e, , )-V--•.:,-„4, ``4. •=.i":..-;',.-- ;-' "14fFra&"*I4A4 '1•7•-•tr7'7--441. Site of proposed access to property on Alki View of Marguerite near Argonne and Alki - ii , ••• • . ..- , Nc...'"1. 5, ''''."•• /!i• S. ...t y . , .;'Al P... . , , , .,‘,„„•”:1•:. : , 'l- .... - • -' ,., '',:t.r filViCr7,. l " - • , • t • ‘'‘...... IIVF.,i,.1 • -:: -. -• ' :: ..t ""-----.1:01 7Aer. .‘•-•-•;1)1.'':'-Z::t.• 1. ".3,0,:rti. ',.."1-''• • '''. • r r': li :1'1' "i`•4-11.-V''..i.,C I,- :' ; 1111 INIM ii()!It 92 p*a, ' ..1.-i":"1„1.6.411416ena ..._ k' +. 7 ' ,' '-,40:-, .'• :1: ' it \ '1.1 . • .•t ''''.....' :'-'' • .-: f•':‘ 'ii•-•..•;.'A- --11: • -. -?•••':?-''''-1-7:•„,,--':".1." --Z-41."----.: ‘, I A, .'kt, '77:',",:1'..... .'.•—-- 7-* •-f' '•'•'-,' ..,-•"4.:.- -., • - -. ,• • ' 'qr.-41 a ,. ? . 1,• 4 "4,3" , .:',., ,y.g.i4gr.,. I ' ".-.-- '-• - . 2 lots north of Alki on Marguerite Rd. Marguerite Rd.south to Alki from pasture 3 RECEIVED MAY 2E 2Y8 May 20, 2008 SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall, Suite 106 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, Wa 99206 Att. Micki Hariois RE: CPA-03-08 To whom it many concern: It should be obvious that this amendment and zoning change should be denied. This proposal would be an encroachment into a quiet residential neighborhood. It is a finger reaching into our neighborhood. The property is bordered on both the north and west by single family homes. On the south there is a school, play field and more single family homes. Only on the east does this property border an area with an office designation Each of those parcels border Argonne Road which provides their access. At the time that those office buildings were approved it was argued that they would provide a transition between the busy Argonne Corridor and our single family neighborhood. Access to the property in question is limited to Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road. Both are quiet residential streets lined with historical homes. These two streets provide major access for the school bordering the property on the south. They are often filled with children walking or on bicycles. Since the school has no vehicle turnaround or off street loading, most vehicles, including school buses,use the two streets to travel to or from the school. To allow this additional development abutting the school would be irresponsible. At present those who live along these two streets look out front windows at stately historic homes on the other side of the street. To replace these homes with offices and parking lots would destroy the character of the neighborhood If this type of development is allowed to reach into neighborhoods and have no direct access to an arterial,there will soon be no residential streets left in the Spokane Valley. Please deny this amendment and zone change. 'A'//6—r 6P/ 2fal-- Gregory A. Mott 8907 East Alki Avenue Spokane Valley, Wa 99212 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNTiG DIVISION SCITY RECOMMENDATION STAFF REPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION TO THE .Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-03-08 STAFF REPORT DATE:April 30,2008 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 8, 2008, 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: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0); corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District (R-3) and Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Garden Office District(GO)on approximately 3.1 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. !( PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road, addressed as 8902 East Alki Avenue,420 North Marguerite Road, 500 North Marguerite Road,508 North Marguerite Road and 510 North Marguerite Road; specifically located in the SE I/4 of Section 18,Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM; parcel number(s) 45184.0804, 45184.0805, 45184.0807, 45184.0819 and 45184.0820, Spokane Valley,Washington. OWNER/APPLICANT: Dennis Raugust,c/o Boulder Creek,Inc., 19012 Nevada Road, Spangle,WA 99033 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Chapter 2(Urban Land Use)of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,Title 17(General Provisions),Title 19(Zoning Regulations)and Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends that the Planning Commission approve CPA-03-08. STAFF PLANNER:Micki Harnois,Associate Planner,Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Greg McCormick,AICP,Planning Manager,Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3: 2007 Aerial Map Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Exhibit 5: Transportation Map Exhibit 6: Application Submittal Exhibit 7: SEPA Determination Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-08 Page 1 of 5 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: October 30,2007 Determination of Completeness: October 30,2007 Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance(DNS): February 15,2008 End of Appeal Period for DNS: February 29,2008 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 18,2008 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: April 18,2008 PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The site is approximately 3.1 acres in size. The SEPA checklist states the site is flat. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential District (R-3) and Single Family Residential Urban District(R-4) Existing Land Use: ' All of the properties have an existing home and detached garage on the site except for the property located at 508 North Marguerite Road which only has a pole barn. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—Office,High Density Residential,and Low Density Residential Zoning —High Density Residential (MF-2), Garden Office District (GO), and Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses—Single-family residences South Comprehensive Plan—Public/Quasi-Public and Low Density Residential Zoning—Community Facilities(CF) Existing Land Uses—Playfield East Comprehensive Plan— Office Zoning—Garden Office District(GO) Existing Land Uses—Office buildings West Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential Zoning—Single Family Residential District(R-3) Existing Land Uses—Single-family residences II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. 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. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-08 Page 2 of 5 III.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria)Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that (analysis is italicized): a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment; The public health, safety, and general welfare will be promoted in accordance with standards established by the state and the City of Spokane Valley's regulations. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Adjacent land use designations are consistent with the proposed amendment. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error;or The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact an the environment. Further environmental evaluation may be completed at the time of development. b. The effect on open space,streams,rivers,and lakes; The SEPA checklist states that there is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of site. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is contiguous to Office and Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designations. The proposed amendment is also located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods (west of CPA-03-08). At the time of development, standards in Title 22(Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70(Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation, parks,recreation,and schools; The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan, which Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-08 Page 3 of 5 identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. The proposed amendment will not have an impact on schools considering the request is for an office designation. e. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region; The proposed amendment will provide office, light retail and service establishments for the surrounding neighborhood. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The proposed amendment is approximately 3.1 acres in size and will provide additional office and light retail uses. The potential demand for this type of office development is unknown. g. The current and projected population density in the area;and The proposed amendment will potentially decrease population density. The proposed amendment does not demand population analysis. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 19(ZONING REGULATIONS)OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 19.60.050(Office District)Spokane Valley Municipal Code The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is from Low Density Residential to Office and corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R-3)and Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Garden Office District(GO). The Garden Office designation is intended primarily for low-rise office development with limited retail or commercial uses. Retail and commercial uses are limited to those that are clearly subordinate to the primary office use or the retail function primarily serves the office uses in close proximity to the retail or commercial use. Garden Office uses provide a buffer between residential uses and commercial uses. Primary uses including medical and dental facilities, educational services, insurance, real estate, financial institutions, design firms, and legal services are representative of the Garden Office District. Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is contiguous to other office uses and multi-family development. The office zoning will provide a transition between the low intensity commercial uses located on Argonne Road and the single-family residences located north and west of the site. Office uses work well for this because they tend to generate less traffic and noise, and operate shorter hours. CPA-03-08 is consistent with the intention of the Garden Office District(GO). B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive plan states that the Office designation is intended primarily for low-to high-rise office development with limited retail or commercial uses. The plan further states,that Spokane Valley has areas of existing quality office development. Several developments within the Argonne/Mullan Couplet,Pines Road,and Evergreen Road corridors embody good design and are representative of desired future office development.The project is adjacent to properties that front Argonne road. Staff analysis is italicized. 1. LUG-8 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages appropriate development standards for Office designated areas. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-08 Page 4 of 5 Staff Comment: At the time of development, standards in Title 22(Design and Development Standards), specifically 22.70 (Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping)will reduce impacts on adjacent properties by providing visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. 2. LUP-8.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends integrating sidewalks,bike lanes,landscaping,and area lighting in office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment. Staff Comment: At the time of development, landscaping and lighting will be required for the new office development complying with Title 22 and other applicable regulations. There are existing sidewalks on Argonne. Traffic from the proposed use shall be directed from Marguerite Road via Alki Avenue to Argonne Road and not routed through the adjoining neighborhood. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES Findings: The property is currently served with public water and sewer. Access is provided from Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road which are designated as Local Access Streets in the Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan(Exhibit 5). D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comment concerning the proposal to date. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CPA-03-08 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. E. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: Agency comments are related to the physical development of the property. These comments will be addressed at the time of development. Comments are attached as exhibits to the staff report. Conclusion(s): Staff has reviewed comments and no concerns are noted. IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Office and change in zoning classification to Garden Office is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA-03-08. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for CPA-03-08 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 1 : Comprehensive Plan Map rI _° B;oadwav Broadway Broadway/ S 6fi�a1 / .foeldC�a. 1. i ''''°.... :4'... ' ' . ' •,", ' . . . ...:0 _ ../.2% I % o E :t lu.:r i- > / �� Vi!Lii l i I'uI lie G ���� i I � l If /�/CPA-03-08 • , \\:,\,_ .;) ,,, \7 .....,,,,, ....„. _..,.., ,r7„.., \ ,, N., ..,,,,,, ,., ' ..„----.-•:;:,-, .),,. . . , __,>,.., , ,, , , . . _ _..... 0 -, , , ,\ , ,.. ,,5,,,office 00,0;0 _....„. 1 i / / 0,„ L + Density i, ' \ % i / Residential . .0_. i _ 3 V j i G West N alley _ _ _ __ - ' \ h �jJ \a11e��sv ' lalleVwav \allec v \atic\ ay City School __ - : - ----7--- 1---- � ITT- 1 :or A. 1 iy •0 -7., I j / c T:if ii l 1i11iR ��/ . , " '4 'csi�lcn i I _ J�� Iam n4:iiii"- • i 1 ? ani MAI ..0,- �Gt�f —Itg�;� =in �////�/ � �� �i CPA-03-05 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation o Citi, of Spokane Dep alley from LDR to 0;change zoning from R-3/R-4 to GO. I Communit`�Developmentt Department l l z - 4 _ -�.-�- ..�....�.._.._.....__.�..__..____.- ...�..._.�� . Exhibit 2: Zoning Map ' t roadway Broadway Broadway Broadway 1 IBi08d11'aV r i I• _ / i • llJ I 1 fill) ✓✓ /�j CPA-03-08 i I-\\:, ,, i R-3 // %// .H 1 1 1 I _amu=;_- ` i 1 1 :,..7...",,..,.. .,.,._..,,.....".„,....,.„„:,..,.,_.--.'_%'1-_,--' , : 1 1 :,..„... .....0,000„,.../....•••••° 0 ; 1 1 I 1 1 i y...„....",:".. �4'est�'alle� _ _ ? tiralletuay Valk-1'15'2V ,Vull_N�N ��311 City SChooi�=lielie.121Y Valltmay 5 C i• , ; ; , O (.•F a I I _ / / ]�C� fain i t rr - I --� C— 19ain —Maui y 1 CPA-03-OS t I i' City of Spokane Valley : l Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation j from LDR to O. chane amino from R-3/R-4 to GO. 1 Community I�e��elopment Department Exhibit 3: 2007 Aerial Map t _ - J Y i „If . , ., :,* AL I 1 uH .. .' G i ...a. --,.i. •01. 1131 til` `V- Z, t_ [t. R I- , . _,.:„ , -.--. , ‘,. 1 , : ,.., -. , _:._,,,,. ,__ ,, y v- r Air i a c ,i`.r '' .•.k3 < • f i Aft -. ;- _-- �`_ �• r,� yi .tom-'!a4 _stv wf r Alki , Sit _ r 441 - # 1 , It v i -:E°`' i 4 r EPA-Q3-Q81:„7...."" - :,,..- - ,..' t . � t s rare - aF.2 •/-1 _ —`� --_ -_- .,.7 I,,tr".^- r' f.:'..t.s, effAr:‘, -'"--: • y-!_i-,^a e 1 , - /ter/• LI -....-.-7 -..-:,•!-- rr7-$: , i 14 I 75----14€•:-Ail:,,:i. . T..,; _ ., . . .,, _ .. . _. / at ,, ams ., i zr �- r..1 - + - ��-aD '� S,Lr' 'X•-• n' „«,.r _ �s..as',S', t"'••'. '4°,syy`" r.i . do 1 �, $ `, 'f < _'' _ - _:� e. • ..,-t_. .... -.1;i.i...,._ . l'.1- . 1 - 1, \ - F4 -, _ - - - `_ - ti.iz P41 I i 0 . . • Y 1-- • c_s.—mac,. 1- . �.('+. G` �-. + = ' '•,1 .$- • _ z t ier ;iii Lit : r ff .4 v ji�� t•-!i _ 1 -0 . ..It , I * ) . k . At.' , 1 . k'fil-;:r: t-F,-..-Pl. ---''-_. - 1-,..., Vail 1-•Vall'6y;\isa` ..._-.7-.1,--z_-• �''�alle�'�ca�° ❑ !+ West Nall e3 0 c= Z. uoe + ' _ v :i� t City School= •_ I ` CPA-03-08 • Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of S ol�ane Valley , I j p I !' from LI}R to 0;change zoning from R-3/R-4 to GO. 11 Community Development Bepartment 1 Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map r_- . _,�.._.�-7 _ - -- - ------ --7--- MIssionJ� Huston'—� rssioo� i '' — � .v I i-/ [ 1 u I I 1_111 _j 11I '-�J 1H (a ( s ,I I I I I/ — 1 1 1 IN.Maxw.ell� I ...1 1.1 .1 A ‘, 1--„; U tJ �r I I I I I 'S3nt. �^'m� • I I I- =-�Sirito t �I11 --i, I . -------T, Shut. 1 1 I t. 1 1 1 � S., MI11111 TIHP1 �. � I > 1 .�_ 'a... 4 I- -I_1 , IL—__ r I I r..•I - I El zi ��� m In H Bol ie 1 1 ( I Boone I 11 1 1 n 1 *HI Bool ne 1 1 1-�I t I l \ I _ I I ----I —I ! _ f I )( I I l h 1 ■.■ Desme• I >.! io I �—, � ' 1 I g L-1-11---HH I-% - I l z i J —�� 3rthuri C.atald i I 1I Cataldol I IT I I I�� 11 I I-..{ ataldo I B essl i �� iHIIIH ylI. n _ nn � I �� Fet.I• la BroadNlavl 1 I Broadway 11 1 11 _ . .. ^ II1I'! n �' 1 I z,.% Spri2fi�id '' _ l i I I 1 �' CPA-03-08 _ ��1 1 ii .911 i Ilk I �i ��� HGyrn I l�.rora� St John • J 1 I I Vianney. l2I II mi IF.:' MN iiiI I Ell ,ill IMI ip,„:, ..... 1 1,-, ...T7-1 , OE i 11 _ z I ' 1..—,d , !z School I I 1 Valle�Laa I I \'t. 1 vxv-v \alleatw!a s I I, I I �_ I 1 1 I ( n 1,11111 1-- ��1.111111 1 - o 1, ,R—H_Hrilotil 1 1 I I 11 III ''• I 11.� 11----1 1 im❑ — 1 1 �Liaiii 1 1 I� MI 1p„ I I null' r ,. ��tNarrit>rot0ri � I i I 1 I I•l I -` in L: ,lU 1 , I= 1 1 1 ly— IRivcrside 1 1 Sprague—:% I Sprague �\ �J Sprague Sprague —` fl.1 , --, . I� 1St �� ,�-,� LDISIPH �,�, hhrhan o3�,`' ]st I 1 1 1 \ \ 4 Pi 4np1y 1e .. 111111771----------'j—� J —_ P �/ 7 \ - �_4'11P�v aP ,-,�av 110111 I!1 4 < >\• -t. Millo I \_ ^A� n� , v __)NUG 11n— nSp Dish laan \tiirc .ills 111111_. J , — , -• L _ , ,.. CPA-03-08 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to O;change zoning from R-3/R-4 to GO. Exhibit 5: Transportation ration Ma •i I l6.,s: iJ I 1 1 � 1 I a -I I 1' 11 1i i 1 11 1 1 I I� .- I1 ! i 1 1 i I 1 I , II 1 1 —I I . I II1 k I1 I I Cataldo Il —o i 1 1 I ! i I I 1 I I I 1 i I I I f- I II - 1 1 ' 1ii 1 -- I I l I I L I, -1 1 i I . I I i ; . - I I Ili , Ili 1( . 1 {i i { i I I I i . i 1 1 ---t I f I I i ! i / CPA-03-os I I 1 1 I i 1 I I• / • ' I I lI 1 I I vi—, , 1 1 I 1 I r a. , ,..-_!1. III I I , I //1 1 1 1i 31— �1 _ ri ,, I I l 1 1 ?' I l ; i 1 I 1 z: I I I I I I 1. I I i I 1 I I I / 1 I I � I1 I I 1. � , I I I 1 I Yalle.rwa• WestNalley-City_School • � � < < IFI___— i I I I I IIII .. - Legend - 1 Nod, I I _ _ 1 = JLii , ! 1I I I:, Current CEassificattonI i 1 ; l 1 llha;I 11 I' State or Federal —Main 1 '",1-- Principal Arterial I I I I 1 I I I 1 ! Minor Arterial • I t I 1 i 1 .1 ! Collector - f4irim�,ta= 1 I I !! 1 1 ! • - Proposed Principal Arterial 1 J / 1 1 �— i , i I 1 • - Proposed Minor Arterial —'71-'---------1-----i__1 � i I 1 l�II 1 LI 1 1 r Proposed Collector - - \I Ri aid; NN4 . 1 1 r— _ , :_ JLL 1 L \J 1 I; CPA-03-08 • , Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation City of Spokane Valley from LDR to 0;change zoning from R-3,R-4 to GO. j Community Development Department EXHIBIT 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (Far ,-Oaf Use Only) Community Development Department ^� Current Planning DivisionDk.«SUBMITTED: 'C/-0/01 RECEIVED SY: \'‘ 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 FTLE No./FiRN2E. Spokane Valley,WA 99206 -, Tel: (509) 921-1000 ''� Fax: (509) 921-1008 PUNNING FEE: [S .00 plannino( sookanevailev.ora , SEP. FEe: 4 .c' COMPREHENSIVE- PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I—APPLICATION ENF0MATE ON I V F (Check One) rd Map Amendment 0 Text Amendment OCT 3 2007 SPOKANE VALLEY �p,�E G �� � kJ G, EPARTiuiENT OF PROPERTY OVIINERUlat 5 ' �I ".;, cvc i. MAILING ADDRESS: I et©12. Kit=JA.V7A CITY: 7 Rl�r.-e_. STATE: l Pr ZIP: . Email: a '9141 ((cal) 4. '9 A- O c Ste, PHONE:(t-mr,)�•24ra-?j5'(O F� APPLICANT: i t t S � i- �j � G t.� �G 1�nc�(-2�(l 4= (NI c..) MAILING ADDRESS: I 017 IJ e\/f1.3e7A 140 CITY: STATE: 1JA ZIP: 14lEmall: 0 PHONE: (HM)5v1.245• 57C(An:) (CELL) S - 31 m (:)('5-( RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION(ADDRESS AND/OR DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM NEAREST CROSS STREET): _! 14 _ __C_- - /. _. US ASSESSOR PARCEL No.: i'(-'(L .e.— i7 PROPERTY SIZE: A'��! CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: i `D t X51 �' �54► x L'T I/�1_. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: (10 ?RAS 11J*5S CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Se, ` 1-) PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: BRIEFLY, �EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(ATTACH FULL EXPLANATION): 11- 1.I r s J . .1A1-4&=.0 L-4 -L i I • 's G g d 1e-4 r.1 t Lo-'S .£hrtc-4 &(_Ifz• v7k* .--bILJ I 1S`T1 Zotkie -��t w tom.) 5 tc tau i✓l2 4 ( I+ci2.t cj L l.t' i .t'i `fir SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: c/ - DATE )c•`fi r a 7 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT: DATE: /tom '2/' -,l1 Page 3 of 26 PART IV APPLICANT SIGNATURE , �,�``� , (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESP ARE MADE`TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. di) " Q/ Jo ' '��-c>7___ (Signature) (Date) • NOTARY (For Part 1111 above) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) -141 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this .,z/9 day of ()c �,- , 20 %)7 C: NO.TF,RY S.Ef;Liil!�!iuiiil!Ll � �i' /` .1( ,J,4 j //.,(moi( - f V NOTARY SIGNATURE A. "I ODHUNi i Eft = Notary Public in afor the State of Washington 4Y COMidiISS!ON E<PIRES E 2 September 1,2003 Residing at: fel �,� ,� —elj) UlIlillillillitEllli;liiil►I!iilI!;`I!i!I;'llliliUI❑ My appointment expires: Q • Page 6 of 26 eto OF e 7 to-i c 1.71. ial_ 4l , obier slcvcp s,p. 4pte),et • os -8, t 1.66-t44. :550tiS't SCE tool ,[e. 11 •} 1 _ i I I I �f I I I I i t t i i SQ�,• ✓ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT L po�kane PLANNING DIVISION 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 Fax:509.921.1008 cityhall@spokanevalley.org t DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE File No.: CPA-03-08 Description of proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District (R-3) and Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4) to Garden Office District (GO) on approximately 3.0 acres of land. This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. Proponent: Boulder Creek,Inc. Location of proposal: The proposal is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road at 8902 East Alki Avenue, 420 North Marguerite Road, 500 North Marguerite Road, 508 North Marguerite Road and 510 North Marguerite Road; specifically located in the SE 1/4 of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM; parcel numbers) 45184.0804, 45184.0805, 45184.0807, 45184.0819 and 45184.0820,Spokane Valley,Washington. Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department,Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Date Issued: February 15,2008 DNS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) Responsible Official: Staff Contact: Kathy McClung,Community Development Director Micki Hamois,Associate Planner City of Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Department,Planning Division 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) 688-0240/ FX: (509) 688-0306 PH: (509) 688-0048/ FX: (509) 688-0306 kmcclung@spokanevalley.org mharnois@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: February 15,2008 .41 Signature: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued specifically by February 29, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.. This appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the City's Uniform Development Code,and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680,appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. 1 ( 1110 • • CPA-01-08 thru CPA-08-08 Page 1 of 1 Mick LEarois From: Red, Jim[JRed@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 05,2008 10:48 AM To: Tavis Schmidt; Micki Harnois; Micki Harnois Subject: CPA-01-08 thru CPA-08-08 Hi, All Compehensive Plan Amendments are within sewer projects and will be required to connect to sewer as properties are developed. Plans, fees, security and so on,wil be required as needed. if you have any questions, please contact me at 477-7279. Thanks, Jim 2/5/2008 iii I : :ROBERT GRIFFITHS 925 672 3982 FAX NO. :925 672 2390 May. 05 2008 08:43AM P1 ii■ ®moi _ - FAX COVER SHEET FROM: ROBERT"BOB" GRIFFITHS - SAROTT CONST. CO.,INC. 3133 MORGAN TERRITORY RD. CLAYTON, CA. 94517 FAX#: (925) 672-3982- - Telephone# (925) 672-2390 DateA , , S / ' e TO: / /.. . J. 4 • • • ATT NT1ON: ll 4111ff / O/$ FAX#USED: - 9 / • /014 TELEPHONE# � • ss .604 6 MESS appe ;. o 4-1°7644, edi7mpA1014 • Pricl1 A /A I NUMBER OF COPIES INCLUDING COVER SIEIEEET 4 . . FROM :ROBERT GRIFFITHS 925 672 3982 FAX NO. :925 672 2390 May. 05 2008 08:43AM P2 • May 3, 2008 Spokane Valley Planning Commission C/O Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: File No. CPA-03-08 Dear Commisioners, 1 have owned a small office building located at 521 N. Argonne,Bldg.A for approximately 6 years. At the time of purchase it was an attractive investment compared to other properties I looked at in Northern California and Nevada. There are only 2 suites and therefore 2 tenants. Since the time I have owned it, I have had a total of 5 different tenants, including one tenant that defaulted on the Lease. Of course it is expensive to re- lease due to Leasing Commissions.In addition,property taxes have increased dramatically, and the vacancy rate has at least tripled. I am writing to record my opposition to this proposal. According to the Spokane Business Journal's tabulation of vacancy rates by area, Spokane Valley office space has been running in the 20 to 25%range for about two years now. I understand that another 250,000 sq. ft. of new office is coming on line soon in Spokane Valley. From my perspective,the City appears to be pretty much"built out", and the chances of any large population increases, and therefore more demand for office space, seems small. With vacancy rates this high, it is somewhat surprising that an entity would want to build more office space. In the 6 years since purchasing this office, l have experienced a 16.7% decrease in the gross revenue, because tenants looking for office space have the leverage to reduce rates, and receive concessions (free rent, etc.). ID.any commercial investment,whenever income goes down, and expenses go up,the value of the property drops. To show you my point, I have enclosed the data on a recent office building sale located at 408 N. Mullen Rd. At this price,the broker puts land value at$8 per sq. ft. and the building at$97.59 per square ft. From my experience,the cost to replace this building is probably in the order of $150-$200 per square foot. I respectfully request that the Commission vote no on CPA-03-08. E "ter vr, _ •obert '' ths, 31, 3 M. zg. Territ.ry ' d., Clayton, CA 94517 Phone (925) 672-2390 • . • 0 • • I • • • Improved Sale#2 • 1---====,-------_,-,.,,___.•• Sale Date: 11-28-2007 • Analysis$: $1,121,500 Site Area: 25,148 sf ,. •�:__ Bldg. 9,430 .ti`'!�'.�.°� Arca: sf .. ;. 3" V .p.„,•-, n, ..,;"'"..r..0,:.—r:;` '` V. s� Unit Rates: y-'1��. ��'�,,, �c{, �,}�>` �G $11 y a' ''It •.- e -A:%.-.-41140,/,._4.•-• glY;Y,.r �dy�-'ff;Ygt4h;;I.v.VN.1e .�4iYW ;4) �6 1 i} �.• ' Yom%i Overall- 8.93/sf i ' e ,A,t�fikt i �- `h �•✓1li5'zt£'i�+ y4x'�� 3f�l'rA,.r1+' -V!,,h�i4 , M1 3 1ja.,' Building- $97.59hf f�,. t• t tdr;�7�(�l r' `wr ji) „.,.,•r:1.1.1.:, {�.3 �s; . � ,'..44 'Y�.l; 8r ,-*--..-447.0,,,,..:.7..5,4-,...C < i ,,.Y.,P 7i' ` u ,., , ..,„,?„=., ice!'.^. ,t�.r R: • :.r..s.• . ;' t4.14 : .r yAt -?�. - r= ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: I. + .. 7'777... ..L. . PG . ,���:,w::;`.�, I _:eta..µ=:.,;c -c'..:,A:� ::'�• �x,yd,—�' I: $117,400 _ 777.1,.. ��_ _—� 7.177 :ny _r.., ,.�_ �:.�_-• .•41:,..,:. .gre.;:r0. '..�,r•_i:: 5 870 _ ar- w>c..4ey :E;f;.'^:'•�g,'. ....4;f•'T:!. 0 0 --- �j azo. ai�_' �ti•.i?.�•<c._.J �T'c.S,�1,., ..A Vac.. 5. / ---.��`--i-�i;•� 'irr.:t,•;:::� £�;.a' ice:/`.;.. .:f,.i. ••'-,,,,,,..-.,.-'V'iy':. - i �. '.,:.::��. .•t.'::,.r.,.•�• ��4.,.�n,...' ..�. .T..:.,:. rl: $111 530 ,.:7,:;•,,;.....,..,,..,.....,..:; .. ',a•t N.`ne".f^'y�•.. �r.GI: r.Z:^�. _ �:;r,;iir tri"r,=_`' �:' .• n, _4 �,,. X684 •a.'"^.' =9�r ..7;:�.:'1.. •�r i•'',;•7777,Y ,cr�. i n. •�', 32_9/ %7_ - 'r>\i' - 'r .i<. ..9..1 'AhYs rr•�1. ,t'^�-°-r; I:X .*.. "a?' .4i-1:',: ..r3,.. 'fit 35..-4 - 4 846 • '.::S�s-"z-.:r'.�" - -.arc<..., .a.q?�Jr.:,>�, .'�;H . a•�;S�:wr,. �-�`' "�;- $7 , ....-.......,-.%74:16.""..„",....;r +jy�y;.':' 7: ,.s.t.*,«,ta'T^y,`".`r” .c`:•Pv-a:�it7.. v'u:.(y` ` .,"•; ..,. �1 -'t: ,, +.!,,,"L: c4rr. NOI: air'.-..a:,<��',.[ vyt3'<8,'fY.i�±.;`v.:cz4:r,`':5"•".....::i;'. .... =;x'�•:4•:'r• . , r.H-.�,.:... 6_7% "• '' Cap Rate � CouaplD:46420 ©AGNW Status:Sate ---------- Identification: Apex Building Address: 408 N.Mullan Rd_,Spokane Valley,Spokane County,WA Location: Northeast corner of Mullan&Valleyway Grantor: Craig A.Brown Instrument: EA#200719452 Grantee: The Wandermere Company Confirmed With: Jeff McGougan,broker(509)622-3576 Property Rights: Leased free Confirmed By: TDO Sale Price: $1,121,500 Marketing Time: <6 months Financing: Cash to Seller Est.Land Value: $201,184 @$8.00/sf Adjusted Price- $1,121,500 Building Residual: $920,316=$97.59/sf. Comments: :Parcel#: 45173.0618 Age: Built 1983,effective age of years Topography: Level,at grade Quality/Condition: Average/Average Zoning: GO,Garden Office Construction: Wood frame w/brick veneer and wood lap siding,Hip,Composition roof Access: Paved Arterial Stories: 1.5 Land-to-Bldg.: 2.7 IIVAC: Package • Legal: Lengthy metes and bounds description retained in file. Description: Site:This site islocated midway between)3roadway and Sprague on the east side of Mullan Avenue,the north bound segment of the Argonne/Mullan couplet.The site has good expsoure to traffic flows of about 13,000 vpd_The site is served by all utilities,although it had nor yet been hooked up to sewer_Building: This is an average quality multi-tenant office building that is configured for numerous small to medium- sized tenants_At the time of sale,it was configured for 17 tenants.The building is wood framed with cedar lap siding and brick accents.The hip roof has a composition shingle covering that is in need of replacement. The gross building area is estimated at 9,430 sf,with a net useable area(tenants suites)of 7,042 sf excluding the common hallways,restrooms, and mechanical rooms-The building contains 1.5 stories and is not • elevator served. Remarks: This building was for sale for a short time at an asking price of$1,150,000.The building is set up for 17 executive offices,of which 16 were occupied at the time of sale.The income and expense analysis above is based on actuals reported at the time of sale,with market rates plugged in for vacant spaces.The building was about 97%occupied at the time of sale.The buyer owns the Wandermere Gold Course and purchased this strictly as an investment from monies received from WSDOT for property taken for the North/South Freeway.The buyer percieved this building as having less tbari typical risk due to the number of tenants and relatively low amount of income per tenant_ • FROM :ROBERT GRIFFITHS 925 672 3982 FAX NO. :925 672 2390 May. 05 2008 08:45AM P3 Community. Development Department . . Sp0`karie PlanningDivisi •on on • • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TBE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION IS .SENDING TTHS " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL.PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. You ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW: Date.of Notice: April 23;2008 APPLICATION INFORMATION: 7 r �pplicat:�,rf)c iIs ou of-Propoaid: FM;Nb. CFA-OZ-On Coinf h.:i41ti Plan'M W}A�,ii l,uVut AA VAAA Low Density Residential to Office; corresponding zoning map amendment from Single-family Residential District(R-3)and Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)to Garden Office(GO)on approximately 3.1 acres of land. Hearing Body: ?/ },� Spokane Valley Planning Commission '"/ Hearing Date and Time: May 8,2008,beginning at 6:00.p.m.. 0'7. /62-,1 — / 00A Hearing Location: Spokane City Council Chambers,City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 • Staff Contact: Micki Harnois,Associate Planner (509)688-0048 mhamois@spokanevaIley.org Applicant: Dennis Raugi st,c/o Boulder Creek,Inc_,.19012 Nevada Road, Spangle,WA 99033 Amendment Location: , Southeast corner of the intersection of Marguerite Road and Alki Avenue,addressed as 8902 East Alki Avenue,420 North Marguerite Road, 500 North Marguerite Road,508 North Marguerite Road and 51.0 North Marguerite Road; specifically located in the SE 14 of Section 18, Township 25 North,Range 44 EWM;parcel number(s)45184.0804,45184.0805,45184.0807,45184.0819 and 45184.0820,Spokane Valley,Washington. Environmental Determination: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS) on February 15,2008,pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. .•Hearin• g.Procedures: _ The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to Planning Commission rules of procedure_ Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Staff Report and Inspection ofFile: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing. The staff report and application file may be inspected at the Community Development Department,located at the Spokane • Valley City Hall, Suite 106, 11707 East Sprague Avenue,between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday, excluding holidays. Copies,of documents will be made available at a reasonable cost. If you have any questions or special needs,please call Micki Harnois,Associate Planner, at(509 688-0048. Send written • comments to the Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 East Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley,WA 99206: Attu:Micki Harnois,or email to mharrnois@spokanevalley.org. Page 1 of Micki Harnois kevinepereira@comcast.net ant: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:03 AM To: Micki Harnois Subject: File#CPA-03-08 Dear Micki Harnois, My family and I reside at 8821 E.Valleyway Ave. in Spokane Valley, WA. My property is approx. 125 feet away from the proposed amendment in File#CPA-03-08 from residential R-3/R-4 to Garden Office. I am writing to state my opposition to this plan. This area is a well kept residential neighborhood free from commercial use and traffic. There is also a elementary school that adjoins the affected property (Spokane Valley City School)that would be adversely affected by this change. At this time there is no commercial property along Marguerite between Mission Ave. to the north and Sprague Ave to the south. If the property were changed to Garden Office, this decision could change the entire makeup of the neighborhood and open the door to commercial encroachment all along Marguerite between Mission and Sprague. This is a pedestrian neighborhood with many walkers, bikers and children playing in the streets. There is no need for this property to be changed from its residential designation. There have been many stories I have read and watched in the newspaper and on local news about the loss of business on Sprague Ave. and elsewhere and the migration of business to the Sullivan corridor and Spokane Valley Mall. There are many multiples of vacant property throughout the Spokane Valley where this developer could have bought up the property needed for this enterprise. Tnsteac they decided to buy up cheap residential property planning to turn it into another office building. This office building will displace at least four families living on this property, increase traffic on residential streets and around Spokane Valley City School and take away a buffer zone for the neighborhood from traffic and noise. I ask you to please refuse this request and keep my neighborhood safe and quiet. There is no need for this developmen us area. Please keep commercial development to the commercial areas of the Spokane Valley. Sincerely, Kevin Pereira 8821 E. Valleyway Ave. Spokane-Valley, WA 99212 5/8/2008 521 N Argonne B LLC ° E 521 N Argonne B Spokane, WA 99022 1" Spokane Valley Planning Commission ��oTE o� E c/o Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. gtil p Deve CP 11707 East Sprague Ave. G Spokane Valley,WA 99206 May 3, 2008 Dear Sirs, I am writing in regards to the proposal to rezone 3. acres on the corner of Alla and Marguerite in the Spokane Valley. Your hearing of May 8, 2008 Re: File No. CPA-03- 08 . I own an office building next to where the proposed site for rezoning is located. As an owner in this area property values have been stagnant to lower since I built my office in 1998. In the ten years I have experienced many years of 25% vacancy in my property. The Argonne/Mullen corridor is vastly overbuilt with submarket rents which do not help existing property owners. My experience has also been that since there has been so much building on the corridor the rent in my building has decreased 20% from 5 years ago. This area is one of single family homes and a school. This development would seriously encroach on the neighborhood and with the current market situation I do not why there is need for additional office space in the area. I would like to request a no vote on CPA-03-08 from the Commission. Sincerely, 7 6/(//,15 CJ,L.Q-:j/L/u Lorri Ellstad Burchett 11012 S Sunnyslope Rd Medical Lake, WA 99022 509-299-7865 May 3, 2008 Spokane Valley Planning Commission CIO Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 5P01% ;hl Re: File No. CPA-03-08 . - _ Dear Commisioners, I have owned a small office building located at 521 N. Argonne,Bldg. A for approximately 6 years. At the time of purchase it was an attractive investment compared to other properties I looked at in Northern California and Nevada. There are only 2 suites and therefore 2 tenants. Since the time I have owned it, I have had a total of 5 different tenants, including one tenant that defaulted on the Lease. Of course it is expensive to re- lease due to Leasing Commissions. In addition,property taxes have increased dramatically, and the vacancy rate has at least tripled. I am writing to record my opposition to this proposal. According to the Spokane Business Journal's tabulation of vacancy rates by area, Spokane Valley office space has been running in the 20 to 25%range for about two years now. I understand that another 250,000 sq. ft. of new office is coming on line soon in Spokane Valley. From my perspective,the City appears to be pretty much"built out", and the chances of any large population increases, and therefore more demand for office space, seems small. With vacancy rates this high, it is somewhat surprising that an entity would want to build more office space. In the 6 years since purchasing this office, I have experienced a 16.7% decrease in the gross revenue,because tenants looking for office space have the leverage to reduce • rates, and receive concessions (free rent, etc.). In any commercial investment,whenever income goes down, and expenses go up,the value of the property drops. To show you my point, I have enclosed the data on a recent office building sale located at 408 N. Mullen Rd. At this price,the broker puts land value at $8 per sq. ft. and the building at $97.59 per square ft. From my experience, the cost to replace this building is probably in the order of $150-$200 per square foot. I respectfully request that the Commission vote no on CPA-03-08. Q e .:- riffitl :, 34 3 Mo._an Territory Rd., Clayton, CA 94517 Phon,'(925) . 2413'0 Improved Sale Sale Date: 11-28-2007 Analysis 5: $1,121,500 Site Area: 25,148 sf ,1:`� Bldg.Area: 9,430 sf ----— _ p k4 Unit Rates: -� r , ' 2 I ` ,''� '7!4_ Overall- $118.93/sf - $97.59/sf ' :-_ ` =�V '. �� __._ �i �r a� Building- ANALYSIS: `—:.. .. -,- PGI: $117,400 VacEGI:.@ 5.0% $5.870 _ .:., $111,530 _ _ _ Exp.@ 32.9% $36.684 NOI:. $74,846 Cap Rate 6.7% ComplD:#6420 ©AGNW Status:Sale Identification: Apex Building Address: 408 N.Mullan Rd.,Spokane Valley,Spokane County,WA Location: Northeast corner of Mullan&Valleyway Grantor: Craig A.Brown Instrument: EA#200719452 Grantee: The Wandermere Company Confirmed With: Jeff McGougan,broker(509)622-3576 Property Rights: Leased Fee Confirmed By: TDG Sale Price: $1,121,500 Marketing Time: <6 months Financing: Cash to Seller Est.Land Value: $201,184 @$8.00/sf Adjusted Price: $1,121,500 Building Residual: $920,316=$97.59/sf Comments: Parcel#: 45173.0618 Age: Built 1983,effective age of years Topography: Level,at grade Quality/Condition: Average/Average Zoning: GO,Garden Office Construction: Wood frame w/brick veneer and wood lap siding,Hip,Composition roof Access: Paved Arterial Stories: 1.5 Land-to-Bldg.: 2.7 HVAC: Package Legal: Lengthy metes and bounds description retained in file. Description: Site:This site islocated midway between Broadway and Sprague on the east side of Mullan Avenue,the north bound segment of the Argonne/Mullan couplet.The site has good expsoure to traffic flows of about 13,000 vpd.The site is served by all utilities,although it had not yet been hooked up to sewer.Building: This is an average quality multi-tenant office building that is configured for numerous small to medium- sized tenants.At the time of sale,it was configured for 17 tenants.The building is wood framed with cedar lap siding and brick accents.The hip roof has a composition shingle covering that is in need of replacement. The gross building area is estimated at 9,430 sf,with a net useable area(tenants suites)of 7,042 sf excluding the common hallways,restrooms, and mechanical rooms.The building contains 1.5 stories and is not elevator served. Remarks: This building was for sale for a short time at an asking price of$1,150,000.The building is set up for 17 executive offices,of which 16 were occupied at the time of sale.The income and expense analysis above is based on actuals reported at the time of sale,with market rates plugged in for vacant spaces.The building was about 97%occupied at the time of sale.The buyer owns the Wandermere Gold Course and purchased this strictly as an investment from monies received from WSDOT for property taken for the North/South Freeway.The buyer percieved this building as having less than typical risk due to the number of tenants and relatively low amount of income per tenant. May 3, 2008 Spokane Valley Planning Commission C/O Spokane Valley Community Development Dept. 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 _ -- n _.Lig Re: File No. CPA-03-08 Dear Commisioners, I have owned a small office building located at 521 N. Argonne,Bldg. A for approximately 6 years. At the time of purchase it was an attractive investment compared to other properties I looked at in Northern California and Nevada. There are only 2 suites and therefore 2 tenants. Since the time I have owned it, I have had a total of 5 different tenants, including one tenant that defaulted on the Lease. Of course it is expensive to re- lease due to Leasing Commissions. In addition,property taxes have increased dramatically, and the vacancy rate has at least tripled. I am writing to record my opposition to this proposal. According to the Spokane Business Journal's tabulation of vacancy rates by area, Spokane Valley office space has been running in the 20 to 25%range for about two years now. I understand that another 250,000 sq. ft. of new office is coming on line soon in Spokane Valley. From my perspective,the City appears to be pretty much"built out", and the chances of any large population increases, and therefore more demand for office space, seems small. With vacancy rates this high, it is somewhat surprising that an entity would want to build more office space. In the 6 years since purchasing this office, I have experienced a 16.7% decrease in the gross revenue, because tenants looking for office space have the leverage to reduce rates, and receive concessions (free rent, etc.). In any commercial investment,whenever income goes down, and expenses go up,the value of the property drops. To show you my point, I have enclosed the data on a recent office building sale located at 408 N. Mullen Rd. At this price,the broker puts land value at $8 per sq. ft. and the building at$97.59 per square ft. From my experience,the cost to replace this building is probably in the order of $150-$200 per square foot. I respectfully request that the Commission vote no on CPA-03-08. ,. WI �' .: riftl :, 34 3 Mo%an Territory Rd., Clayton, CA 94517 Phone (925) . 2-131'0 Improved Sale # Sale Date: 11-28-2007 Analysis$: $1,121,500 Site Area: 25,148 sf f L.-T... Bldg.Area: 9,430 sf ,,,,��- --,,,•.--.-,r--.7-_- -----1-2,-.'- '1•7 .r -� �� Unit Rates: --i-, , r ✓ _ ".,-„ 4. �.. ®' Overall- $118.93/sf - ■ t 3 .� � �_�� Building- $97.59/sf ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: PGI: $117,400 - Vac.@ 5.0% $5.870 — EGI: $111,530 Exp.@ 32.9% $36.684 --- NOI: $74,846 Cap Rate 6.7% Compri):#6420 ©AGNW Status:Sale Identification: Apex Building Address: 408 N.Mullan Rd.,Spokane Valley,Spokane County,WA Location: Northeast corner of Mullan&Valleyway Grantor: Craig A.Brown Instrument: EA#200719452 Grantee: The Wandermere Company Confirmed With: Jeff McGougan,broker(509)622-3576 Property Rights: Leased Fee Confirmed By: TDG Sale Price: $1,121,500 Marketing Time: <6 months Financing: Cash to Seller Est.Land Value: $201,184 @$8.00/sf Adjusted Price: $1,121,500 Building Residual: $920,316=$97.59/sf Comments: Parcel#: 45173.0618 Age: Built 1983,effective age of years Topography: Level,at grade Quality/Condition: Average/Average Zoning: GO,Garden Office Construction: Wood frame w/brick veneer and wood lap siding,Hip,Composition roof Access: Paved Arterial Stories: 1.5 Land-to-Bldg.: 2.7 HVAC: Package Legal: Lengthy metes and bounds description retained in file. Description: Site:This site islocated midway between Broadway and Sprague on the east side of Mullan Avenue,the north bound segment of the Argonne/Mullan couplet.The site has good expsoure to traffic flows of about 13,000 vpd.The site is served by all utilities,although it had not yet been hooked up to sewer.Building: This is an average quality multi-tenant office building that is configured for numerous small to medium- sized tenants.At the time of sale,it was configured for 17 tenants.The building is wood framed with cedar lap siding and brick accents.The hip roof has a composition shingle covering that is in need of replacement. The gross building area is estimated at 9,430 sf,with a net useable area(tenants suites)of 7,042 sf excluding the common hallways,restrooms, and mechanical rooms.The building contains 1.5 stories and is not elevator served. Remarks: This building was for sale for a short time at an asking price of$1,150,000.The building is set up for 17 executive offices,of which 16 were occupied at the time of sale.The income and expense analysis above is based on actuals reported at the time of sale,with market rates plugged in for vacant spaces.The building was about 97%occupied at the time of sale.The buyer owns the Wandermere Gold Course and purchased this strictly as an investment from monies received from WSDOT for property taken for the North/South Freeway.The buyer percieved this building as having less than typical risk due to the number of tenants and relatively low amount of income per tenant. May 5, 2008 Planning Commission Deliberations with/Michael Freedman Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Following are topics/issues that will be discussed during tonight's Planning Commission. 1. Neighborhood Center Districts—A discussion/presentation on how the NC District boundaries were set. Review district boundaries paying particular attention to the transition south through Mixed Use and Residential Boulevard to current zoning, typically Corridor Mixed Use (see attached maps for reference). 2. Residential Boulevard — Discussion on the intention for the Residential Boulevard District. 3. Building Use—General discussion on the uses allowed within each district zone with specific questions on: > Banks in Mixed-Use Avenue > Full Service Restaurants > Light Industrial Uses > Use Car Sales > Pawn Shops, Casinos, Tattoo Parlors > Corner Store Retail Cluster(page 29, iii) Special Conditions; (1) ....not sure what this means) > Live Work on Sprague (page 22, Mixed Use Avenue) 4. Building Height— 1 story on Sprague, 2 stories on Other Streets in Mixed Use Avenue (page 22 of Addendum). Plan requires minimum 2 stories on Appleway...is this too restrictive? 5. Architectural Standards—General discussion on Standards vs. Guidelines. How do we enforce Guidelines? 6. Building Orientation—Review and discuss new proposed language. 7. Private Frontage—General discussion of what Private Frontage means and how it is regulated. Specific focus on the Residential Boulevard and how Private Frontage is regulated in relation Building Orientation. One specific question: Why are Front Doors not allowed along Appleway Blvd. (page 23, 2.2.6)? 8. Maximum Building Length and Frontage Coverage: Sketch out some scenarios, including a project with a "paseo" (see Page 40, 2.2.12). 9. Implementation —We have had some question from the Planning Commission about phasing the implementation. One suggestion is to implement the Subarea Plan west of Evergreen. 10. Circulation Recommendations: Discussion on the implications if we adopt the hybrid option (one-way west of Dishman-Mica and two-way east) or a complete 1-way system? MAY 2 2006 May 20, 2008 SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall, Suite 106 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, Wa 99206 Att. Micki Harnois RE: CPA-03-08 To whom it many concern: It should be obvious that this amendment and zoning change should be denied. This proposal would be an encroachment into a quiet residential neighborhood. It is a finger reaching into our neighborhood. The property is bordered on both the north and west by single family homes. On the south there is a school,play field and more single family homes. Only on the east does this property border an area with an office designation Each of those parcels border Argonne Road which provides their access. At the time that those office buildings were approved it was argued that they would provide a transition between the busy Argonne Corridor and our single family neighborhood. Access to the property in question is limited to Alki Avenue and Marguerite Road. Both are quiet residential streets lined with historical homes. These two streets provide major access for the school bordering the property on the south. They are often filled with children walking or on bicycles. Since the school has no vehicle turnaround or off street loading, most vehicles, including school buses, use the two streets to travel to or from the school. To allow this additional development abutting the school would be irresponsible. At present those who live along these two streets look out front windows at stately historic homes on the other side of the street. To replace these homes with offices and parking lots would destroy the character of the neighborhood If this type of development is allowed to reach into neighborhoods and have no direct access to an arterial, there will soon be no residential streets left in the Spokane Valley. Please deny this amendment and zone change. 76-17 2//ar Gregory A. Mott 8907 East Alki Avenue Spokane Valley, Wa 99212 /Pax/ DP8 P 61-1,e)-,,u,t,e)atX -,A." • at-a-/ 741"C � / /)tarkt-f -, AL'7"4-4 / • • ' ''/,---/eof--7'7<-"/ edca *Le) / 1L-Lej 4.;-aes Cf---`t"- vt)-) 06(. 4t-w /?/,; P5,-64-a-& 7/A-c_ a-044-Ltse—drt) d4,0 jtA,LLJ0--1-L, G,, ` ' „ : � - Ate,• 072•C,* 6-7/ CL• .-L,ot aft) ikt-t•CA- e-1 „,„„ ciAY- 9' N ef) Led_e_:&2) /07'9A-4-78- SPOKANE VALLEY CM 1s?b\TrYTrr iiI®rFr.< RECEIVED Of 2 0 2008 DEPAR DE VT E DEVELOPCOMMUNITY r/l / g2a"-° °Lb- f-e-Yr f, . , 022 cli02.4-0ft .2z *. 'c.,,A):0-,,* Air op A.)-v . )7,t,;.,, ctfr-li ,r- -, A-1-0-2-yi,6t,-2A&s fez-41,04-y fr.A. 6.,,„„1,7 Q/7^-eit 4.1 . ..,7152._ irjf3 GLAJ-°-i'd c4,2,09 ,6-e-z4-1-nk a-1- VO' ,6-e-ey‹A__ cc v , ,ityi,11 j,�U (,,J'^-v 1.Apr) . OL-4 . IA 1)- -L-o-{)-Pej .AA)-4-1-- .0? -w-eAs • ci,,,6 9,2 0.)1A-0---cd2. .6_, Li a 612-ue-2rhip.j,rira-/reLa 11 1 _ e--7 r jk, („fre,:a.e4 , rz_-;:j • Pte. , �w42}-1- i,t)-c-141- ,t2144 _ArK-CAO-a4P I9g6t, . c W u) te, r - De sP , A