Loading...
Agenda 02/11/2016 SCITY ok 011111111.°11\111111111111k pane Valle y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 11, 2016 6:00 p.m. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: December 10, 2015, January 28, 2016 Commission Reports Administrative Report Public Comment: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on the agenda as action items. Commission Business 1. Election of 2016 Officers 2. Study Session - CPA-2015-0001: A privately initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for seven parcels located southwest of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road For the Good of the Order Adjournment Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, December 10,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman,Community Development Director Heather Graham Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Susan Scott Christina Janssen,Planner Joe Stoy, absent- excused Karen Kendall,Planner Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Wood moved to excuse Joe Stoy from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Graham moved to accept the December 10, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding a sentence in the November 12, 2015 minutes. She said on Page 3, second to last paragraph, the sentence reads "Mr. Lamb presented that there are other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently there is one considered, at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana." It was determined the 'at' in front of'420' should be replaced with an 'a.' There were no other corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Wood moved to approve the November 12, 2015 minutes as amended. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelly reported he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding marijuana usage. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Hohman reported the deadline for Planning Commission openings is December 18, 2015. Mr. Hohman thanked the Planning Commissioners who would be leaving at the end of this year, Commissioners Anderson, Scott and Wood. Mr. Hohman also reported the first meeting of the Planning Commission in 2016 would be January 28, 2016. This will allow for the delayed process of choosing the next Planning Commissioners. The January 28 meeting will be training which is required each year for the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: STV-2015-0001, Street Vacation of portion of 3rd Avenue Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3rd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4th Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged. Ms.Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue (north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right-of-way connection,and 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. Commissioner Scott said the staff report mentioned the abutting property owners along 3rd were notified but was anyone on 4th Avenue notified. Ms. Kendall responded based on the City's noticing 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 requirements, only the property owners who were abutting 3rd Avenue were notified. Commissioner Scott mentioned the person with the easement was not notified. Commissioner Wood asked about the noticing on the property and Ms. Kendall explained the posting requirements for a street vacation and the location of the signs which had been posted on the property. Mr.Wood mentioned the sign hanging on the fence was difficult to see. Commissioner Anderson asked why the southern lots were not combined into one parcel. Ms. Kendall asked for clarification. Mr. Anderson said the northern parcels were proposed to be combined into one parcel. The southern three parcels are being proposed as two parcels instead of one as is being done on the north side of the right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Anderson wanted a reason why the parcels were being configured as proposed. Ms. Kendall stated there are two single family residences on the land and in order for each residence to have its own parcel this is how the configuration was proposed. Mr. Anderson said he thought the goal was to develop the property into multifamily development. Ms. Kendall stated staff was not aware of any future development plans for the property. If in the future,the parcel configuration did not work for the property owner, then steps could be taken at the time of development to realign them. Commissioner Scott stated she was concerned about the size of the easements. One of them is a 12-foot driveway easement which was granted in 2002 to serve as a driveway for one of the homes on the applicant's property and an easement which will be granted to the City for a path to the Appleway Trail which is shown to be 15-feet wide. Ms. Kendall stated as part of the proposal, adjacent parcels with access are not looked at. Ms. Kendall said only during future development would access to the parcels need to be addressed. Ms. Scott was concerned the parcel to the west, with the driveway easement was not notified of the street vacation. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the noticing practices to the Commissioners. The noticing requirements for a proposed street vacation are in place to allow people who use the street to comment. Ms. Barlow said the property to which Ms. Scott is referring is not affected by the vacation of the street. Ms. Barlow said the noticing requirements have been met. Any discussion of the need for more access would be taken up if further development was proposed. Commissioner Anderson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if he would like to speak, the applicant stated from the audience he did not really have anything to say. Commissioner Anderson asked him to step up to the podium to speak because he wanted to question him. Dan Hultquist, 14502 N. Freya: Mr. Hultquist stated he had no comment. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify whether the driveway easement, which serves one of the houses on Mr. Hultquist's property, would be an easement as it is. Mr. Hultquist said it was just a driveway to the house on his property. Commissioner Anderson asked if he had to leave it as an easement. Mr.Hultquist stated he did not understand the question. Commissioner Anderson asked if he developed the property in the future, if the easement would change. Mr. Hultquist stated it would be hard to say, he didn't know what else it would be. He had been planning on developing the property for 20+ years now and it still looks the same. He said he could, not at this time, anticipate what would happen to the property. He would not want to give up the easement since it serves his rental property. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Hultquist if the easement was as it is, where it is and would not change. Mr. Hultquist again stated he was not sure what Mr. Anderson was asking, but it was an easement to the rental property. Ms. Barlow clarified that in this process the easement will remain as it is. Mr. Anderson stated he was trying to look out for the property owners not involved in this process. Having no one else who wanted to testify, Commissioner Anderson closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Commissioner Wood stated he had no issues with this proposal. Commissioner Kelly said he did not have a problem with it either. Commissioner Phillips was only concerned there would not be a landlocked parcel. Commissioner Anderson said he had no problem with the street vacation, but he was fixated on the easements. He was concerned the easements for the property would not be sufficient for future development. Commissioner Scott asked if the property had been investigated to be one which the ROW would go back to the property owner. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated, although he did not look up to see if this plat was dated previously to 1904, if it had been then the land would have reverted 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 back to the property owner. Ms. Scott wondered if the City would have to buy back the ROW if there was future development. Ms. Barlow stated if there was future development, the ROW would be dedicated to the City. Ms. Scott was concerned the increase in the amount of square footage of the properties would increase the density allowed in the area,if the property was developed. Commissioner Graham moved to approve STV-2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Planning Commission Findings: STV-2015-0001, Street Vacation of portion of 3rd Avenue Ms.Kendall stated the City preferred process is to bring the findings back at later meeting after the public hearing. However because of the holidays and the Planning Commission's next available meeting for business would not be until February, staff is bringing the findings forward now. Ms. Barlow stated the proposed findings reflect the decision made at the public hearing. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for STV-2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Commissioner Anderson asked the Commissioners if they wanted to proceed with the study session or to defer the discussion until new Commissioners are appointed in the New Year. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said this would be up to the Commissioners, but there were people in attendance who came to speak to the subject and there would be a written record of previous actions for the new members to review. There was consensus to continue with the study session and listen to the people who came to share information regarding marijuana in the City and related fire codes. Lt. Khris Thompson, Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD): Lt. Thompson stated it had been a long process in changing the regulations regarding the legislation of marijuana. Senate Bill 5052 brings together how medical or compliant marijuana will be handled. The City's numbers since the passing of I-502,which is when the police department started tracking marijuana related driving under the influence (DUI). In the first period after the law was enacted the police made 18 arrests, four of which were minors. In 2013, there were 43 arrests with 20 being minors. Lt. Thompson clarified the law reads a `minor' would be anyone 21 years of age or younger. Commissioner Kelley asked if these were just marijuana arrests, or all DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson stated these were all intoxicants, including alcohol, marijuana and other intoxicants. He continued in 2014 there were 62 total incidents, with 22 of them being under age. So far this year there have been 50 DUI arrests with 15 of them being under age. These were DUI, by drug, specifically marijuana. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a blood test associated with the DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson said there are many methods used to confirm the use of drugs. He said there are people trained specifically to determine if someone is using drugs at the time they are pulled over. In 2013/14, when the SVPD started tracking marijuana related calls there were 55 calls related to marijuana. These could be burglary, theft, property crimes and so on. In 2015 there had been 95 incidents so far. He stated about half of the arrests were minors and there was a trend of youth becoming involved in these crimes. Commissioner Graham asked if Lt. Thompson was aware of any increase in funding to support the police departments. Lt. Thompson said he was not aware, but this would be a question for administrative staff. Commissioner Kelley asked how the police department handles cases where plants were involved if the person owning the plants stated they were for medical use. Lt. Thompson stated there were different levels of enforcement between the different police departments and the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). A medical patient is required to keep paperwork on site to show if there is ever an issue with plants being grown in a home. Lt. Thompson stated patients who wished to grow their own, would need to be licensed in order to avoid potential prosecution. Commissioners had questions regarding a cooperative grow. Lt. Thompson stated the rules for a cooperative grow have changed, from allowing 10 people to participate to four, it also reduced the number of plants which will be allowed. Registration would assist officers in knowing where authorized growing would happen, but it is voluntary for individuals. However the medical card received from the doctor would state how many plants the patient needs. Commissioner Kelley asked if the increase in crimes could be pin-pointed to occurring around schools, siting the Commission has been tasked to consider new regulations including new possible buffers around certain facilities. Lt. Thompson stated he did not have that detail of information with him, but it might be possible to find the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 information at a later time. Commissioner Scott asked about enforcement from the WSLCB. Lt. Thompson stated there are different levels of enforcement and the WSLCB enforces the licensing, the police enforce the criminal violations. She also asked if the information regarding an in-home grow was supposed to be posted on the door of the room containing the plants. Lt. Thompson stated the patient is required to have the information readily available, it should be posted but this is not always the case. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a portion of the City getting more criminal incidences than another. Lt. Thompson stated it was all over the City, not in any one place. Commissioner Scott also asked if, in his personal opinion,the officer could see the trend continuing. Lt. Thompson said he could see the trend continuing with the availability of the product. Greg Rogers, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Marshall: Mr. Rogers stated he did not have the numbers, like the police department does because they do not associate these things with their response with the chemical components which are used. They have seen an increase in call volume, mainly from older adults who are experimenting, based on people thinking they are having symptoms of larger issues such as a possible heart attack. Said he has seen the call volume increase in the last month, of unauthorized burn of harvested plants and feels this is in part due to fewer extraction processors in the county. In these incidents, the fire department is required to turn these incidents over to the Clean Air Agency, and they are responsible for the enforcement. Tracy Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Protection Engineer: Ms. Harvey stated she has become involved in the marijuana regulations through the building permit process. She has noted a need for regulations to make sure the growing and processing of the marijuana are done safely. She has been involved with the International Fire Code 2015 amendments. She stated there have been some emergency amendments to address some of the extraction processes. She said she would be participating in a Cannabis Technical Advisory Group for the State Building Code Council next year. She said the fire department is learning from the growers and processers how things work and how to regulate these businesses. Commissioner Graham asked about the extraction processes and the medical facilities which are licensed to do business,but are not licensed to operate as a medical business. Ms. Harvey explained as the new rules take effect and `medical' marijuana gets rolled into the recreational stores the requirements for the recreational will apply. A new permit, which has been adopted by the Fire Code, states any new extraction processes must be reviewed by the local fire department. There will be inspections of the processes, facilities and an annual review will be required. Commissioner Graham asked if the fire department had responded to any calls at one of the City's processor or producers. Mr. Rogers stated they had not. He said the processors and growers have invited the fire department to look at what they are doing so they are more aware of what is going on at the property in case of the need for response. Mr. Rogers said he was glad the medical would have to follow the same regulations as recreational, which means they will not be able to open business unless they have been through the fire department permitting process. Ms. Harvey explained currently there is not a processor in the City which is using a chemical extraction process. Some are using a CO2 system, but not a chemical extraction. Commissioner Anderson asked if harvested plants can be taken to the "clean green" process at the transfer station. Ms. Harvey stated there is a process where the plants must be taken to the Waste-to- Energy Plant for destruction. Mr. Lamb offered there are also state regulations which require the addition of non-edible materials in with the plants so there is no useable material. Commissioner Wood asked if you have a cooperative grow of two to four people, and they can grow up to 60 plants, aren't they using halogen lights to grow the plants, which could be a fire hazard. Ms. Harvey stated many are using LED lights now. Commissioner Wood said he felt this type of operation could cause trouble for the fire department. Ms. Harvey stated a couple of years ago,there was a fire in a garage, which had a grow operation in it. The two minors running the operation had medical cards. But this was seldom. Commissioner Wood asked if using so much energy, changes to amperage systems, those kinds of things, wouldn't this be a concern to the fire department? Ms. Harvey stated a permit would be needed to make any changes to the home. Changes to the electrical systems are governed by Labor and Industries, which the City does not have a hand in. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was not a way to make suggestions requiring these types of changes and these types of growing operations have to meet a certain standard to be safe. Ms. Harvey stated the regulations already require a change of occupancy to an F-1 occupancy, which would require a permit and City review. An F-1 occupancy is a factory/industrial moderate-hazard occupancy. In an F-1 occupancy there is a 12,000 square foot 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 minimum at which the building is required to have sprinklers. Most cooperative grows would not trigger this requirement. Sprinklers are based on the size and square footage of a building, not on how many plants might be growing in a home. Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner: Ms. Nickerson responded to a question from Commissioners regarding the ability to require sprinklers in a cooperative. Ms. Nickerson pointed out some of the rules being discussed are proposed, and have not been adopted by the State Building Code Council, and are not currently requirements. She said in theory if an in-home grow had 17 plants, was classified as F-1 occupancy, there would be minimum life safety requirements in place. Sprinkler thresholds are generally at 12,000 square feet for an F-1 occupancy. However an F-1 occupancy of any size is going to be subject to certain fire sensitivity, egress in an emergency situation, including address and posting measures which would allow the fire department to respond adequately in an emergency. Commissioner Kelley asked if a daycare with 7,000 square feet would not require a sprinkler system. Ms. Nickerson stated a daycare is a different occupancy and the requirement would be based on the age of the children, number of exits, and the number of children which would be accommodated in that building. Ms. Nickerson felt a 7,000 square foot daycare would probably be a sprinkled building. Commissioner Kelley asked if the Commission could suggest lowering the limits for a home grow operation. Ms.Nickerson said canopy space could be something which could be considered. She said it could be considered,tighter sprinkler thresholds for those types of uses. Commissioner Graham asked if a co-op has 17 plants, have registered with the state as a co-op, do they need to apply for a change of occupancy. Ms.Nickerson said, assuming the proposed regulations are adopted,which would trigger the F-1 occupancy requirement, a single family dwelling would not be considered an F-1 occupancy classification. She said what had been discussed at the previous meeting was if a grow was housed in a building which has an F-1 occupancy and a person decided to live in the building, that would trigger the fire sprinkler requirement, no matter what the square footage was. Sprinklers are only going to be required if a person is living in the same building. A detached garage would need to maintain at least 20 feet of separation. Then came a question regarding a domicile, which is in the state code as a requirement for a co-op,but Mr. Lamb stated it would not fit the City's regulations for residential zoning. Commissioner Wood stated he did not understand a cooperative very well. He offered a likely suggestion of a person with a medical card for marijuana. That person wanted to grow 15 marijuana plants in their home, a person could do that. Mr. Lamb stated unless that person wanted to modify their home in a way which would trigger a standard building permit, there would be no way anyone would know about the plants. Commissioner Wood confirmed no one in the City would know about the growing plants,if a patient decided to do so. A cooperative is up to four individuals who decide to grow plants together. Mr. Lamb said this would be legal under current local zoning codes. However,there are proposed changes to the building code, where once a person is growing over 15 plants there would be a requirement for a change in occupancy. Currently zoning does not allow for an `industrial' building in a residential zone. A co-op has to register with the state,however there is no mechanism which shares that information with the jurisdiction. Mr. Rogers stated once a permit is applied for a change of occupancy and is approved, then it would trigger annual inspections from the fire department. It would be considered part of a home business and allow for the inspections. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the power to require anyone who applies for a medical marijuana card to register with the City. Mr. Lamb stated he did not feel this would be possible based on the need to protect an individual's medical records according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and it could be a possible violation of an individual's rights. Commissioner Wood asked if the suggestion of not allowing cooperatives in the City would be a problem. Mr. Lamb stated it was in the new state law to allow the prohibition of cooperatives if a jurisdiction chose. Mr. Lamb stated the cooperative was allowed for more rural areas, where some patients might not be able to get to a store to purchase what they need. Mr. Lamb said he felt the City could site other stores in the areas in the county as well as a person could grow for themselves. Lt. Thompson added regarding medical authorization charges, patients do not need to enter into a registration, they can purchase marijuana at retail amounts, and pay the extra tax. If a patient does voluntarily register, then they are able to purchase a higher quantity than a regular retail customer and they will not have to pay the taxes. Lt. Thompson said he would try and get more information for the Commissioners regarding property crimes around within a quarter mile around a retail store. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Graham asked if there were regulations in place where if a person went into a retail location and they appeared to be `intoxicated' does the retail store have the right to refuse service to them, and Lt.Thompson said he did not know. Mr. Lamb then stated he would like to address some of the questions which were raised at the last meeting. • Question: How much money in taxes is the City getting from marijuana? The taxes being received are a 37% excise tax, but also general sales taxes. Producers and processors are considered wholesale and so they generate no taxes. Said we do see secondary benefits of employees who work for these operators who would live or shop in the City. Mr. Lamb said at least one producer/processor employees 108 people. The City's distribution in 2016 of the excise tax is $75,000, based on the 37% tax collected at the point of sale. The retail operations are generating a fairly good business and the sales tax for this year should be in the area of$58,000. The state must use a portion of the revenue generated for education and enforcement. The distribution to the City has not been tied to this. WSLCB reported for their fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 in all of Spokane County, who were allowed 18 retail shops total, from producers was $816,000, $14,000,000 from processors and$37,000,000 in sales from retailers. • Question: Can the City restrict retail outlets to be medical only? Mr. Lamb said after looking at case law there could be significant legal questions from a preemption stand point, primarily based on the way the state has set the licensing of the retail stores. The City would not be looking at it from a land use basis,but how they do their business and that is governed by the licensing scheme. Based on this the City would be trying to step into the state's role. There were questions regarding the Health Department. The Health Department has acknowledged there could be some beneficial properties in marijuana. They can't make it a prescribed medicine so what people are commonly referring to as medical marijuana is not being recognized by the Department of Health as "medical" marijuana. The term used is "compliant" marijuana. There will be three different types of compliant marijuana. There will be "general compliant" marijuana which is safe handling and limits use of pesticides and contains less than 10 milligrams of THC, this will lead to patients having a cleaner product. The next is "high THC compliant" this cannot be in bud form, it must be in capsules or patches. The high THC compliant has a higher THC than is allowed for recreational,the THC will be between 10 and 50 milligrams per serving and is only available to qualified patients. The third type is "high CBD compliant" which is similar to the high THC but the ratio of the CBDs is higher than the THC. This marijuana has more pain relieving affects,but is allowed for purchase by any buyer. Only the high THC compliant will require a medical card for purchase. The Health Department will not be regulating the marijuana more than this at this time. This would be why it would be difficult for the City to separate the two types of stores. Commissioner Wood asked if the City could regulate growing in homes. Mr. Lamb said it would have to come from a health/safety standpoint which would require talking about any gardener and what they want to grow. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the right to make a prohibition on medical marijuana home grows. Mr. Lamb corrected saying the City could limit the cooperatives,but the individual patient who wants to grow up to 15 plants, there would be a very difficult time in prohibiting them. If it was done there was a health/safety standpoint which would apply to all plants being grown. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the Health Department supported his theory of it being a public health/safety issue for having segregated facilities. Mr. Lamb said the Department of Health has made different classifications for compliant marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said the only thing common about the two types of stores is the word marijuana. He feels there would be different inventories,there should be a separate wall between the two facilities in order to keep the public safe from the sales of the wrong product to the wrong person. He offered that he would be willing to take the chance in a court room on his idea. Mr. Lamb said he did not know from an enforcement standpoint,how this could be done. Compliant marijuana can be sold to anyone. The only time a sale would need to have a check for a medical card would be if a person wanted to: 1) buy in higher than recreational amounts, 2) buy the high THC compliant marijuana or 3) didn't want to pay the sales tax. Mr. Anderson continued he still felt that medical and recreational should not be in the same building, then there could be more medical shops and we could get away from allowing more recreational shops. Mr. Lamb said the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 challenge for the City would be trying to enforce the fact that a retail store would not be selling to recreational users as well as a medical store. Commissioner Graham asked Mr. Lamb to explain this. At a retail marijuana store any person can go in and buy any kind of marijuana they would like, EXCEPT for high THC compliant marijuana. Mr. Lamb said if the City were to only allow more medical marijuana stores, anyone over the age of 21 would be able to go in and buy any of the products, except the high THC compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham asked what would be the problem with this proposal. Mr. Lamb asked what the goal would be in trying to do this. Mr. Anderson asked if medical marijuana wouldn't be more expensive, have to have training, a consultant is required, tighter product regulations, tighter packaging regulations, in general a recreational user would want to go somewhere else and buy their product. Commissioner Kelley said many businesses sell retail/wholesale in the same place. Ms. Janssen asked the Commissioners to clarify why they would want to separate the two businesses. Commissioner Anderson said to keep the number of major retail stores from growing and medical has a legitimate point, and the state is saying we have to have more outlets. The Commissioners said they are frustrated the rules keep changing while we are trying to make the rules. Commissioner Graham said as of July 2016 all of the unlicensed dispensaries will have to be out of business or moved to a retail store. She asked if it was fair to these business owners. She asked if the City adopted something like Commissioner Anderson was proposing, couldn't those businesses apply to be one of those places. It would protect their business,they are used to providing medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb said they could and it would be up to the Commission, but before moving forward he would like to highlight, first although they are going to say they are going to be medical stores, they could sell to anyone who comes in at this time. Second he wanted the Commissioners to know this decision would be subject to a legal challenge. If someone wanted to sell recreationally and did not want to sell medical, it could be subject to challenge. There was a discussion about the current medical dispensaries and wanting to allow them an avenue to continue their business without allowing any more recreational shops in the City. Mr. Lamb stated the state is going to allocate to the City more retail stores based on the need of the community. He said there is no requirement for those to get a medical endorsement. The state created a retail system in which patients can get a tax break. The City is not mandated to have the allowed number of stores. Stores who sell compliant marijuana will need to be able to prove to the state they have the appropriate documentation in order to not be collecting the taxes owed. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a way to prohibit any more new stores in the City until 'the dust settles' and we have better defined rules regarding the selling of marijuana. Mr. Lamb said this would be one option. • If the City prohibited any more new stores could existing stores be termed legal nonconforming uses and be allowed to move around the City. There is a rule for that for billboards. There is no statutory rule which would prohibit it. Mr. Lamb cautioned there is no other business in the City which would be allowed to do that under our non-conforming use provisions. Commissioner Scott wondered if this would not be a problem because we do not allow other businesses to do this. She said these businesses have already said they know this is a high risk business and she did not feel obligated to allow special accommodations. Mr. Lamb said the City's current nonconforming regulations would take care of these concerns. • Signage restrictions: Mr. Lamb said he has concerns about the First Amendment and trying to regulate the content of signs. He said there was a question about comparing it to cigarette advertising. He said this law was written with extensive studies on how long a minor sees that advertisement can directly affect their likelihood of using that product. There was a strong factual basis for those laws. If the City were to develop a factual record, we might be able to develop a regulation along those lines. There was a recent court case (Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert) which has strengthened First Amendment protections and further restricted cities' authority for their sign codes. The state has significant restrictions on signs. The state does not allow more than two signs on site, and signs are limited to 1,600 square inches. The City sign code does not allow any off-site signage. The WSLCB also does not allow the signs to be appealing to children. They have stated, but it is not in the rules, they will not allow signs with cannabis leaves in them. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Wood said his opinion moving forward would be to allow the three existing retail stores to become licensed medical marijuana stores. He said he felt the three retail outlets were enough, the number of processors and producers was sufficient. He said we should allow a private individual patient the right to grow up to 15 plants, but not to allow cooperatives in the City. The City should maintain all of the current buffers around schools, parks and city land. Commissioner Scott said she agreed with Commissioner Wood and would make the three existing stores a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Phillips said he agreed with Commissioner Wood, he would like to reduce the ones we already have but did not feel that was possible. Commissioner Anderson said he did not see any reason why the City would change or expand its processing and producing regulations. He is in favor of eliminating cooperatives. He would like to require the home owner be aware when someone is growing plants on their property for medicinal purposes. He feels all the boundaries should remain the same. He did not feel the City should be allowing home extraction. He would allow more stores if they could be medical only, even though he feels it would work, but if not then he would not allow any more stores in the City. Commissioner Kelley said he agrees with the all the guidelines proposed,but he would increase the buffers. Commissioner Wood said some of the retail stores came in and said their landlords were not going to allow them to continue their leases, which would be no fault of their own, and he wanted to allow the nonconforming laws to move with the stores to allow them to continue on if they were a business in good standing. Then there was discussion regarding legal nonconforming uses and of the ultimate goal of the Commissioners. Do you have to make the three retail shops nonconforming? Commissioner Anderson said no more than the three outlets without making them legal nonconforming uses,which would prohibit any more marijuana uses. Because of the state licensing system,there isn't a way to just restrict three to our City, so we have to prohibit and use the nonconforming regulations. Mr. Lamb summarized the Commission's desired direction for the regulations to be drafted: • No more marijuana retailers,producers or processors • No clubs • No cooperatives • Allow home grows,but look at the possibility of requiring the grower be the home owner • No home extraction Commissioner Scott asked if it was possible to restrict chemical extraction in the City. Mr. Lamb said he would allow the fire department to speak to the subject, but to keep in mind there are other processes which uses chemicals which are not related to marijuana. Ms. Harvey said the permit has a reasonable amount allowable which would allow the process in most any room in order to keep control of the chemicals to avoid problems. Chemical extractions require many systems to monitor. Extractions at home are using rubbing alcohol which is not likely to be a problem,but there could be a problem with the propane or butane. Most are using a CO2 process. She said it was highly unlikely to see one of these systems in a home because they are expensive systems. Commissioner Graham said she would like to see home grow be in an enclosure and that they can't be seen from a neighbor's yard. How could enforcement of this happen,only after they were reported? At this point it was agreed staff will begin to draft regulations based on the Commissioners agreeing this was the direction they wanted the regulations to move. Commissioner Graham asked about accommodating the current business owners through zoning, and Mr. Lamb stated an overlay could be created but that spot zoning would not be allowed. Commissioner Wood asked about renters who had permission to grow, and it was clarified this would be allowed. There was consensus not to come back with a zoning alternative to be able to allow the existing medical stores (dispensaries) in a zoning overlay. Commissioner Graham asked if a marijuana grow, or a federally illegal activity, was something which would have to be disclosed when selling a building. Commissioner Wood said he would say no, but he felt they were damp and would generate black mold which would be required to be disclosed. Commissioner Kelley wanted to know if the City could make it a requirement to inform of a home grow. Mr. Lamb said it would require some investigation. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was a discussion regarding Planning Commissioners notes. Do they to be turned in to staff at the end of the year. These were their own notes,but Commissioners need to be aware they were subject to a public records requests. They should probably be destroyed at the end of each subject. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Kevin Anderson,Vice-Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, January 28,2016 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the January 28, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the City had one private Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal submitted which would be a study session at the first February meeting. Ms. Barlow also reported the City would be moving forward with the population allocation which has been recommended by the Planning Technical Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee of Elected Officials. With this decision the City can now begin to move ahead with the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb reported there have been offers from some of the marijuana businesses to give the Planning Commission members a tour to see how the marijuana businesses are set up and run in order to be more informed while making new regulations. Commissioners Stoy, Johnson, Stathos and Graham said they thought it might be beneficial to have the information. Commissioner Kelley would like to be able to mark off how far the buffers were on the ground, Commissioner Anderson and Phillips were not interested. There was a question about how many more retail stores had been allocated to the City. Mr. Lamb said he emergency rules allowed none because we currently have a moratorium. He also said there was a current bill pending which might not allow cities to prohibit marijuana businesses. Mr. Lamb confirmed there was some interest and he would talk to the people who would help assist with coordinating a tour for those members interested in participating. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Planning Commission required annual training: Every year the City is required to give training to all of its employees,elected and appointed officials. Ms. Barlow began the evening with a video which explained the planning process and how the planning commission fit into the process. This video was produced by the Dept. of Commerce Roles and Responsibilities in Planning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEC-z3wsVNI. Ms. Barlow said there are many videos produced by the Dept. of Commerce which could be found on their website which the Commissioners might find useful and many can be found here: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Service s/localgovernment/GrowthManagement/Short-Course-on-Loc al- Planning/Page s/de fault.aspx Mr. Lamb continued with training on the Public Records Act, which was followed by training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Appearance of Fairness Act. Ms.Horton explained to the Commissioners how to use the sound system for the required recordings of the Planning Commission meetings as well as how to access the Commissioner's City assigned email system. The City assigns the Commissioners City email addresses in order to conduct City business to be able to help them to comply easier with the Public Records Act. 01-28-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelley said he had purchased a tablet on which he would be taking notes at the meetings with. He said this tablet would only be for Commission business,available in the case of a records request. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 11, 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing ®information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment—CPA-2016-0001 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November I st of the following year. Applications received prior to November 1St are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer. The Planning Commission will review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council will consider the recommendation and approvethe amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendment, or modify and approve the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. CPA-2016-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. If approved, the site will receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. A preliminary staff report has been prepared for review at the Study Session. The report will be finalized with any additional information received through the public review process and provided in conjunction with the public hearing meeting materials. Staff will present the amendment request and discuss the process with the Planning Commission at the study session. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment has been placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and the site will be posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, containing a description of the proposal no later than February 10, 2016. Individual notice will be mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the amendment. SEPA REVIEW Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) an environmental checklist was completed for the proposed amendment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or 1 of 2 programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the subject properties. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the proposal. A Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed amendment consistent with the SVMC Title 21 —Environmental Controls. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall,Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 —CPA-2016-0001 Draft Staff Report Exhibit 2—Presentation 2 of 2 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane l `�T R DRAFT e STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-2016-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 4,2016 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 25,2016,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. Project Number: CPA-2016-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential(LDR)with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2)zoning classification to a Light Industrial(I-1)designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Location: Parcel numbers 35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101 located SW of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road,further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12,Township 25 North,Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington Applicant/Owner: Michelle Anderson,Avista Corporation; PO Box 3727,MSC-21; Spokane,WA 99220-3727 Owner: Chad and Jasmine Jones; 6724 East Utah Avenue; Spokane Valley, (Parcel 35121.5101) WA 99212-1430 Date of Application: October 27,2015 Date Determined Complete January 13,2016 Staff Contact: Karen Kendall,Planner, (509) 720-5026,kkendall@spokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions,Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Amendment Application Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR)with a Single-family Residential Suburban District(R-2)zoning classification to a Light Industrial(I-1) designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Avista is the current property owner of six parcels(35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901 and 35121.6001),Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101 and included in proposed amendment. Parcel 35121.5201 located directly south of parcel 35121.5101 has not been included in the site-specific amendment as it is not owned by AVISTA. Avista owns approximately 10 acres west of site-specific amendment area for their natural gas service center. Avista has provided several reasons to support their application which include the following: • A growing need for more natural gas services spurring a need to expand the adjacent Natural Gas Service Center equipment and maintenance yard to accommodate for the increase capacity of materials. • The expansion of equipment storage yard will enable existing and future natural gas lines to be better served. • The current natural gas facility,accessed from Dollar Road,has served the community and existed in the area for over 20 years and has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and The combined, area of all parcels is 5.3 acres. The site is relatively Characteristics: flat with residential landscaping including trees and bushes. There are no critical areas in the amendment area or vicinity. Comprehensive Low Density Residential(LDR) Plan: Zoning: Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) Existing Land Use: Single-family residences exist on 5 of the 7 lots. Two residences have recently been removed from site by the current property owner. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan—City of Spokane Light Industrial Zoning—City of Spokane Light Industrial Existing Land Uses—railroad,Felts Field Airport, Skyway Café and airplane hangers South Comprehensive Plan—Light Industrial(I-1),Low Density Residential(LDR) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning—Light Industrial(I-1), Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Uses—Landscape material storage yard, SCRAPS, single-family residences. East Comprehensive Plan—Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning—Single-Family Residential Suburban District(R-2) Existing Land Uses—Single-family Residences West Comprehensive Plan—Light Industrial(I-1) Zoning—Light Industrial(I-1) Existing Land Uses—AVISTA Natural gas service center, and storage,equipment and maintenance yard Page 2 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls),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 on February 5, 2016. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site assessment,public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed Light Industrial (I-1) designation is intended to serve high technology and low-impact industries as well as office and commercial uses as ancillary uses. These uses presently exist in the vicinity of the amendment area to the west, north and south. The amendment area is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Division of Utilities and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road intersect at the northeast corner of the property. Both streets are identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan as local access streets. Safety related to fire, police and road access is currently present to serve the amended area. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. Avista discovered contaminated soil on one parcel and has removed contaminants, cleaned and restored site. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. Page 3 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The proposed amendment provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. The proposed land use designation is consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: One significant change has occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. A parcel north of Trent Avenue and Bradley Road located approximately one and one half blocks south of the amendment area received approval in 2014 through a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA-2014-0002) to change the designation from LDR to CMU to expand the regional animal shelter, SCRAPS. Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family uses. Located east across Elizabeth Road are established single family uses. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: Residential and light industrial height standards vary by five feet from 35 feet in residential and a maximum of 40 feet in light industrial. The following table provides a comparison of the development standards for each zone: Page 4 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Zone Building Lot Lot Lot Front Rear Side Height Coverage Width Depth Yard Yard Yard Setback Setback Setback Existing R-2 35 ft. 50% 80 ft. 90 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. Proposed I-1 40 ft. N/A N/A N/A 20 ft. 0ft.* 0ft.* *Exception for properties adjacent to a residential use or zone shall maintain a 20 foot setback along the side and rear. AVISTA would like to expand the equipment storage yard located to the west into the proposed amendment area. Expansion of the storage yard is a less intense use compared to other light industrial uses permitted and would have a minimal impact on traffic and noise. However, the application review should consider the uses allowed in the light industrial zone since the property may be redeveloped or sold. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Considerations are placed upon adjacent uses, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Found contaminated soils have been removed and sites acquired by the new land owner, Avista, have been cleaned and or homes removed. Avista has served the community in its current location for over 20 years. The site has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Avista's equipment and material storage is a minimum depth of 100 feet located along the west property line adjacent to existing residences included in the amendment area. There is minimal intensity to current operations adjacent to the existing single family use. The expansion to existing operations would add benefit to the neighborhood as proposed operations and disturbance are less intense compared to other light industrial uses. Avista's application notes development will provide Page 5 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 landscaping, screening and restrictions of onsite operations to access Elizabeth Road. The regional benefit speaks to increased natural gas services. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 5.1 percent of the land in the City is designated for Light Industrial. Light and heavy industrial categories total 20.3 percent of the total land uses, which is larger than all the office, commercial and mixed use categories combined at 15.3 percent. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared in September of 2015 states there is a rising demand for industrial areas with an increased demand possible in the future. Light Industrial does not affect density within the City of Spokane Valley. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The current density within the single family residential suburban district (R-2) is four dwelling units per acre, except restrictions are placed upon density being located in the Airport Hazard Overlay. If development did occur to meet all development standards a maximum of 23 residences are allowed within the amendment area totaling 5.3 acres. Currently two single family residences have been removed from the site following the land purchase by Avista. There are a total of 5 residents remaining and four of which are under ownership by Avista at the consent of former owner. This does not result in displacement of residences. The amendment would have a marginal impact on population density and does not demand population analysis since there is no increase in density. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan since the amount of property that would move from a residential 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-Family Residential Suburban (R-2) zoning classification to Light Industrial(I-1) designation with a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning classification. Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21 and 22. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20,Concurrency; Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Orchard Avenue Irrigation District is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed. Each parcel has direct access to a public local access street. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; Page 6 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; The map amendment is not being sought to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. However the amendment may inadvertently address a need for additional unused industrial space as described in the Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared September of 2015 stating, `However vacancies have decreased substantially from over 20 percent to less than 10 percent....at some point new space may need to be developed"Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family residences. e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; The properties located west, north and south of the subject property have a Light Industrial (I-1) land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial(I-1)zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement. f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. The proposed expansion of an existing use to the west would not create new and different operations than presently occurring. Residences located east of Elizabeth Road will be buffered by the existing public street. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible, with the application of development regulations at the time of development. g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; The amendment will allow a range of low intensity commercial uses up to light industrial assembly, manufacturing and processing as proposed uses. If development occurred individually on the seven lots there may be more impacts of several light industrial uses on each lot verse a consolidation of the amended area into one parcel. The currently property owner of six lots is Avista. Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Page 7 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 The proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Light Industrial designation provides for expansion of adjacent property to the west and consistent with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity for additional light industrial uses serving as a transitional category between heavy industrial and other less intense land use categories. The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG-10 Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial areas. Goal LUG-12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industrial areas. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Policy NP-3.3 Encourage commercial development that is designed and scaled in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with public water and sewer. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as local access streets according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. This will be updated once the comment period has expired. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Page 8 of 9 Draft Staff Report CPA-2016-0001 Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Liberty Lake, Community Development No City of Millwood No City of Spokane,Planning Services No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Spokane County,Building and Planning No Spokane County,Division of Utilities -Info Svc No Spokane County,Clean Air Agency No Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 No Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 No Spokane County,Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority(STA) No Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) No Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) No Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) No Washington State Department of Fish&Wildlife No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation No Avista Utilities No East Valley School District#363 No Century Link No Comcast No Orchard Avenue Irrigation District#16 No Spokane Tribe of Indians No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 9 of 9 itli CPA-2016-0001 Vicinity Map CO o 0 35013.0201 rj- Bridgeport Av ua r n N 0 vi 0 w i., © o'i Np m ro n m T r �- N r�lLi,b�er[y Ave N co cn cry N p r. T p r9 _ L.,-) o o ?' nr 35415.0002 0 , t ■i N 0 2 p v b ro Dalton Ave ^� c o o p n a A i1 N 37 cine • u' 1.11m 0 r a R R 0. Q Q d � —i 00 `yOCL CI N Y9a�� _ Eu Ave a :_p',._, reder, ■ -� - a i; Frederick Ave V [ n a a D- -II. Frederick Avg �� Fr."ed"er.ick},4ue ' L� + © a, M I L L W © O D "' 9, A Fairview Ave n triw Fairview Ave 1 o Grace-Ave -ro;Fairview 1Ave G° �ll4� �I jQi O'' e a 'Grace Ave rD "' 1 . r I 35111.4041 00 0 h P`t x +�lr {p. 'x r r �'9�Gr�:ahce-AIv.e'IIIIC yti` 35122.0413 o e � a duck"eye-Aver-� 1I �y u q R n Buckeye A' `I Q _ =� 0 4 _Q ..„„. rim Bu -Alv I f� ao c aall - co,_ Ave Marietta Ave T rt v r� York }a�e�}tia� ' Jackson Avev p IV/ SPOKANE Ru�vet' s, o Carlisle Ave a Carlisle Ave?, - ---0 r- __ a ° Montgomery Av rn 35115.0102 r �' n 0 .1 o a = MansfieldAve 5 020 _ -o y w m / 3511 ccto. co n. Knox Aye a SNIT' o r, Knox Ave ro z _ 1. b p a a 011 dda� d Ade cc qra `,./ . .NIi n ��e o o a — a �° t Aye a R`� �a`ttoa Shannon Ave a� ro Michielli Avea o,y +�rirat A�cv n m Ave.., ci 1611 L� e o _ a til n Indiana Ave ,a o� .0 E lip trte o ,�d,4an n Av„, .r L�m.�,, cow'`l. ` W F4utcr. . vers+'04 a%%%%% 1 °- `�, " / SPOKANE VALLEY Nora Ave �,, ji '*� ri : Augusta Ave r• o Mission Ave ua mil r^ o Mission AvenOff' Marvell Ave 90o Oti Maxwell A�� ro ro ar G:. c o Sinto Ave � '� r� n V DO 0.��.�' ,_' °aid;°a6 P I:....,.,,LI:ro L n '''')~ J a1 T andCt o p c vFti n' Z] Q. 7 an. Z I7 co. ' 0,+0" m Sharp Ave - z u1 `�rP Ave Q °o a Boone Ave c ..0. 7“ur .v z a r4 Boone Ave �Lgti�� o 00. -‹ >, 0 —i-- m ra. ro �' ro 0 45182.917$ nr Cataldo Ave 72 �o r �+ .-r Q rU -x 2 1-) ��� c r cu l a a Dean Ave 90 m cu .. Mallon Ave r '< a = Broadway Ave �r Mallon Ave 7J 71 7 2,950.2 0 el 1,475.10 2,950.2 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. ilti CPA-2016-0001 Comprehensive Plan Map I — — '' �. 35111.0001 'rg 14 0111.111L 0 f°- -Fah view-Ave o b a 73 Vt�` Low Density Residential �y0 35122.0013 i, P 1111.1 II. MEM-� h� :IMMI Buckeye-Ave a cv � SPOKANE4 1�a�g `� ■351220405 0 l lIIIi �f�� Marietta-Ave ,, L I =~■.\T—fil ri35122.0404 tv 35111.0186 ..�e m , �� P iIIi - am: n� = �teC A�e Jta1� •� m ~� ..,tz.0 4 - \ -P1,.,111-1 a r - - o �-.� � � _o Carlisle-Ave �� � MIMI ul -r- 35115.0102a 5~ 01 ,� _... Ave s, M0. ontgomery 35115.0202 35125.2303 _ �- I. J ro \\\ Light Industrial 35123.2402 SPOKANE—VIA L L E Y t r• -K-ea co �� L 35123.2401 Mansfield Ave w r 1 a ET �. ;\ 35123.0414 m -a �. A �\�� 0CC 1 0. 7^ a' `� . �' 35123iii .2501 O4a m P e i Knox Ave a o o iIt\ Residential Pie ��o� e n — -� o d v ce P� f-t 35123,0614 7 35123.2603 a a R��lr°� m et �, i, '.,.Go0, \ C Ave•* 73 COn•ridor•Miffed LTse _> 73 skate a, Q- a 1� I— a Li- I,•.•• �, I Trent Ave 35123.2 05 © 2,)''' 45077.0002 5�1ria`aria L Indiana Ave Ort' a 3512415flg Baldwin Ave CD co FT 1. 35114.Q027_ i� Baldwin Ave i rn rri `r m o O N U1 Q m c N - Ln o q 13� n m m m 3r�%l Kora Ave srsm Heavy In165 trialrn , m IIS-, n 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feetel This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. • , ' ' CPA-2016-0001 Zoning Map II u :„...,... 2, ''' ' I=IN III rt-35111.0001 L Ave-,�\\\p (p3. • �„� '� 3 Fair view= r Lri MOP -INN e 1111111 �y0 35122.0013 , ■ hi4 cv ii Buckeye Ave- SPOKANE 3s12z.o4os a [35.�1 �- iiiII n / ry - - Marietta-Ave 1 , , OMEN 3 35111 0186 35122.0404 .. '` .. - -c÷ ••—... ;- .0 ��.p1/4�a ~W J ■� 70 or k-te `-' 'z: :.`^.,'-'''. 2 RIM" st<-7-: \ d—1 k - 1 mil � � ``````\�`\\�\ `o\\� =MI�., r i�1 Carlisle-Ave __ _,.�m� 35115.010 2 0° -...-N-``��.. \� \ \ \ \ o -, in ,•' � `\\\ Mont omer.y Ave '��t .,.��..-. � 35125'2303�� g�—V \\• 35115.0202 i ���IZZN- \ ��� \"`\ �: I k �� ' 1 I�� �? \\\\` \��: \35123020\ \351232402 \\\\, -0 r Li ( .. \\ ' ,,,. r" �����:\ 35123,2401 \S P:01( •N E VALLEY .� —� �� \ �• rMansfield�Ave \\�� � a co—E 1- �.-.�\\ \ �35123.0414 \ \:\\ —` ���� • !( �\+ ��� ���..���,0 35123:250` ` -, -,n.\`m \� ��e� e n'�1\\vim....„.. CD ...z.,->_, ......z.,_..... w\\� �� �2 N �� Q as P� rn ce fD- 351Z3.0614��c ..rD X35123.260\ \ `' \ \ ogit cc&\K-c"\ te NJe-L''."`. ..::,,,,-----zN'''.."-•,:„.„..`1.'.-N.." 0� , II I. N•��:� N\ �'s per;\ S'.:-.-1':,N_25'.1-��'t_n Indiana-Ave= ill. 3513:2705:\ �.\\ 3 �. ria. ,. Trent Ave - �o 411) 45077.0002 ��\\\\\ $� �ridia� i I ) ti ��\�\ \\ \` ` \ \ 4: 50 \\ Baldwin-Ave orgy..\\\ \ \ m;��� �\o\- � \ - 35114.0027 \ Baldwin, \ \\\. \�-`�. • \\\,r \\�\� r' \ \a N\` \��\' \" \o���\ ��` \ _ �� \�\ n.� • �\� ��2 \\Gt\\���\\�\ R-4==rqr.. LTl. �� ;�a��\\\rte • Nora Ave �'::\\\�` x.11111 •:.:....Z.... ;\�\�\\ \ 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feet 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. .....i,,... CPA-2016-0001 2014 Aerial Map •' r---------- 1';--'_ ,aa� , 0 xi .._ 35111,0001 -- e ;-.!' .. / ro a 70 ,,,,,__,/ 4/ _, ii 5 7 Fairview Ave --;•-•-- � �e ;; in, / v- .71. " 35122.0013 / Qp0_K'A N[� , .a w '�� Buckeye Ave to ...-1 " 35122.0445 351 .•f .• r �iii ' Min � Marietta Ave o • #• ���/� 35122.0404 .•'j� — �+ co ': g{.=: 'N ' y r• 0.,,,,,,.:,,„.„..+•:„.:.....--%-% fie`� i Pv e'U�ar w' 1111 • �.� • .„„...s ./- r - m Carlisle Ave �:1t1 Montgomery Ave 35115.0202 � "U � � + - . 35123.0202 :, ,35123:2402 1 35125.2303-L Mansfield Ave _- rf 35123:2401 - a n m 1_ i/! Ave 5123.0414 _ s ° sc ¢ �w: Mansfield -� 7 Knox Avea 351232541 . m .: _- A�0e n ro i. r ��,.-....,----------3.•,-1 AJe. e P 35123.2603 — R ��Vo eC+r y 35123.D614 Q --= � Q ve tee' �� , 71 + CV,Wt aet ¢ a 45077.D0D2_���; .�51,S ,; a • r .' or Pa : a, .< I I' `" � �� �5�1A. a Lin •Indiana Avei m •, Trent Ave 2705,' • _.---_,-----____-_---z-•-•_,------. _ a+ars i�''� o - % 351141548 1�► r. B ldwII in Avel.stli t71 dl1 is /� 351144, .. ,, .0427 \\ Baldwin Ave w �` =���� l� a�:o k •uial 0 1, ��� i�� /f • 3 �-4:1" •I I lirl�� '1' ' • • 1� 1,475.1 0 737.55 1,475.1 Feet O This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. ""oka ie jValley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY (( �j Date Submitted: t t/ I i S Received by: LZ- r7c), Fee: U/ PLUS#: File#: _ atikP " PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION OCT 2 6 2015 ® S1GK.r...2E 11":'AP Y Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment �r�'-: 1.�v1,_;Jl-(5F ,rJ�v1ivl�JiJi Pit 1:�a:%E'LOPTVENT APPLICANT NAME: Robin Bekkedahl, Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC-21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY:Spokane STATE:WA ZIP:99220 FAX: EMAIL: PHONE: 509.495.8657 509.495.4852 CELL: Robin.Bekkedahl@avistacorp.com PROPERTY OWNER:Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC-21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY:Spokane STATE:WA ZiP:99220 EMAIL: PHONE: 509.495.8657 FAx: 509.495.4852 CELL: Robin.Bekkedahl@avistacorp.com SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL No.: 35121.550:1_5502,.5601, 2403, 2415, 2425, 2503, 2509, &2513 North Elizabeth Rd. .5602_5901,and.6001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: I1 BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater-Spokane Area contin es to grow.the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service cenjgr continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Ind a Lifer 3.7 .cr- .•'a •n • hi f. ili to .ro i•e addi '• .1 tor.:• .no •er ••• for natural gas service center. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 S iokane p Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III — AUTHORIZATION • — (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, Pc91L1,\ lr YziAt''C�di%PNA-L__ -,-(pt'int name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the_best of Hy knowledge. c;%fes / ' 1 (z--_____-7121,f_ (Sidnnnature) -' (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of e &/2. 20 /5 NOTARY SEAL ,i NOTARY NATURE � We ;v '• ..\\‘‘ K1 � �r Notary Public in and for the State of Washington eer_VA. O6t/ falai/PO/ — u PUBLIC „ Residing at: I '" My appointment expires: ` / ?Of? LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 .: MI5TA" Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11703 E. Sprague Ave, Ste B-3 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Subject: Dollar Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment Change to Application January 12, 2016 Dear Ms. Kendall Per our conversation 12/30/15, I am forwarding you information to update our recently submitted SEPA application and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 1. Please note that I, Michelle Anderson will be the primary Avista Contact for this project and not Robin Bekkedahl. My contact information is as follows: Michelle Anderson Sr. Environmental Specialist 1411 E. Mission Ave. PO Box 3727 MSC-21 Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Michelle.anderson aaavistacorp.com Phone: 509-495-2011 and cell: 509-220-0045 2. The following property will be added to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application that was submitted to your office on October 26, 2015. Parcel Number: 35121.5101 Site Address: 6724 E Utah Ave Parcel Size: 68,859 sqft This property has a current Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential with a R2 zoning designation. Avista Corporation is requesting that it be changed to Light Industrial with a zoning designation of 11. The total acreage of property that would be included in the amendment would change from 3.75 acres to 5.33 acres. The property is currently owned by Chad and Jasmine Jones but is in the process of being purchased by Avista Corporation. The sale is expected to be complete by around February 1, 2016. I have attached a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application listing the Jones as the property owner with their notarized signature on the back. The landowner contact information is listed below: Chad and Jasmine Jones 6724 E Utah Ave Spokane Valley, WA Chad Jones: 509-714-7276 Jasmine Jones: 509-714-7253 Jasmine's email: rwinsjazz@yahoo.com I appreciate your help with this process. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns. Sincerely, i 4 . Michelle Anderson Sr. Environmental Specialist Phone: (509) 495-2559 Enclosure: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Spolkane .Valley• COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File#: PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION .-j 21115 ® Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment „,� i l�Y i�,taYl- APPLICANT NAME: Michelle Anderson, Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC-21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY:Spokane STATE:WA ZIP:99220 FAX: CELL:509-220- EMAIL: PHONE: 509.495.8657 509.495.2559 0045 michelle.anderson@avistacorp.com PROPERTY OWNER: Chad and Jasmine Jones MAILING ADDRESS:6724 E Utah Ave. CITY: Spokane Valley STATE:WA ZIP: PHONE: 509-714-7276 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: rwinsjazz@yahoo.com SITE ADDRESS: 6724 E. Utah Ave. PARCEL No.: 35121.5101 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: I1 BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater-Spokane Area continues to grow.the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service center continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for 1.5 acres adjacent to this facility to provide additional storage and services for Avista's natural gas service center. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 S"''okan`��e p Valley‘ COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION � - ,- r e- PART III - AUTHORIZATION ' L ~ ���'' (Signature of legal owner or applicant) SPO:F,_,!_;.%,,•I LEY y r pF , JAS , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. wok, I-1—I (-4/ (lnature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) �/ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this tfeiAlN/fz day ofit%t /ter , 2011 NOTARY SEAL •‘‘�v\,IAM qT //, N TA Y SIG ATURE `• soni El;o�yFgo�� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington cP•; NOTARY _ , PUBLIC Residing at: c7'Vi/d /01-1`fr Ah- ... . ( ' P./ O. t.J' •. os-21 •201 o,`p` � ���y� � .� G✓� ///-11/r1 V�0 ��`` My appointment expires: � >-( "r7- 2 LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, Wil ✓LZ'� ��QJ�-- , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 Spokane .Valley. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION RECEIVED PART III — AUTHORIZATION JAN 1 2 2015 (Signature of legal owner or applicant) SPOKANE VALL Y DEPARTMENT O-F I, CClilfp v"c'A?C� , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. (Signature) / (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: �vK' ` COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) /7SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of /� , 20Th NOTARY SEAL 7---427///di-M: ‘--- ``01111Hifi,_ NOTARY S ATURE %`+`, Pv!D•w���7q 'i, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington `a GpMMlgs,/,% i m.o eOGt os � 144 -1,-1m E Residing at: o227/D ,/ 0/44,-.1-23A-5- 'QZ7 %,�':?pia. .. ' _�� .,�_��e�NGTON•.��•`� Myappointment expires: �‘ 5V"J-a/ �isti � PP P � f LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is of the I g.l owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I (/�,' r% " .,. owner of the above described property do herebyauthorize c` ( � P P Y ,4-/i,� cleNtp a$ to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 Spolkane Valley Avista Dollar Road Facility Comprehensive Plan Amendment Low Density Residential to Light Industrial October 2015 0 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 below; 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. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific 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. 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater-Spokane Area continues to grow,the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service center continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for 3.75 acres adjacent to this facility to provide additional storage and services for Avista's natural gas service center. 2. Describe how the proposed change meets the approved criteria below: a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment. Avista owns the adjacent property on which they operate their natural gas service center,which maintains gas lines in the Greater-Spokane Area. The proposed amendment will enable Avista to better service existing and future natural gas lines as new lines are installed in the future. At least one of the properties proposed for the amendment contained minor soil contamination. Upon purchasing the parcel,Avista Corporation removed the contaminated soils to Graham Road. Incorporating this property into the Light Industrial category of the comprehensive plan will ensure that proposed uses,such as natural gas material storage is properly reviewed and regulated by proper authorities and that adequate environmental mitigation measures are Page 1 of 4 Spokane jValley implemented. Outdoor storage areas will be paved and protective measures such as paving, and stormwater treatment will be implemented to protect the groundwater and 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. Much of RCW 36.70A is directed at ensuring cities and counties adopt planning goals, regulations,guidelines, and procedures. This proposal will conform to all applicable processes adopted by the City of Spokane Valley to implement this RCW. The few specific planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020 that this proposal conforms to include: - This proposal promotes economic development, as it allows Avista Corporation to expand its current operation and serve the Spokane Area. - This proposal maintains and enhances natural resource-based industries. - This proposal protects the environment - This proposal is situated in a location where adequate public facilities and services exist. 36.70A.070 states, "A commercial, industrial, residential,shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of(d)(iv)of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of(c)(ii)and(iii)of this subsection. (B)Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i)must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. (C)Any development or redevelopment in terms of building size,scale, use, or intensity shall be consistent with the character of the existing areas. Development and redevelopment may include changes in use from vacant land or a previously existing use so long as the new use conforms to the requirements of this subsection (5)". Avista's proposed use will principally be designed to serve the existing and projected population. The proposed development will be compatible with adjacent building sizes, scale and use. The Dollar Road facility has existed in this area for over a period of 20 years and has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Prior to Avista ownership,this land has been formerly owned and operated by the railroad. In comparison to Avista's use,the railroad had a more intense industrial use among the surrounding neighborhood. The Dollar Road facility has improved and redeveloped this area to be a more compatible land use within the neighborhood and keeping the character of the neighborhood. 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 regional demand for natural gas has continued to grow. These expanding demands have necessitated Avista to expand their existing natural gas service center to respond to this increased demand. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error. This is not the situation with this application. Page 2 of 4 Spokane .Valley' e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. This is not the situation with this application. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors: a. The effect upon the physical environment. Through the development permit process,there will be much greater review of the design and development of this area. Currently,there are non conforming and unregulated storage and dumping on portions of the subject property, prior to Avista's ownership. Avista has demonstrated a progressive approach to ensuring their uses does not negatively impact the neighborhood as well as proactively mitigating potential environmental concerns from the previous industrial uses. Future development and use of this property will be reviewed by the City of Spokane Valley and other agencies. b. The effect on open space,streams, rivers,and lakes. This proposal will have no effect on open space,streams, rivers or lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposal will be designed and developed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The Avista Natural Gas Service Center is currently situated adjacent to the proposed site. This site provides for natural gas equipment storage and maintenance. There are no intense industrial uses on the subject property or on the proposed property. The eastern property line will be heavily screened with a fence and landscaping to reduce visual impacts to the adjacent properties. Elizabeth Road and its right-of-way will increase the eastern buffer between the two land use designations beyond what presently exists. This proposed property will be incorporated into the existing natural gas service center and all vehicular traffic to this site will be from Dollar Road and/or Utah Avenue, eliminating vehicular incompatibility with neighboring uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation,and schools. There are currently adequate community facilities to serve this site without negatively impacting existing properties. All vehicular traffic to this site will be from Dollar Road and/or Utah Avenue, eliminating vehicular incompatibility with neighboring uses. The proposal will have no impact on public transportation, parks, recreation, or schools. e. The benefit to the neighborhood,city,and region. Neighborhood benefits include Avista cleaning up existing contaminated soils on the subject property and having a far less intense industrial use on the property. The regional benefits of expanding Avista's natural gas service center includes enabling Avista to expand and improve its natural gas service to the region as well as natural gas fueling stations for the Avista fleet. The overall benefit also extends to cleaner air quality by reducing hydrocarbon vehicles and using natural gas vehicles. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed use type and density,and the demand for such land. Page 3 of 4 *dime ®sValleyR The addition of 3.75 acres of light industrial land use to the City of Spokane Valley will not significantly impact the quantity of land planned for the proposed use. Designating this property Light Industrial is an extension to the existing gas service center. This light industrial use has less impact in comparison to the railroad uses. The demand for this type of land use is needed because as the demand increases for natural gas as an energy source, natural gas service centers are needed. g. The current and projected population density in the area. The proposal reduces the number of low density residential dwellings within Greater Spokane County by six. This is insignificant in the projected population density equation. h. The effects upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2.5.5 Industrial Designations of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan states, "Providing for industrial land is important for the economic health of Spokane Valley. Industrial businesses help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Providing an adequate supply of usable land with minimal environmental constraints and infrastructure in place helps ensure that Spokane Valley will be an attractive place for industrial businesses to locate and prosper. The Light Industry designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping, and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low-impact industries. Light Industry areas may incorporate office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for the industrial area. Non-industrial uses should be limited and in the majority of cases be associated with permitted industrial uses." The proposed comprehensive plan amendment will provide industrial land that is important for the economic vitality of Spokane Valley and region. The development of this property will give emphasis and attention to perimeter aesthetics, landscaping, and community compatibility while incorporating this land into an existing permitted industrial use. The current zoning codes provide the necessary performance standards so the adjacent residential uses will not be impacted. Page 4 of 4 sPo�� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT '� PLANNING' '--- DIVISION Planning Commission Study Session February 11, 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment File No. CPA-2016-0001 Ss"" COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , PLANNING �. pokane valley , DIVISION SVCP Amendment Process • City Council approves official docket Docket • November 1st cut off for applications (60-day notice) • Planning Commission recommendation Legislative • City Council approval • Growth Management Hearing Board Appeals 2 e COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNIN -- DIVISION Private ) Initiated MapAmendment Y Project Number CPA-2016-0001 Applicant: la Michelle Anderson, Avista Corporation PO Box 3727, MSC-21; Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Owners: Avista Corporation Chad and Jasmine Jones PO Box 3727, MSC-21 6724 East Utah Avenue Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1430 Parcel 35121.5101 Application Request to change parcels 35121.5501, 35121.5502, Description: 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101 from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial Spo''„-kane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING- DIVISION....•OValiey• DIVISION ,,.. ..-. .. cl. ; -,.. -It. a-,- 'ft Dzim 7-I' m R ____ „. ..c. ...L., .. ,.„ ., -; '- , _ a --IrT: E 41(ii.c-Ave. . NJ 0 — I .L. ...:- T =, .3., = LI I-redrick Avs i 1 =1 o - .z. . NI ick Ave er).1 Q CL w A v if 4 • . CPA-2016-0001 ...„, i-, w FitireleW Avg r.... -v FAirvi ,ew Ave 72 . (Jr Fo 35111.0'001 / c:7,-› cS .. ......:.,'' ' I 35122.0013 ... g r- uc_ t ,3k1).me •.' I . € ae ...- 1 4.1 IT B k e el.;rA6F-c7: A't 1 Y •- II.r- ..-.. 73 2 Ave ...T.? I ,..,...,..p.„ #4- „,..,3„tta Ave n ..,, rr. -1 $. 71 SPOKANE , Vt $5115.is 0102 • • 3,5115(3201 1 ..... w. %..."' ,,,..,,,, rr. Da 0 ° = u — 90 g {:a r 1.s I ecriA....c 5 c c-, a: , `c•--. ' ... Ti .7; 17' r::::.:kr 15:lrie A.::;B:7, V.di Z .. P....." c' '6. •p: 1- J 7D in_ ,._ 0 Ivailit CI- e 'c?..t1-0136'11.6:;,x.a2"6 r4:4.1.sel.kanikon A NI Knox .47 Xl Pk\I Sal - 11 I- a = = 0 0.• 'I_ Indiana Avc 0- (III) L. U Z. ..< ;,.. .., . a. 1 P a W -1 J 1 ..- —° _..7._ SPOKANE VALLEY ...... Fs ..r1 I - Ave PL Aut.!st R -2. I > • a . Missi. nAve .-:‘...- r... r.-. a I o. Mdx,....e0.Ik. e• .......-... -.-. g 1 8 -O' i- s-,. -z.: simo , r ,,,,,,,, ,..,..,i.e. -:' a. - ..i n6" z- ,-.;1 r: r-I ,..-I $.1.5 1 -.I EC -' IN 7,..; ,.. .-.^ V+ ra.0 hr. Lri 7 c_ C.- ri. .-..-. m _. - Shit,- • - 'I a .Weli_.(1 IN..0:92.1 7%,r.. .,:t ..t. 0-- .... ......_.....=, n, , LON ... ' COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — PLANNING"'w .,,,,,,,,,owValley• DIVISION .•. -..:6 3. - - 351220,0i', 0 K A ' N - ' ' .- • 3512 1.3:206 1- . - e K.2 .,,,,,7irt..•.1. ...........0-. .,.,1-:-.•___,,..,-:-;--- , . ..t I. 2 GIO • ,.. 11, ‘1.-: ----- ' ,.K4 e ...::.---=" : 6910 lie e, t 260 em 1 1 4" _. ;C. . 0.':.1.-: -.-:- _,--;f:-' - ... 9E74q11 1.611". I ri 2 „..:,...c. „. ,...... _„._ ...,..... _„. .... .. 1 .. „. 1.1_,2k, , - 0 :'-7-- se 401' , -ale or.r.•%''':1:277-'--- ---- . •2.10 . . F.,:•-•:-.. LliUrs ,, 2 610 115 25,0,1 .,;1-14 9S3_21.4 CPA-2016-0001 ,-- - - 2S2252 25.14 1 - - 4 )C,11 ', II -=:.---;- -- -46.3if. . .._' ..! A . -. 2_421 95121.5201 rd - a wiir. .,_.1 2 2515 1 .LI ? MU , . —, ' • ai d iswi -417°' ,,,k-... . ,is no9 _ EDO i Ma7 = U III 35122.1101 . • 240 G _ 9E1 77.111114 i i 'ni n MU illA al CB ion nol.. 2423 - 2429- 24..M ....1 ' t:.!, 1 a Li j . 5: 0 690E, - 35121.5911 ...420 24"1 4 . -• ..... - ., 111:3: ii - Cr' 1";r: ' I • 2-1 AO 1 1 OP 0 IK LI I23 i., .4 egarjr,M1 . 2 ' , 403--• • • '. ,- 6807 1 141 03 52_1.61 301 ___ r,,ricrilgomeLy Ave 11 • ... . . 4 .. ,,--•,•-, 6824 2)22 0 °-4 - . - -. II, 2311 3- 65.0•2P . . NI am .,,...=., . I . 231)7 6508 7=1.1 .. I 5 sPokane COMMUNITY.and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 7LG _000 Valley DIVISION IIf E** j‘414 r':4411' k '44, , tiVt tw-40410._ ‘k tgi ' ti, 04' s t'41 4""••+ . ,/46 ° e 4' ,,,..... ,, 0 CD . It it ;;I, ii Nit • , - .9.X A CP %C- I' is il it ik .4. ,ii, it arm czga: NI, -, 6 COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLA ley DIVISION boo:N, Ailk8 4114t4 :.:''5:'i,'z- -:*7- -'.. ,,i 2---: __....-3...,---,,,::::711111.1:- '! 3 s- �-. `N.F I' ".av n i v,Y a7 fil . RSA , .,..: : :4:40:4107.4411Wit„ Y ,. :,..,----'"--"--- ,%l'isi i - - - .'," , , -44'n :s4IL,,r2:44., -4, i or ,tz.4.\,‘,,Ail k 51..r,-- . . . •• At. ,.."; 1,4 FA,,T, .1/47.4_,:e.--•'s4-41,,ANN-46' flij :. `24.''----'0 -'----- -7•-'- -'1-11.14:4°;"`k'''''''...", 114-*1191,.44, «. _ 4 r i, 5 �q : _ `�w.� _ '< 1 te „ 17-0 wC - e: = -- ----- - "'",,,t:-W.f. 7 sookaneCOMMUNII'1(and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING =_ Walley DIVISION it ilk C) • ehill C) 3: _....,,..,_ -"...'''... '' -.TO.g. - ' -tee''.`� svx.- - - tfeTy w�- -z� t.�pRl. max,_ _ - -*5 �+ „w am ,r',.44.1›,, z tom �-',�'e-. ; k�,� , � � 1 7-,.,m, -. .2%;•;"‘ k �. Fr ...N.. - PLANNING SO-Okane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ......0Valley DIVISION v _ ..,.... yv ._ ...1 ---.- I ,.r,L4 61 D ve 1 ' _. 1..• ; I ,,,1 I.".' 1),..w.i. R., 1.1.1 I b b 9 Ii P.. 7.7 MESA i > .6 City of Spokane , . ii--.. w----- . I - iii ,..., ........ ,_ II/ CL Light Industrial ..•....---05 ,, 7J- _- Marietta-AY:11M 1- ' Z ICC - .--. ..- I 35122.04134 CI 67' _(),,A,IDeLis.Density Ile sidential I-4 _ LLI I Ne t., I ,.= 0 , II' l– l— ---I-- - r — UNIZ ,..0- .....- ..„. LA. ...._ 35173 2402 Can 11 , l_ight Industrial 3C123 Z41.11 :-.,...-S.„... SPOKANE VALLEY 2 h. - v. 1 aa 0_ t• 3.312]041.4' m Lit 3512 2501 ......'"---- -,. ..._,-....--. '.E,r1 — --. -r3LE _ I. 33 c4 3.. o 7, Kilo x +-10..1-, - 71;v• c;I -'''.,. --- S ,... II i:411 114114.LE:k Ut.,....1(11.1111Lil r - - .'0- 0 , 70,,a., 35123 Of-L4 .-Z .„1 -..,-.... " , 'l'3 2 fl''l .7,-...- -,-... -. , Corridor Mixed Use c\a% S PkVe7.5 61, ' ivch _"' i r Treiit Ave - .-'15i 45077 0032 ..._..., 4 , o B rildV9 -,-,-'...„, B aIclw In Ave ,. n COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ley • DIVISION I ro a,s- i Y ' Fai. e�tie Ave I ,-' wo.,� 1,1,%.2111 II I R-2 -7 I a .7=1 i CityClImi of Spokane 5,4 '*• : ` Burke II< Light Industrial '� I- I x ;� �:. II1r i - iLH 1 . _ _ 2 . in #p� � � �� 35122-0404 .. :Y w _Iiam .e..-,.........$ *' e ,.„,,, �, . ,, — a Single-Family Residential ! W 'c'W ---,' -�u 50 3im, - I. I Suburban (R-2) — � � ,,,',-,:z: Ali Z I 4 , - 1 - 7, - „ +..,„ `. NAM �'' 't:43-1II . f ontgomerp Ave ▪ !35123.1 35123. 4024 ``•. - —� ` [1 t:- -1 I CC. 0. ., ,:..,....., rz ' • -, aur es c6 -V— !_ ... �.., Ze ill anOeld Light IndustrialC) ,` .� -„„„„„:„.„,,,...35123.2501L,„ ~- ;� m ; ,) nCl.• •3{ Ave -. CC 1T11' i' NI 351'3.0614+ � m ; u+, - cs .P0aVk ▪ -.� ``., :<~` pat. '� Corridor Mixed Use -,+-`` `S• '6..' '`! ••••,•-s-...-,-----:,.„'`.--1 :-.>:`+, 35123.2105 `- ` . `- , c,}�` ',N'-'. 1,0 -India Trent Ave - . -.,._ e.,7,. ---, ``e'�- ati� -. `� � ,7•. 45017 0-072 ` .'"` ,".titti ti k. 1 -i▪tilrlwr In AVP -. .-"4 : . ',t''....::::.:9'.›-` , _-ti'`+. .1'Z's'' '` `�" 1 10 COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---- -, PLANNING ........*Valley DIVISION ,i ,..,- ...--,t-:-..-. - ii..- .. - 35122.0401 ....•416 ,z-----`;--7;•' -----.# S P.0.1( A N F- .,,,," *;.--7;---;-- :431, • Mena 713331 r1 ariet .-- '_....., _ a ° 1==. 4 • , 2 6277 ==.1 00 2102 MO t P, 11:- ... 35121.4901 •Lk' ..- tirl 1,-•,,,, •-•'' 1 .-1-' ...:;:-;-. .9 ),P,:•'- -:' #'-'7.. .-:;-'----- ...,-:-.--'- . -- . -, itAli 1 2 610 M.i. • , ...'..•007' __-:-..--7-*.-- ,tfiP'• ..----: IU24 j51:21 46UU • # - •_.=--:-- ,....,ak• e ..de OMER& 2 GC.G Z ••' :•-`..- --.3.--': - _.---f- 17 120..---t,... F21603 /bug- 0 .-f----'- .40 I-, 2517 •. 22552240 , . ,L t " -375.122757-1. 01 2"/-18 R G97 S IF _ 21.Z3 2S1 2 nas -: • . . .7. . t, . ..ri -I ne7 I I -. _. FIB M 09. ,MD 5 -- I il wi . , . . , Ili 35122.0101 - J5-122:U1 U 4 ° n oi on noi. 24 21 = 01. Li ;4 ,., ,. )40fi ...' - - 01 i 1 e:4.n, is mega 24)c Alt 2428'9 3 E.,906 2.120 •- 35121.5901 --11 - 2415 •M •••. • - 2414 • b.9.141 • . • -'• I . 24 1 .).... .. •.:, Cl ' 11, :; .. '' _ . . .- ' - . qP01( AN E VALI_ 0° ; -24 03 , 35 2 .60' Gga? 2'103 2401 , • .. ; : • 7 t go incry Ave --at:... . . 2321 4921 - ..1 - . . - .7.- . Ail 231i 1 s 35125.23miri a MI -_,imui==.• I 2 307- _ asfi • ..„ •. GSIO 9 70:74 se - 11