Loading...
Agenda 02/08/2018 SCITI POKane101111111"1\11111111114i Valley Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Feb. 8, 2018 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jan. 11, Jan. 25, 2018 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Continued Public Hearing: CTA-2017-0005 —Wireless Telecommunications Amendment. Proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, and SVMC Chapters 19.50.050, 17.80.030 and Appendix A ii. Study Session — Discussion of Open Space requirements provided in SVMC 19.70.050 iii. Study Session — 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall January 11,2018 I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter,absent,excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley, absent,excused Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips Henry Allen,Engineer Michelle Rasmussen Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer Suzanne Stathos Gloria Mantz, Senior Engineering Manager Matt Walton Rod Higgins,Mayor Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission II. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to accept the January 11,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the December 14, 2017 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, the motion passes. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow noted Danielle Kaschmitter had been appointed to the Planning Commission to replace Heather Graham at the January 9,2018 City Council meeting. She also shared the advanced agenda with the Commissioners and discussed upcoming subjects which will appear before them: Comprehensive Plan amendments and a text amendment to change the one acre requirement for animal keeping back to 40,000 square feet which was changed in the update to the development regulations. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: Rod Higgins, Spokane Valley Mayor—Mr. Higgins thanked the Commissioners for a job well done last year. He said he had heard the Commissioners felt they might have been underworked, but he assured them their mission was very important. He said the job of the Commission is to screen things for the City Council and it makes their jobs easier. He commented that lately the Council has followed the recommendations of the Planning Commission,which indicates they have done a thorough job. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers: Secretary Deanna Horton reminded the Commission that only Commissioners who had served more than one year would be eligible to serve as the Chair or the Vice Chair of the Commission. Ms. Horton then called for nominations for the office of Chair. Mr. Phillips nominated Ms. Rasmussen, who accepted the nomination. Ms. Rasmussen nominated Mr. Johnson, he declined the nomination. Having no other nominations voting by a show of hands, four in favor and one against, Ms. Rasmussen dissenting, Ms. Rasmussen was voted to the office of Planning Commission Chair for 2018. Ms.Horton then accepted nominations for the position of Vice Chair. Mr. Phillips nominated Mr. Johnson,who accepted the nomination. Having no other nominations,voting by a show of hands, five in favor and zero against,Mr.Johnson was elected to the position of Vice Chair for 2018. Ms. Rasmussen then continued to lead the meeting. ii. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA-2017-0003, A proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regarding subdivision general provisions. 2018-01-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Planner Marty Palaniuk explained the Findings of Fact had been drafted based on the recommended changes the Planning Commission had voted on at the public hearing and then incorporated into the amendment to move forward to the City Council. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA- 2017-0003. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, motion passed. iii. Public Hearing, Street Standards Update Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Engineer Henry Allen explained the City's Street Standards,which are the standards that guide the development of public and private infrastructure. Mr. Allen explained the changes to the Street Standards were initiated to address the Federal Highway Administration's concern regarding Chapter 10.2.1 and the City's ability to maintain a sidewalk if the property owner should fail to do so. The Street Standards are also being updated to eliminate City positions which no longer exist and change them to refer to the City Manager,who has ultimate authority but delegates it to other staff members in the City to perform. Some of the other changes include eliminating the variance process, FAA and Mylar record drawings, no longer requiring streets to connect to future development, frontage improvements only where a project accesses a street. Chapter 3 is being updated to allow limited traffic impact analysis for SEPA infill areas. There are also proposed changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.80.010 and 22.130 to remove references to future acquisition areas and revise SVMC 22.130 to replace eliminated positions. Commissioner Rasmussen questioned why on page 3-14 which references collision history; the word `past' was being struck. Senior Traffic Engineer Ray Wright explained the City provides the collision history to the outside engineers when they need to do a traffic analysis and the City always provides the most current information. She also noted that on page 6-3 the word `custs' needs to be changed to cuts,on page 1-2 adopted is in the sentence twice. Chair Rasmussen then open the hearing up for the public to comment. Vicki Donahue,323 S Bowdish:Ms.Donahue stated she lives at the intersection of 4th Ave and Bowdish Rd. This is a busy intersection and there are many accidents which occur there. She is also concerned about the school children walking along these roads. She feels there should be a traffic control device at this intersection, slowing people on Bowdish, improving 4th Ave. She also stated she had received a letter regarding snow removal. She said they shovel but then the plow comes along and puts the,it right back on the sidewalk. Paul Taylor,323 S Bowdish: Mr.Taylor said the leaves and the gutters did not get cleaned out along the road, so when the snow melts there is no place for the water to go. He commented there is too much traffic on that (Bowdish) road, it needs a safety control device. He said it is not can we have it,it is do something about it. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Commissioner Stathos stated she could see the commenter's point of view because 4th Avenue is busier all the time. She would like to see more stop lights along it. She said 4th Avenue is how everyone avoids Sprague,but with all the apaitnients along it now,it is dangerous. Commissioner Johnson said he agreed regarding 4th Avenue. Commissioner Philips commented 10.1 says the City is not responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks. He commented he has a problem with a citizen having to replace the sidewalk if it becomes damaged. He feels it should be part of the City's maintenance program to repair the sidewalks,especially if they are inside the right-of-way or a border easement. He felt maintenance should be explained better. He also commented he has a problem with shoveling the sidewalks and then the plow comes along and puts the snow back and the City turning around and fining someone because there is snow on the sidewalk. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the reason for the change in the language in this section is due to the comments received from the Federal Highways Administration and without it, it could affect the City's ability to receive grants in the future. 2018-01-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Mr. Allen stated that when the Street Standards were adopted, they spoke to many jurisdictions regarding the care of sidewalks, and the idea of citizens maintaining the sidewalk in front of their homes or businesses is not unique to our City. The City inherited this language from Spokane County but many other jurisdictions in and around the state have the same requirement. It would be a huge expense and under taking for the City to have to maintain hundreds of miles of sidewalk. Commissioner Walton confirmed the snow shoveling was not in the Street Standards but was a separate ordinance from what was currently being considered. He wondered how the expense for repairing or replacing a sidewalk was determined. Mr. Lamb explained the City is required to get bids for its public works projects and required to accept the lowest bid. Based on this,the citizen would only be billed for the actual work and we would have an invoice for the work which was performed. Commissioner Phillips felt that maintenance was not clearly defined in section 10.2.1. Commissioner Johnson stated that he also felt it did not clearly define maintenance however felt changing it might be better handled in a future update. Mr. Lamb offered adding to the end of the sentence `property owners are responsible for the maintenance of these features as described below.' The Commissioners agreed this change would satisfy their concerns. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the staff recommended changes to the municipal code and the Spokane Valley Street Standards as proposed with the following changes, Street Standards section 10.2.1 changing the second sentence of the second paragraph by adding 'as described below'to the end of the sentence, Street Standards section 1.3.2, third bullet ensure public facilities meet level of service standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 22.130 change Development Services Senior Engineer to City Manager. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, the motion passed. iv. Study Session—Wireless Small Cell Technology Deployment: Mr. Lamb gave a presentation to explain to the Commission wireless small cell technology. Most wireless cell phone traffic is currently handled by the large monopoles. Historically the City has only dealt with the monopoles which have been located on private property. The City was contacted by a Mobilite, company connected with Sprint, regarding small cell sites in late 2015/early 2016. The City joined a consortium of numerous cities in 2016 to become more educated in what the small cell technology is and how it will affect us. The consortium developed `model franchise' agreements and `model development regulations' for the deployment of small cell sites. The City has been working with Verizon,MCI Telecom,and Mobilite regarding the use of Spokane Valley rights-of-way for small cell deployment. The City has developed draft franchise agreements and regulations related to small cell deployments. Current 3 or 4G(generation)technology is when a hand held device communicates with the large monopole. The farther you get from the monopole the less reliable the signal is. Monopoles can only accept so much data at one time. Small cell technology would be adding antennas in the right- of-ways and help to bring data from farther out to the larger monopoles. Federal law changed to set specific timelines for processing these small cell permits. There are also laws in place which stop cities from prohibiting small cell deployment. State law allows the City to require a master use permit,the City is using franchise agreements as these master permits. Cities are allowed site specific permits for the small cell installations in addition to the mater permits. The telecomm industry cannot interfere with the normal use of the rights-of-way. Cities cannot regulate services based on content or kind of signals,cannot prohibit placement of wireless facilities within the city. Since the City does not own any of the lighting fixtures in the right-of- way,the cell providers have been signing agreements with each of the power providers to use their facilities. The City is expecting a small cell to be an antenna of no more than three cubic feet in volume and the equipment box would be no larger than seventeen cubic feet. Mr.Lamb shared pictures of what it was possible for the small cell deployment to look like. The City can restrict the height,based 2018-01-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 on zoning location, impose some design standards which might include stealth shrouding requirements and landscaping for some facilities. Mr. Lamb explained the proposed amendments: • Appendix A, add definitions related specifically to small cell deployments and the new timeline provisions. • SVMC 17.80.030 add that small cell permits are a Type I permit and shall be processed as such,except as otherwise required by federal and state law. • SVMC 19.60.050 amend the permitted use matrix to allow small cell deployments in all zones subject to the supplemental regulations proposed in new chapters SVMC 22.121 and 22.122 • SVMC 22.120 remove any references to small cell services • SVMC 22.121 new chapter providing for master use permits, deployment of small cell facilities and lays out the permit application requirements and small cell design and concealment standards. • SVMC 22.122 new chapter providing for mandated permit review times as stated in state or federal regulations. Commissioner Johnson asked who would be responsible if one of the sites was damaged. Mr. Lamb stated it would be handled just as if it was a power pole or a mail box in the right-of-way. Commissioners asked if providers would be required to co-locate on the same pole. Mr. Lamb said providers would have to prove that the only place they can provide services is where they want to locate their equipment. Commissioners raised concerns regarding: • the aesthetics of having more equipment in the rights-of-ways. • how close together facilities would need to be located,if they could not co-locate. • if they were wide band or narrow band facilities. • what would the frequency do to honeybees, animals and people. thieves would damage the sites for wiring. • radiation from the signals being given off these lowered antennas. • the ability to determine what they deployment will look like. Mr. Lamb stated the public hearing for the small cell deployment was scheduled for January 25,2018. He would do his best to try and bring answers by the public hearing. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioners congratulated Commissioner Rasmussen on her appointment to the office of Chair and wished her luck. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall January 25,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Henry Allen,Engineer Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Mary Moore,Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the January 25, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton introduced Office Assistant Mary Moore. Ms. Horton explained Ms.Moore would be shadowing her in order to be able to learn the process of taking care of the Planning Commission in the case of absences in the future. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA-2017-0004,Proposed updates to the Spokane Valley Street Standards and the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Engineer Henry Allen explained to the Commission the Findings have been drafted based on recommended changes the Planning Commission had voted on at the public hearing and then incorporated into the amendment to move forward to the City Council. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA- 2017-0004. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing,CTA-2017-2005,A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the public rights-of- way. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the wireless small cell technology. Mr. Lamb explained he would try to answer some of the questions which he received from the study session,and there were representatives from some of the carriers in the audience prepared to give testimony as well as attempt to answer some of the questions the Commissioners had. Mr. Lamb requested the Commissioners hold their questions until after his presentation in order for them to be part of the record. He then explained most data traffic is handled by the large monopoles called macrocells. The farther away from the macrocell a device gets,the weaker the signal gets. Small cell deployment is moving smaller antennas to power and light poles which are already located in the right-of-way. These are called microcells. Some of the things the Planning Commission should consider when reviewing the proposed regulations are there are currently a large number of varied facilities located in the City's rights-of-way. Some of these are power poles, light poles, power and other structures on the ground, signs, and trees. The Commission can consider limits on height,aesthetic impacts design standards and/or stealth shrouding, 2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Lamb explained the proposed amendments: • Appendix A, adding definitions related specifically to small cell deployments and the new timeline provisions. • SVMC 17.80.030 adding that small cell permits are a Type I permit and shall be processed as such,except as otherwise required by federal and state law. • SVMC 19.60.050 amending the permitted use matrix to allow small cell deployments in all zones subject to the supplemental regulations proposed in new chapters SVMC 22.121 and 22.122 • SVMC 22.120,generally addressed large pole installations. The large pole deployments were left in this chapter and any references to small cell services were removed. • SVMC 22.121 is a new chapter providing for small cell deployments. It provides for master use permits,which the City has determined will be our franchise agreement.Each provider will sign a franchise agreement which is approved by the City Council. Small cell deployment permits for small cell facilities for up to 30 sites at one time and the requirements for each permit. The provider must have a franchise agreement with the City and the provider they are proposing to place the small cell on. This also lays out any design and concealment standards. For new poles,it must be integrated into the new pole. For existing poles, integration into the pole as much as possible. It is being proposed the antenna not extend more than 15 feet from the top of the pole, and limited to three cubic feet. The equipment box on the ground cannot be larger than 17 cubic feet. Unless unfeasible,the equipment must be buried in the ground or integrated into the surroundings. Cannot be located on an improved street or sidewalk or in stormwater facilities. They are not allowed in public parks. • SVMC 22.122 is a new chapter providing for mandated permit review times as stated in state or federal regulations. If the City fails to meet the timing requirements then the permit is deemed approved. Mr. Lamb said he would try and answer some of the questions which came from the study session. Some which might be more technical he would defer to the providers wishing to testify. • Could there be a required distance limit between new sites? The legal office felt this might work, but there was some question as to whether this would not be competitively neutral because it would benefit whomever came into to the area first. Small cell range is limited, between 500-1,000 feet. Forcing an additional spacing requirement could create an impact on them providing their service. • Could there be a requirement for co-location on one pole? From a legal standpoint it could be required,from a practical standpoint the poles are not very big and there is a sweet spot in range where the small cell needs to be sited,if the utility provider even allows more than one provider on a pole,which some will not allow. He said he noted most other cities are not requiring co- location. • Could there be a requirement as to how high the antenna has to be located off the ground?The legal office feels it would be a qualified yes. Unless it began to impact the technology. It has been suggested that 20 feet would be a good height, most want to be higher than this, and it keeps it from interfering in traffic and pedestrians. • Could there be a requirement to bury the ground based facilities? Yes, it would be required. However,there could be limitations to this. There could be limited space between the sidewalk and the right-of-way, they can't be located in the sidewalk. He's heard that based on the weather in the Pacific Northwest it can cause issues with the equipment in the in the vault. • Can we require the small cells to transmit to the macrocells by fiber? Most of the small cells will already be communicating by fiber, however this would be trying to regulate the technology and the City would not be able to do this. • The frequency levels are governed by FCC guidelines and the providers are required to comply with those. • He had not received any crime statistics on small cell sites. • Taxes on wireless services,the city already has a tax on wireless services,but can't tax on the data. 2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Mr. Lamb stated there were comments provided which were received just today from three of the providers, Verizon, T-Mobile and Mobilitie. The legal office has not had a chance to review these comments. These were provided to the Commission members at the meeting. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Joel Arrow, Lync Consulting for Verizon Wireless: Mr. Arrow stated the height regulation of location over the 20 foot height was fine with them. However,he said that they do not recommend the undergrounding of equipment. He said if they could place the radios on the poles,they prefer it. Avista does not allow them to place the radio on the poles, so it needs to be on the ground, six feet from the pole. Issues with undergrounding the equipment are: • Water gets into the vault. If the radio gets wet,then it fails. There is too much moisture in the Pacific Northwest and the vault will get wet. • The vault traps gases which are unsafe for the workers to breathe. • Constructability. It is a significant foot print for an underground vault, plus the OSHA requirements make it larger. • Service reliability. When water gets into the vault,then the radio fails. Mr.Arrow would not recommend separation requirements. When he is trying to create a network,he is trying to his sites 750 to 1,000 feet apart. If you have a 250 foot separation requirement the last person in will have a difficult time trying to find sites they can then locate on. He would also not recommend the co-location requirement. Avista will not allow co-location however, if it was a requirement,then there would be the equipment boxes all located around one pole and the poles would need to be taller. Commissioner Johnson asked what produced the gases and what they were. Mr.Arrow did not know but said he would have to find out. Commissioner Johnson asked about the radio which is used in the small cell sites. The radio is the brains of the small cell site. Commissioner Kelley confirmed his understanding that population and obstructions would determine the location of small cells sites. Mr.Arrow also say that consumption will drive it as well. The more usage you have,the more small cells you will need. Co-location would relates to two different carriers on one pole. Commissioner Kelley asked how large an underground vault would be. Mr. Arrow said they would need to have enough space for a technician to be able to get all the way around the equipment,instead of having a small telco sized box sitting above ground. Commissioner Stathos wanted to know if the installation of the small cell sites being installed on power poles would be interrupting any customer's power. Mr.Arrow said he could not speak to that issue. She said water would be a problem for above ground equipment, and Mr. Arrow said it is a water pooling issue on the equipment and the radio just can't be kept dry. Commissioner Walton confirmed the provider,at least Verizon,would like to keep the control radio on the same pole at least 15 feet in the air or to integrate it into the base of the pole. If it can't be placed on the pole,then it must be located within six feet of the pole the antenna is on. Mr. Arrow said he would prefer to use whatever utility pole is available. If there is no pole,then Verizon would propose an integrated light pole standard. Commissioner Walton confirmed most of the deployments occur in neighborhoods. But cities do as well,it depends on where the data demands are. Commissioner Phillips stated his concern with having another utility to move should a developer need to improve a piece of property. Mr. Phillips asked how providers handle communities who have underground utilities. Mr.Arrow said in those situations they propose a single canister on the top of a pole, there are many designs which can be used to help in those neighborhoods. Mr. Phillips commented our community does not get the same amount of water as they get on the coast. Mr. Arrow said their radio is very sensitive to water and condensation, and he asks that the Commission to read the comments submitted by Verizon. Commissioner Walton asked about realistic health concerns. He said the Verizon email commented there is less radiation than a baby monitor. Mr. Arrow said these operate within FCC standards. Commissioner Walton noted for the record that the FCC might not be able to keep up with emerging 2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 technologies. Commissioner Stathos also commented on the radiation and confirmed the antenna was what was emitting the microwave. Commissioner Johnson asked if line of site would be an issue. Mr. Arrow was unable to answer the question. Steven Burke,Mobilitie,Coeur d'Alene ID:Mr.Burke works for Mobilitie and stated they are one of the largest infrastructure providers in the country, working in all 50 states. Currently they are working with Sprint as a provider. Mr. Burke stated he felt it would be important to have a sub- agreement for providers like him who services clients. Mobilitie has joint use agreements with Avista and CenturyLink. Mr. Burke provided the Commission with pictures of his equipment on an Avista pole. He said his canister has everything needed to run the equipment in it. He said he looks for secondary poles which are needing replacement. He would replace the pole,put the canister on top of the pole which is seven feet tall. Mr. Burke said the antenna is within FCC guidelines and the signal emits outward, not downward. He said there is a dedicated power line to the canister and it does not disrupt power to the consumer. Monopoles could handle phone calls and texting,but now everyone is on social media,watching TV and the consumer is demanding to transport this data over the network. The small cells main purpose is to transport data. Mobilitie has built over 25 sites on Avista power poles in Spokane, and are going to install them on street lights soon. He is working with the city of Spokane to install them on city owned street lights, in a decorative street light. Mobilitie would like to see Spokane Valley become a connected city. He would recommend the approved to the municipal code,this is the way things are evolving and the community will be better served. He would like to suggest cutting the review time from 60 to 30 days. Commissioner Johnson asked what the optimum spacing would be. He said he doesn't have an optimum spacing but they look where people are having the most amount of trouble getting their data service. He currently looking at sites along Pines Road,right now they are a quarter of a mile from each other. Commissioner Rasmussen asked what the next form of technology would be going. Mr.Burke stated the more the consumers want the technology, want more data,then they will drive it. There will be places where they will be needed for coverage. Mr. Arrow commented he attended a conference in Korea, where the data usage is much higher than it is in the US and not only is consumer data increasing but machine to machine communication. Phones talking to cars, to fitness trackers, to refrigerators, controlling the lights and furnaces, driverless cars. All of these things are going to be data driven. Commissioner Rasmussen asked who's responsibility it is to repair damaged equipment and how soon would it get fixed. Mr.Arrow commented his equipment has an alarm and it would get repaired right away. If it is damaged then appropriate governing factors would come into effect. Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment being used was not proprietary. Each provider uses whatever works for them. She prefers the look of the Mobilitie system and wonders why the other providers can't use the same equipment. Commissioner Walton confirmed people who have older phones will still be able to use them. Mr. Burke commented 'flip' phones are for calls and text messaging. If you want to be able to use the new technology,it will require a smartphone. Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed that the providers will be supplying structural analysis to show the poles which they will be installing equipment on will be able to handle it. Commissioner Johnson asked if this review was part of the permitting process. Mr. Lamb stated the City did not have any pole standards currently, but a requirement of a certification could be built into the process. Mr. Arrow stated they submit a structural analysis for every pole they install if it is a small cell site or a large monopole. Mr. Lamb stated that utility providers are heavily regulated by the Utilities Trade Commission. Mr. Burke said CenturyLink requires a pole loading analysis before they approve the installation of the new equipment. Mr. Lamb wanted to remind the Commission under Federal law, we cannot regulate based on transmission type. We can ask for separation based on aesthetic concerns but not on health concerns. The regulations need to consider some of the providers who are not able to mount all of their equipment on the pole. We cannot regulate the technology, so we cannot regulate that one provider use the same kind of technology another provider is using. He said we have tried to craft regulations 2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 which allow for flexibility. The spacing requirement is different for each provider as was suggested tonight, and the 250 feet is just a suggestion, in the proposed regulations. If they are already using existing power poles it needs to be considered that maybe a distance between the equipment and not the poles themselves. Commissioner Stathos asked if it was feasible to ask to have the ground facilities to be co-located. Mr. Lamb said he would have to look into that and discuss it with the providers. Commissioner Walton asked who was responsible for relocation of equipment in the right-of-way if it needs to be moved or the right-of-way is vacated. Mr. Lamb said he would have to look into the answer. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City would have to maintain a line of sight. Mr. Arrow said the technology was a diffused microwave and it was not specifically a line of sight. Mr.Lamb would try and find more information. Commissioner Walton confirmed if a cell site caused damaged to city property, the franchise agreement covers how the provider will be held responsible. Commissioner Phillips asked if the provider could be held responsible to move their equipment if it needs to moved. Mr. Lamb said he would have to look into this. Mr. Burke commented in his experience,they would need 60-90 day's notice in order to find another solution. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2018. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. iii. Training-Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Lamb conducted the City's annual training for Planning Commissioners and staff regarding the Public Records Act and the Open Public Meetings Act. iv. Study Session—Discussion of Open Space requirements The Commission decided to postpone this study session to the next meeting VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 8, 2018 Item: Check all that apply nold business Fl new business Fl public hearing n information n study session n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2017-0005 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continuation of Public Hearing — Wireless Telecommunications Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city-initiated text amendment to Title 22 SVMC, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the public rights-of-way(ROW). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various Federal laws; chapter 35.99 RCW; RCW 35.21.860; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: Wireless telecommunication facilities are subject to a number of increasing federal and state laws. Further, wireless telecommunications are ever evolving, with new technologies and new business models continuing to be implemented. Currently, the wireless telecommunication providers are in the midst of rolling out"small cell"technology in the ROW,to meet growing bandwidth and data needs of their customers. The City has been working with the providers, a consortium, and internally to develop appropriate draft franchises and draft regulations to allow implementation of the small cell technology within the ROW. This proposal is a City-initiated Code text amendment to provide regulations for small cell deployments, to address new federal and state wireless telecommunication facilities permit review periods, and to update existing regulations. The accompanying staff report details the history, legal framework, existing conditions, proposed regulations, and staff recommendation for this proposal. On January 11, 2018, Planning Commission conducted a study session. Planning Commission had numerous questions regarding the proposed regulations. Staff has incorporated proposed changes (highlighted in yellow)to the draft regulations based upon some of those questions. On January 25, 2018, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. At the public hearing, staff provided some responses to questions. Representatives from both Verizon and Mobilitie (who provides infrastructure for Sprint) provided comments and also answered questions of Planning Commission. Further, at the public hearing,written comments from Verizon,Mobilitie, and T-Mobile were provided to Planning Commission. Due to the extent of the written and verbal testimony received, Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 8, 2018. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Recommend approval of the proposed amendments related to small cell regulations, with or without changes. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney RPCA Continued Public Hearing for CTA-2017-0005 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Written comments provided to Planning Commission at public hearing from Verizon, Mobilitie, and T-Mobile. - Other materials, including the draft regulations, staff report, and presentations, have been previously provided during the January 11 and January 25 meetings. Please see the Planning Commission packets for those meetings for those materials. RPCA Continued Public Hearing for CTA-2017-0005 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 8, 2018 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information Fl admin. Report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N/A AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report - Open Space Requirement for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.70.050(g) BACKGROUND: (Note: The item was deferred at the January 25th meeting to the February 8th meeting due to the unanticipated length of the January 25th meeting. No changes have been made to the information provided for discussion.) SVMC 19.70.050(g) stipulates that residential projects with more than 10 units located in mixed use zones must provide open space at a rate of 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions noted in the SVMC. The requirement has been present in the City's development regulations since the adoption of the City's Development Regulations in 2007 by Ordinance#07-015. The text associated with the code remained essentially the same with the 2016 update of the Development Regulations. Councilman Wood had requested this code section be discussed, and the Council discussed the regulation on December 19, 2017. Council members expressed concerns regarding requiring open space and conversely not requiring open space. After discussion, the Council directed staff to review the regulation with the Planning Commission. At this time the Planning Commission should discuss the merits of the regulation and determine if a change is appropriate. Staff will present an overview of SVMC 19.70.050(g) for discussion. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. SVMC 19.70.050 2. Presentation RPCA SVMC 19.70.050(g)Discussion Page 1 of 1 19.70.050 Additional standards. A. Structure intrusions into setbacks are prohibited except: 1.The ordinary projections of window sills,belt courses,cornices,and other architectural features projecting not more than 12 inches and roof eaves projecting not more than 24 inches. 2.Minor features of a structure,such as chimneys,fire escapes,bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure,uncovered stairways,wheelchair ramps,and uncovered decks or balconies,may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However,these features may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. 3.Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps,air conditioners,emergency generators,and water pumps are allowed to project not more than 24 inches into the side or rear setback only. 4.Fences that meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 22.70.020. 5.Walkways and driveways,including parking in the driveway,are allowed in the front yard setback of R-1,R- 2,and R-3 zones only. 6.Canopies,marquees,awnings,and similar features in mixed-use or nonresidential zones may fully extend into a front yard setback subject to the requirements of SVMC Title 24. B. Supporting member of any garage,carport,portable carport,or other automobile storage structure shall not be located within the required front yard. C.Accessory structures shall not be erected within five feet of any rear or side property line,or be located within the front yard or any public or private easement. D. Where applicable,structures shall not be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by SVMC 19.110.030, Airport hazard overlay. E.In R-1,R-2,and R-3 zones,cooling towers,roof gables,chimneys,and vent stacks may extend for an additional height,not to exceed 40 feet,above the average finished grade of the building.Water stand pipes and tanks,church steeples,domes and spires,and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements;provided,that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front,side,and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. F.Open space required pursuant to Table 19.70-1 shall be accessible to all residential units and shall be suitable for active and passive recreational purposes,subject to the following: 1.The required open space area shall not include required yards,parking areas,required landscaped areas, stormwater facilities,or required spacing between structures; 2.The amount of open space may be reduced by up to 25 percent where at least two of the following amenities are provided: a.Play or sports courts; b.Playgrounds with equipment; c.Trails or pedestrian walkways not required for access to residential units or parking areas; d. Swimming pools; e.Gazebos;or f.Clubhouses; 3.The required open space shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent. Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards G.In mixed-use zoning districts,projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F)and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis;provided,that: 1.The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2.Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park; and 3.A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts.Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. H.Residential development in nonresidential zones shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone in Table 19.70-1,except single-family development in the NC zone,which shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone.Where the NC zone abuts multiple single- family residential zones,the zone with the higher density shall apply.Where there are no single-family residential adjacencies to the NC zone,the density and dimensional standards of the R-2 zone shall apply. I.New development exceeding three stories in height shall be served by paved service lanes that are at least 16 feet in width. J.The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones: 1.All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots,along pedestrian walkways,and accessible routes of travel. 2.Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways. 3.All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare,either through exterior shields or through optical design inside the fixture,and shall not emit light above 90 degrees. 4. Street lighting installed by the City or other public utilities is exempt from SVMC 19.70.050(J). K.Principal or accessory structures shall not be located within the clearview triangle pursuant to Chapter 22.70 SVMC.(Ord. 16-018 §6(Att.B),2016). Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards Spokane Valley Planning Commission Meeting February 8, 2018 Overview of SVMC 19.70.050(G) Open Space Requirement in Mixed Use Zone Administrative Report City Council Direction Council discussion (Study Session - Dec. 19, 2017) Direction Send to PC for review and recommendation Concerns: ■ Open space unnecessary versus necessary ■ Disadvantages the property in Mixed Use Zones that are required to provide open space O en Space Requirement p Background InfoDevelopment .....* 3' code —; 0 '. ü Open space requirement in . .__„. o Mixed Use Zone since 2007 C l`- r'n E opmevt*acme - . ......*Valley (U Essentially same languageo ,- -0 3 ❑ A fee in lieu of land m : ,,, Valley Itr : _,,,,.:.,. D7 E.Sprague Avededication — never utilized !ofspokane e leValley,WA 99246 0 1999 -. 1 1OO fax v9 4nedalIi'C I .w Effective Oetaber 283 3 rt 4 y - L Open Space Requirement (SVMC 19. 70. 050(G) - Current Regulation) In mixed-use zoning districts, projects with residential components shall provide 210 s.f. of open space per dwelling unit. . .conforming to . . .SVMC 19.70.050(F) and eligible for reduction. . . provided, that: 1 . The requirement does not apply to development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2. . . .does not apply to residential development located within 1 ,300 feet of a public park; and 3. A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts. Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. Use COSVPermitted Chart Parks and Zones that Open Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Space Permit R-1 R-2 R-3 RIM MU CMU NC RC NU I POS Residential Uses Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family P P P F' P P P IDwelling, duplex P P P I P ....fa\ 1,......ff: _,..., „,,,„, : Wheredoesthe - Li --- - fl1 n I ` .. regulation apply? _ Euci[d . • ._ td • 4606.00e0,, it M ixed Use -Buck. 4. i eel I 141Fseion. . illff.'s:lir-( I\/1U ) w ti 6 oadwaY roaCwaY ) r i. i ,t. , 4 x r -04t h' and d "' "� 7% . ,: - � � err ��:� _ Corridorileigilemf °x.� --� I.— 18th 1a ar z4 1€tn 1 HM milassi Mixed Use .,.." ,h &astir uth r. CMU ) '17,1,., r_._,� ,+ `• ,..., ,„ . Zones „ __! 1) 1/ 1N Legend Zoning ... r11_I crou What types of uses trigger the requirement? Uses that trigger it: Uses that DO NOT trigger it. Multi-family residential El Single family ( > 1 0 units) development Mixed Use buildings ü Mixed use or Multi (Commercial and family projects with residential mix — > than > 10 residential units 1 0 units) ■■. , ottp i c,lo.,..444, wows' 1.. . ,07011090, ../., . . Exceptions to the �... open space for,/,.. , , . `• requirement .... B a 2 ht41's .0.11A 4(/4()14,0 ',tor p fr -00e ..if 1 Ai Knex r i ,A t -,■� -- II III II ■ +'Sh c III • MU and CMU r-• t = g 4 --� • u a Bre.:., _ _ so . -•w zoned sites LL - / • i▪_• 3rdllie ■ ffilia f Atrossimidiw that lie ▪— c , 40.4 h Arr. x within 1300 ��■ - ,.� 16th P ME ill. of public `P' 424th u Legend pars kand �: Parks 13COft buffer trails I Parks Pppleway Trail �' � Centennial Trail Zoning ■■r� MU It iti v CM U8 Exceptions to the open space requirement 9 A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed by Council for parks development in MU zones. • When could the fee in lieu be used? In settings where residential development with > 10 units is farther than 1300 feet from a public park and the site is constrained Comparison to Other Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Standard Comment Spokane 210 sf per Applies to projects with 10 or _Valley unit more units _l_ City of Not required Mixed Use Zones are near Spokane public open space Spokane Not required FAR increases allowed if County amenities are provided Liberty Applies to projects with 4 or Lake 20% of site more units; additional private space requirements apply Next Steps Discuss the merits of the regulation Determine if: Regulation should Regulation should Regulation should remain as is. be modified be deleted • Forward •• Provide direction i.• Provide direction recommendation to staff to to staff iii to Council develop draft • Begin CTA • Begin CTA Lprocess process CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 8, 2018 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ®information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2018 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Review Session PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November rd to November 1st of the following year. Applications received prior to November 1st are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer. The Planning Commission will review the following proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments (CPAs) and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the proposed amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Community and Public Works Department received four privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City is initiating two proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. Individual notice of the proposals is required to be mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each amendment. The City has opted to increase the noticing radius to include property owners up to 800 feet of each amendment pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B)(1)(c). Notice of the public hearing was mailed at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. SEPA REVIEW Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — chapter 43.21C RCW) environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Under SEPA, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the subject properties. 1 of 2 Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed amendments pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 21.20. Staff will be present at the meeting to discuss the process and provide an overview of each application. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Karen Kendall, Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: PowerPoint Exhibit 2: CPA-2018-0001 (Application and materials) Exhibit 3: CPA-2018-0003 (Application and materials) Exhibit 4: CPA-2018-0004 (Application and materials) Exhibit 5: CPA-2018-0005 (Maps and materials) Exhibit 6: CPA-2018-0006 (Maps and materials) 2 of 2 sf. ne Val ley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY 77 rt� Date Submitted. tI /t'411 7Received by: ..'W Fee: It aOO s eb PLUS#: PIN- File#: C_PA— ID 17 -" Ot0t PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION El Map Amendment; or ❑Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: R6r 17L.� t'1,•� 145 /53 w 35 MAILING ADDRESS: i 2.-24 I F 14: 1(-121 way . CITY: 6 I \Ca. 1 LQ STATE: fr ZIP: 1 " M ' PHONE:561 1�i 1 '`2.1;76 CELL: EMAIL: � � PROPERTY OWNER: 13- r.... .y G-K-Cit"..`r�'r`! 'TMJ I -z[ MAILING ADDRESS: J 2' L_ E a.I IT CITY: G ��V L ��at STA4 ZIP: 9 Z1'[? PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL:145-6-3 - t, SITE ADDRESS: 1 -1-1 C i^ Vail. PARCEL No.: Atcl ti -. Z.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ,.I S. „C..L] . H : ::: ,,.; i L erifig PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OC I 1 9 201? ZONING DESIGNATION: J 3 . ..,, PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: R .. _ ------- ...._._..`. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper : 0 -_: ' r j1' • Iti E IA ►( 4L PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of Siiilkane '''alley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, IZs r OIN t'-. P1 , (print name) swe r aff rm that the above responses are made truthfully an to th best of my knowledge. FQ t�� 115633,z6 36 A5i63..Z83 /6 la / (S na ure) (Dat ) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) ] �J /41 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _A (9( day of J( ,207 NOTARY SEAL '�f ` . 41, 13- 41 NOTARY SIGNATURE CHRISTINE M.BANBRIDGE` Notary Public in and for the State of Washington ot NOTARY PUBLIC j//7 STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES Residingat: L c AUGUST 29,20"19 , ( My appointment expires: (. -,2q— G2q— Ri LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s),the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, lf3 Gy , G- -'Q. &...,owner of the above described property do hereby authorize 4bie k, L eeAt'i4.- to re resent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. pcett. 1 115753 , 01 'ii3imriiii la WVO-ko A""1 14 ' Qfee'l'i 'Dek j 0 - 1 '7-417 PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of The property, currently zoned R3, is bordered on the south by MFR zoning, across the street on the north is MFR zoning, west is commercial and east is zoned R3. The property is on Valley Way just east of Pines road, so it has great access to the freeway and other main roads, (Sprague, McDonald). There is a local gas station/ convenience store across Pines. A car wash, restaurants (Denney's, Little Euro, Taco Time, Ron's, etc.) within walking distance. There are other drive to restaurants in the area and grocery stores. Gyms, hair salons, nail places also. Auto repair/tire shops on Pines. There is a chiropractor and dentist within walking distance. The valley hospital is in a short driving distance up Pines. A school is just up the road on Broadway for families with children. There is shopping on Sprague and Pines (Walgreens). The city bus stop is at the corner of Pines and Valley Way. There are banking building in the area, also. The property has easy access to a lot of business and transportation, which should bring in tax revenue to the city. The increase in traffic will be minimal, as your traffic person has told me. The change will buffer the property to the east from the commercial property on the west corner. sc, 0 pvl axle r APPLICANT ADVISORY Valle K WATER CONCURRENCY Public water in Spokane Valley is provided by water districts or irrigation districts. These entities are not related to the City. Any statement by the City of Spokane Valley relating to water concurrency will be based exclusively on information provided by the water purveyor for a given area as the owner/operator of the water facility. Spokane Valley has not performed any independent analysis as to the existence or non-existence of water capacity, and specifically makes no representations as to the accuracy of the water capacity information provided by any water purveyor. Therefore, applicants for development approvals' should carefully consider the adequacy of water availability at an early stage of planning developments in the City of Spokane Valley. Please read, sign and date on the bottom of this page. If you have any questions, call John Hohman, Community Development Director,at(509)720-5300. Please return one(1) signed copy to the City Planning Department. The City of Spokane Valley November 21,2005 Distribution: applicants,public, news media /3p signing this document, you are oniv acknawledRinR that you received a copy of this document. / I_ Signature that document was received Date Project File Number/Name For Staff Use Only If the person receiving this document indicates that they are unwilling to sign the document, and will only acknowledge its receipt,please complete the following: Project file number/name _ Copy provided to: (Name of person receiving document) (month/day/year} Staff person's signature "Development approvals" include subdivisions,short plats, binding site plans,manufactured home park site development plans, planned unit developments, zoning reclassifications, and conditional use permits that would permit an increased amount of water to be used on the site. PL-26 V1.0 Page 1 of 1 SEPA CHECKLIST 4P. Mall+, SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 ♦Fax:(509)720-5075 ♦permitcenter@spokanevalley.or, STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS#: File#: PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL "*THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** • Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/z" by 11"or 11" by 17"size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS)must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRucTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS.Answer the questions briefly,with the most precise information known,or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not knoW'or"does not apply."Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FORJ4ON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals,even though questions may be answered"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of ,T,vkane SEPA CHECKLIST p j i1 ley � " Ydl For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"and"'property or site"should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 141- 2. Name of applicant: PN 3. Address and phone n m r of applicant and contact�� person; r (lc(7_ 14. 2-416 E number 7 t- o I►4, r P 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 1v 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. "J6 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. A 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) r PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of y`� kane SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. p( s AV-1)Ic Vat 14 ILA/ te_x4,to- tuLS 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? CO The general Sewer Service Area? y Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area(CARA)1 Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of(including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). A- 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? MC) 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Pi PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of oh P ne SEPA CHECKLIST % lley b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock(if known)? Dodgy+ Ka Cu— 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. k.)0 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Earth a. General description of the site(check one): flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slopeen the site(approximate percent slope)? t c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 9....rs.ckul d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.pp �kAlso indicate source of fill. IW f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. 0 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? R7F-erietti, PL-22 V1.0 b ii to t/ -� .L 1 Page 4 of Sti SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 P Valley h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2} Air EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. ��u IA b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: itt p 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. !'-r' 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Iv 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. O b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. Pf c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. . Ci 62G°-11A_Br i) loct.iltAtiQt./vt 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. 00 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of r-cm ,okane SEPA CHECKLIST NAl , EVALUATION FOR 4) Plants AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: aldermap , aspen,Gr VI evergreen tree:6, C', pine, other ❑ shrubs 11- t-grass ❑ pasture O crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other D other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. p d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to , preserve or enhance ve etatio on the site,,if any: AO bQ..., e_-1- dzrkviAncixx ut..tpork..." bc_tt 6. ' 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: M.birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: lj mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PL-22 V1,0 IV Page 7 of "`" SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heatin , manufacturing,"tc. .-- &I-Qv\ vt/Lt LA.pon-- bcct tAti b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 0 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: .. .--tb laQ___ A Ab e N iv- ' - L u10 ON' .t r 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that couldoccuras a result of this proposal? If so,describe Ay Pt 1) Describerispecial emergency services that might be required. !\ it 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 0 et b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? iv 6 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. au iti 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ru ick PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of SEPA CHECKLIST 400.\Tater EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent propertie ? kc` ' Va L M- / adJctc€t1± He # S b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. N c. Describe any structures on the site. A) P d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? PC e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? rte'J f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? I h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? �� If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PL-22 V1.0 11). ft Page 9 of S""`"katte SEPA CHECKLIST .. Valley. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low inc me housing. � 1-- H-6 be, AQ.._ e vi�� Y� b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. IA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: tu 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? t3 ,Q rvtiuva c &„, 1&:k.t la tisi-i°7 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? I) il c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A, 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? . cL e v`i ^►--i . u cu. t b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ry d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 111) IN PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 ",oane SEPA CHECKLIST .....Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicini ? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.g�� ( uA- c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: it) ilk 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. 1j c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Pr 14). Transportation. a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. R alllie_1 FirvQ,S P--c'cQA b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N30 —Z-0 -?.ct c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? St\1/4;ts j How many would the projqr cteli Inate?,Qp-nek—itt..,QA 4 Ork) fl-‘ I PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of Sti` n SEPA CHECKLIST cl . 4000 ValleY d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indliicate whether public or private). EVALUATION FOR (\i? 4"'[[ AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. ri) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. rA g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 1\3 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. +0 bvQ_ upok b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, [6 natural gas, [water, [ refuse service, 151 telephone, [sl,sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑other-describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. fk C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: to 6 (17 PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of SEPA CHECKLIST %M , Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances;or production of noise? t a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? V PC a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? (L) a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? fv ' a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? r PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of SEPA CHECKLIST 40000 Valler a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? 4 l J� a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: ID ((6 1 (7 Signature: P-011--4---k--- - Please print or type: P--06 �Proponent: l� Pat' Address: ‘ - L /knv6rO�.�+ rjr LL (-)`-)Pc Phone: 50q ' `t`( ( " a; 75 i . C Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of Disc LA IME.This schedule is informational pr dune only. Actual decision-making timeframes kane may vary for each application. 40000 Malley Planning Division COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.� SCHEDULE Pre-Application Meeting L0 (Required) let' Formal Application Submittal Completeness COMPLETE Application and SEPA Checklist is Determination routed to staff and agencies for review. INCOMPLETE Complete Applicant notified 4 SEPA Decision(Post and Publish with a 14 of an incomplete calendar day comment&appeal period) application. Incomplete Notice of Public Hearing publishes in the Valley Herald,City's website Review and sent to staff,agencies and parties of record. If a map amendment resubmittal and is proposed the site is posted with a sign and property owners within deem complete. 400 feet are notified by mail. (15 day comment period) Study Session(informational item)with Planning Commission Public Hearing with Planning Commissionk) f) ---y-Session(informational it•m)w'th City Council • ryii. • • T .j rr l5`reading of Ordinance with City Council 4. 2"d reading and decision of Ordinance with City Council Ordinance signed and published in newspaper. Ordinance is effective 5 calendar days after publication. FL-04 V1.0 Page l of COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Ssir,cif AMENDMENT APPLICATION pool%ane SVMC 17.80.140 4000 Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 ♦Fax:(509)720-5075 i permitcenter rrsnokanevallev.org Year ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period.Applications are due by November 1$;of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments, The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (lbarlowaa.sookanevalley.org) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhtafa.spokanevallev.orq), 509-921-1000. PL-O6 V1.0 Page 1 or4 pediane „ Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED.* fes—' A. . Submit the following forMAP AMENDMENTS: El: re-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) •H Completed Application Form egrApplication and SEPA Fee IN SEPA Checklist: One(1)copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note:Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) 1� Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note:DO NOT submit the ' notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City.Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) 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. S. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) Completed Application Form 0 One(1)copy of the text proposed to be changed,showing deletions by and additions by underline. EI One(1)copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. 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 PL-OB V1.0 Page 2 of ,_ _ - - l `ii _til .. , 'L L R iiik .`� �"� Study Area ii ..-,, n _ _ _ �: - - -: .' ti -.J.1. o- j _ �; y#, i #e. ir +: e ilik ` 45153.2836 Ali ,. .t 12416g :- ' 41'fp VALLEYW iyat #: r u: ;A5111"44. + 45153.2801 , 9Q 4 _ . V° L-LEYWAYA 45153.2835 �. 12416Q VA LLEYWAYLa� . Ilk' , .. , _ IP. 1 _ ,_ _ :$, r . - . . , 40.41:cr, ' . 4,7.- 1.1 t. 'AV a , -ia. Aill&F 4/7/4 '',' 4 M P. � I.L.; 4'.� ' 4"` ti m . irk _ 4 1P 9 IA;- _ I a ilfT' CPA-2018-0001 Request: `[I "' Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Q Citizen initiated proposal to change the Green, Audrey Valley Parcel#: See Map Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to / 'R; Address: See Map subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Comprehensive Plan Map G S E Valleyway Ave Study Area] . ' l 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2801 12402 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2835 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE a x � Z CPA-2018-0001 Request: "' Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Q Citizen initiated proposal to change the Green, Audrey Valley Parcel#: See Map Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to MFR; Address: See Map subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Comprehensive Plan Map E Wilio Crest hni • E Alki-Ave E A1ki Ave 1 \ [0 CC v E Olive Ave , / z 1 1 - Study Area E Val'leyway A 1 45153.2836 112416E 45153.2801 VALLEYWAY AVE 124•02E VALLEYWAYAVE 4515362835 z 126 E VALLEYWAY AVE a. I cr ))fir — E Main Ave Z 1 —E-Riverside Ave ro cG x 0 Z — [ _At_ cG E Sprague Ave o a % v v' CPA-2018-0001 Request: `Ell t' "' Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ OI1 Citizen initiated proposal to change the Green, Audrey Valley Parcel#: See Map Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to / 'R; 4.000 Address: See Map subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Zoning Map E Valleyway Ave Study Area] . ' l 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2801 12402E � VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2835 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE CPA-2018-0001 Request: t' "' Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori Q � Citizen initiated proposal to change the Green, Audrey Valley Parcel#: See Map Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to MFR; Address: See Map subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR 111[� SI OIane ey COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: ir d?• f 6 OO ‘350 ecelWed by: Fee: PLUS #: f d- File#: CM - 7.061 —0003 (CFR 2011 v0003) PART II -- APPLICATION INFORMATION ❑ Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 N Sullivan Rd CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: info@WnlppleCE.com PROPERTY OWNER: CRAPO,DENNIS A&MELISSA A MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N SULLIVAN RD CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA i ZIP: 99216 PHONE: (509)924-8964 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Bowdish Rd and Sands Rd Spokane Valley,WA 99206 PARCEL No.: 45333.1807 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 CMU PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): We are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zoning Reclassification fromR2.Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)as is on the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracts. The land is now vacant with trees,shrubs,grasses and weeds. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 Spokane _10Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III — AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, nc) rpb (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. /r)/12.‘/-7 ignature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE 7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of ,20 11 NOTARY SEAL / f ,���e�ti�iirir���► OTARY SIGNATURE ����' .�soM •.,� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington .. .ZOfi ▪ NOrARY PUBLIC .• • COMM EXPMES • Residing at: Oct• 12.2020 cPj▪ ' •. • OF....• 1,0My appointment expires: �� LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s),the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06V1.0 Page 4of4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "` :.: AMENDMENT APPLICATION �:: 41000Va Spokane :.. K SVMC 17.80.140 Community Development- Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 •Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 i Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ planning@spokanevalley.org Year 2017 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 15;of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal, If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year,the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400'for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (lbarlow(7a.sookanevallev.org) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(c spokanevalley.org), 509- 921-1000. PL-06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 Spokane . Milley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL *"THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A. Submit the following for MAP AMENDMENTS: ® Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) • Completed Application Form ❑ Application and SEPA Fee D SEPA Checklist: One(1)copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) • Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) ❑ 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. 8. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One(1)copy of the text proposed to be changed,showing deletions by and additions by underline. ❑ One(1)copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. 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 PL-06 V1.0 Page 2 of 4 wc E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative: Parcel:45333.1807 October 23, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for parcel 45333.0807 is to change the land use and zoning from R2 (Single Family Residential)to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use),consistent with the property north of the Railroad tracks. The subject parcel is approximately 5.86 acres and is accessed via Dishman Mica Rd to Bowdish Road, south Sands Road. The parcel fronts Bowdish Road, on the east property line, for approximately 175 feet,which is the access point for this lot.The north property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad is 940 feet.The west property line is approximately 525 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .42 to .85 acres and a 2.25 acre vacant lot owned by the City of Spokane Valley, which is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The south property line is approximately 685 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .30 of an acre to .80 acres. All lots were created per SHP-09-10. See exhibit 1. The following services will be provided by the utilities listed. Electricity will be supplied by Avista. Natural gas will be provided by Avista.Comcast will provide cableTV. And telephone will be provided by CenturyLink. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track and with all the noises associated from the tracks to the subject site is not contusive to single family housing. This is consistent with the owner's experience in developing and selling lots in the Ponderosa East Subdivision, laying south of and adjacent to the same railroad line.With the amendment there will also be a buffer between the tracks and the existing single- family lots. The physical environment will need to be mitigated to make the land amenable for permitted Corridor Mixed-Use development. The site falls into the Chester Creek flood plain, but not within the floodway and with the correct mitigation the site can be raised for permitted and allowed uses,thus improving the stream bed for birds and mammals to thrive. The impacts on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhood will be minimal with the buffering required and this space being a buffer for those who live close by. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PD Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-26117 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements This request is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. A. Goal LUG-4. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. WP-4.1. Integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for street upgrades to the entrance of the neighborhood. The location of this corridor mixed-use site will have minimal impact to the layer residential development being place adjacent to the existing railroad right of way. b. LUP-4.2. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and services. This change will take advantage of existing pedestrian and bike route to the Chester Store and Bowdish/Sands Road and Dishman Mica Road currently utilizing the existing railroad crossing. c. LUP-4.4. Encourage Mixed-Use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. Integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for an unusable and difficult to market lot to add mixed use near the train tracks. d. LUP-4.5. Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulating height,scale,setbacks, and buffers. This amendment to buffer the residents for the train tracks and adding mixed use to the area. e. LUP-4.7. Develop design guidelines that encourage quality design and pedestrian and vehicle circulation in commercial,office an Mixed-use development. This amendment allows for Corridor Mixed-Use to be a positive action in this neighborhood. B. Goal LUG-9. Encourage the development of mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. f. LUP-9.2 The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include: a. A variety of housing types including apartments,condominiums,town houses,tow- family and single-family dwellings on small lots. b. A full range of retail goods and series including grocery stores,theaters/entertainment, restaurants, person services and specialty shops. c. Public/quasi-public uses and/or open space: d. Professional Office and other employment oriented uses; and e. Commercial uses that require large land areas by have low employment density and are anti-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries,warehouses, and auto dealerships,should be prohibited for either Mixed-use category. This amendment allows for a variety of dwellings,shops, and or services. C. Goal LUG-14. Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. g. LUP-14.3. Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial,retail and industrial signage that protects views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. This amendment allows the neighborhood to keep it's identify without the clutter of signage and keeps Corridor Mixed Use encroachment with are surrounding the Railroad close to the Dishman Mica Arterial. D. Goal LUG-16. Provide a street system that connects neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. LUP-16.1. Encourage new developments, including multifamily projects, to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks to allow people to safely get around easily by foot, bicycle, bus,or car. This amendment allows for upgrades to Bowdish and Sands along the site and can extend frontage upgrades for connectivity, allowing for circulation across the frontage or the property. b. LUP-16.2. Develop street, pedestrian path and bike path standards that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. This amendment can extend to the boundaries for connectivity allowing for circulation across the site frontage. The following provision of the development codes allows for the proposal: a. Per the Amended Comprehensive Plan Map,the subject parcel is located in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. b. Per SVMC Chapter 19.70.030, Mixed-use,the lots will comply with the dimensional standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Front yard setback will be 15 ft. minimum, rear yard setback of 10 ft. minimum, and side yard setback of 10 ft minimum. Driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved with hard surface material. e. Per SVMC Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses,Corridor Mix-Use are a permitted use in the CMU zone. d. Per SVMC Chapter 22.20,Concurrency, certificates of water and sewer availability have been submitted with the application.With regards to traffic,a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter has been submitted detailing the anticipated changes to traffic as a result of the project. e. Per SVMC Chapter 22.50.020,Vehicle Parking,each unit will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. f. Per SVMC Section 22.130.070, Development Transportation Improvements,the streets will be improved and built to current City of Spokane Valley street standards. g. Per SVMC, Chapter 22.150,Stormwater Management Regulations,the project will be designed such that post-development storm water will be treated and disposed of by methods approved in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane SVMC 21 .20 Y 4000 Valley Community Development- Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite S-3 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 i plannine®spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS#: File#: PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL '**THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED"' 11 Completed SEPA Checklist ►1 Application Fee El Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/2" by 11" or 11" by 17"size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals,even though questions may be answered"does not apply." IN ADDITION,complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words"project,""applicant," and "property or site" should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and "affected geographic area,"respectively. PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 pol�ane w SEPA CHECKLIST S Walley r A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Change Bowdish and Sands 2. Name of applicant: Dennis and Melissa Crapo C/O Whipple Consulting Engineers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2528 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- Todd R Whipple, PE phone:509-893-2617 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2017 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Upon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.A previous Short Plat SHP-09-10 was prepared, this SEPA checklist, Application form, Trip Generation Letter, and Narrative. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None known If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification. Once the site is rezoned then a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Project Specific SEPA, Building Permits,Water Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Plans, UIC registrations, Street Permit, Utility Permit, Street Obstruction Permit, Street Tree Plan, etc... PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 18 Spoka`gne SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification proposes to change 5.86 acres from R2 (single family residential)to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), see exhibits 2 and 3. 12. Location of the proposal Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.The subject parcel is located on the west side of the intersection of Bowdish Road and East Sands Road, just south of East Dishman Mica Road, with appoximatley 275 linear feet of frontage on Bowdish Road, located on portions of Southwest 114, Section 33, Township 25N, Range 44E, W.M. Spokane County Parcel Number 45333.1807. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? Yes Priority Sewer Service Area?Yes (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA)I Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Project does lie within the ASA in the City of Spokane, per Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area from the SRSM, as well as the high susceptibility area of CARA, per Figure 6-2 of the SRSM. Stormwater disposal methods will be consistent with Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), which may include grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywells and gravel galleries depending upon specific soil types encountered at the locations of the proposed facilities at time of a specific project. Anticipated rate will be appropriate for the design option chosen. At this time the volume is unknown. Because the system will follow the SRSM there will be a dead storage component of 0.5' in each swale or pond area that should limit direct discharge of items used in the home as well as firefighting activities. PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of 18 p k ne SEPA CHECKLIST ,�.. Valley 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels)be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? The CMU zoning may anticipate chemicals, but the future project for this site has not been chosen. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Applicable BMP's will be used during construction to contain any leaks or spills as they occur. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Once the CMU zone has been developed there may be chemicals stored,and spills associated with CMU volumes will be handled on-site per the facility spill prevention and clean- up plan. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, stormwater will be discharged into the ground. No potential impacts are anticipated at this time and the future discharge will be as allowed in the SRSM. The existing stream bed will not receive an new stormwater. PL-22 V1.0 Rage 4 of 18 Spokane � SEPA CHECKLIST ,,Valley B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): 4 flat, U rolling, 7 hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?Less than 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. MRCS classification is Endoaquolls and Flluvaquents, 0-3% slopes, and Urban land- Phoebe, disturbed complex 3-8 % slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes If so, describe. A site review does indicate the presence of these types of soils, additionally, the City of Spokane Valley maps show unstable or erodible soils on the subject site. Therefore, during plan preparation of a specific project the site Geotech will note the presence of these specific types of soils and an acceptable manner by which to deal with them, see exhibit 5. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. In a future project there may be grading proposed for streets, site, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade and preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire buildable portion site.Although quantities are unknown at this time,we would anticipate the movement of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cy. Any import or export of material shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Building and Planning Department. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY 115E ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? During site preparation for a future project, some minor erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction, but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BM Ps.The existing seasonal streambed may be mittigated to provide more buiding space. The subject site will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping. If so, generally describe. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 18 Sp`P"ok" canee SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?00%-70" h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During site preparation for a future project, on-site grading shall be consistent with approved grading and temporary erosion sediment control plans. Use of appropriate BMPs during construction and the stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping following construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During site construction,for a future project, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance. Additionally, a future project may create exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion and occupancy of a future project, construction air emissions may occur, exhaust machinery and vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? None known. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All future site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air(SRCAA), construction related requirements. Future tenants may require additional review through SRCAA. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site is in a Flood plain, see exhibit 4, which may be mitigated so the PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 18 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST .0000% Valley property can be buildable. Chester Creek a seasonal streambed is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, although this is a non-project section Chester Creek does lie within 200-feet of the subject site. Future projects will need to take this into consideration. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. Indicate the source of fill material.To be determined at time of flood zone mitigation, if at all possible. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? Yes. If so, note location on the site plan. See exhibit 7. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the SRSM. All future runoff will be treated in the EVALUATION FOR catchment areas before discharged. AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Yes. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. As noted previously, a future project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM.Additional measures, if any,will be added if required during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane and any other affected agencies. PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of 18 "" SEPA CHECKLIST Spakane 4080Valley 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.There will be no water material discharged into the ground from septic tanks. . c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? The source of runoff from this site after completion of design for this propery, will be from the constructed elements of the design. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas to treat and discharge the treated stormwater (as required by the SRSM) to the underlying soils,via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. Will this water flow into other waters? No. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. Runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before entering ground water. The site does not contribute to any surface waters. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As noted previously, the project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during design and as approved by the City. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: • deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other • shrubs PL-22 VI.0 Page 8 of 18 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane Valley. Fri grass C pasture ❑ crop or grain El wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other LI water plants: water lily, eeigrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? CMU projects usually take up a large amount of space. Most of the vegetation may be removed. The seaonal streambed may be mitigated allowing for more vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: With on proposed project at this time, measures to preserve or enhance vegetaion is unknown. The seasonal streambed would be the best place to mitigate. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ® birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: FA mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: n fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the EVALUATION FOR site.Unknown. AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route?Yes If so, explain.The area is listed as Rocky Mountain Elk habitate, but the site is surrounded by homes and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks.Consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required to create a project consistenant with this designation, see exhibit 6. PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 18 pokane SEPA CHECKLIST 4.000ValleY. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:With no proposed project, the measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is unknown. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used by future site-specific projects for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind and other sources of power would be available for future projects. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. The future construction of a CMU site should not affect solar energy on adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Final building plans shall demonstrate compliance with the commercial provisions of the Washington State Energy Code(WSEC). 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?Unknown. if so, describeOnce a project specific plan is developed a new SEPA will need to be completed. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply, at this time as this is a non- project section. b. Noise PL-22V1.0 Page 10of18 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Valley 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Typical noises associated with the Railroad Track: train whistles and the sounds of the train cars traveling past the site, with collector street traffic, commercial uses,and residentail uses adjacent or nearby. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For a future CMU project, short term noises from construction would be anticipated. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with CMU areas. Future construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Future construction restricted to hours allowed by City code. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The subject site is currently undeveloped. b. The property to the north is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and further north is Corridor Mixed Use mini storage. The property to the east is a single family lot with the north portion currently vacant,which is the portion of land adjacent to the subject site. c. The properties to the south and west are approximatly 1/3 of an acre single family homes and a vacant lot to the northwest of the subject site which is owner by City of Spokane Valley. EVALUATION FOR d. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown. AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are on the site. f. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? PL-22 V11) Page 11 of 18 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST lley g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2, Single-Family Residential h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CMU Corridor Mixed Use. i, If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?Unknown. j. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive" area?Yes If so, specify.Aquifer Sensitive Area, flood plain, Chester Creek floodwater and Elk migration route. k. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is unkown at this time with not project selected. I. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A n. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Develop to applicable zoning code development standards at time of specific project development. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Unkown at this time. PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of 18 Spvkanle"""` SEPA CHECKLIST .0001;Valley. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Unknown at this time. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35 feet. Future project exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane region . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Yes, views will be altered by future development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Final site and building plans shall be developed cohesive with related design standards of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code, 2 stories with marketable attributes. 11 ). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? Unknown What time of day would it mainly occur? The subject site will be illuminated at night consistent with the City of Spokane Valley zoning codes and standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Yes, ambient light affect. c. What existing off--site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Exterior lights from the adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area and Train lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See comment to 11a. PL-22V1.0 Page 13of18 Spktxe SEPA CHECKLIST 40000 Valley 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing bike lane running south on Bowdish and at the the intersection of Bowdish and Sands, turns onto Sands Road. There are 2 public parks within 1 mile of the site, Castle Park and Brown's Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? None anticipated. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No If so, generally describe. None identified by WISAARD search. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, other than those requird by City of Spokane Valley Code, Washington State, and/or Federal Law. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Dishman Mica Road; Bowdish Road and Sands Road. There are no plans at this time Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Spokane Transit Route 97, 0.80 miles to the north at the intersection of Bowdish Road and 32nd Avenue, PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of 18 pokaane SEPA CHECKLIST ,Valley° c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Unknown. How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? There may be upgrades to Bowdish Road. If so,generally describe(indicate whether public or private). Unknown at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? None anticipated If so, generally describe. Existing Union Pacific Railroad line. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? See the attached Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is anticipated to generate 845 average daily trips. The project is anticipated to generate 14 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. These rates were developed from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time as they are project specific impacts. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Unknown. If so, generally describe. Unknown at this time. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Unknown at this time. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ® electricity, r natural gas, @water, 1►1 refuse service, Ila telephone, Z sanitary sewer, septic system, ® other- describecable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the PL-22 V1.0 Page 15 of 18 S iokane SEPA CHECKLIST Valley immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities are known at this time to be service providers adjacent to or within the immediate area. 1. Avista--Gas 2. Avista/—Electricity 3. CenturyLink—Telephone 4. Comcast I Other--Cable TV 5. Spokane County Utilities— Sewer 6. Consolidated Water District#19—Water C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: - 4 p. 1 Date Submitted: C6174, 07 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal,would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emissions to air; production,storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes, as the current site is undeveloped, development will increase stormwater runoff,vehicle emissions and site related noise, however, the allowed uses will be restricted on to produce, store or release toxic/hazardous substances. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Through cordination, CC&R's and proper site management. PL-22 V1.0 Page 16 of 18 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The future site will be graded, which will remove plants. There are no fish or marine life onsite. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The grading will remove most if not all plant material on the site. The stream bed should be mitigated to a more healthy condition. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This site will not likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The owner will use Energy Star equipment and has the option to use wind or solar energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The site is surrounded by homes and businesses and by mitigating the existing stream bed will more likely than not have game birds on that portion of the property. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation of the stream bed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no existing plans as of yet for this property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The Corridor Mixed Use is unknown at this time. There are utilities on or close to the site. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demands)are: No measures at this time. PL-22 V1.0 Page 17 of 18 �7pol l '. SEPA CHECKLIST Valley 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.Any project on this site must follow local,state and fenderal laws for the prtection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t 's check -•ter Date: 1 h7 Signatur !: ,� 1♦ Please print or type: r Proponent: Zithoureile () 4t t 7 j / Address: Z6?r� A - ` q/Z J1a Phone: 7.4` / I Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL-22 V1.0 Page 18 of 18 AWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. October 24, 2017 W.Q. No. 2017-1904 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Ray Wright Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bowdish Change from Low Density Residential (R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Bowdish Road & Sands Road Planning Level Traffic (Trip) Distribution Letter Dear Ray: Per the City of Spokane Valley requirements, we have prepared a planning level trip generation and distribution letter for the 5.86 acre+1-residential property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bowdish Road & Sands Road. This letter will establish the potential trip generation and distribution for the change of land use from Low Density Residential to (R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)for the subject property as shown on Figure 2, Site Plan, and determine if further study may be required. This report will follow the standards for doing traffic distribution letters as required by the City of Spokane Valley, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The planning level project proposes to change the current land use code designation from Low Density Residential (R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The subject property is approximately 5.86 acres+/- of developed land. The project site is currently undeveloped The existing land use is Low Density Residential (R-2)which has a maximum density of 4 residential units per acre,per Table 19.70-1. Under the current land use designation, the subject property can be developed into 23 single family residential lots. With access from Bowdish Road The proposed zoning is Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) which has a mixture of potential land uses that are allowed Under the City of Spokane Valley Municipal code(Chp. 19.60.050). It is anticipated that the highest and best land use for the subject property. Would include a 15,000 sf (15.0 ksf)retail store with 60 apartments above. VICINITY 1 SITE PLAN The site is listed on the current comprehensive plan as Low Density Residential and currently zoned as R-2. The site lies on a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, T.25N., R,44E., W.M. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Bowdish CPA change From LDR(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24,2017 Page 2 within the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1 and a preliminary copy of the Site Plan is included as Figure 2, please see the Appendix. The parcel number for the site is 45333.1807. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Types The existing land use is residential, and the proposed land uses are commercial and residential landuses. ITE has developed data regarding various trip types that all developments experience. These are found in several places,however, for this analysis the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition as well as the Trip Generation Handbook were used to develop the criteria for this analysis. Generally, all existing and proposed developments will be made up of one or more of the following trip types: new (destination)trips, pass-by trips, diverted trips, and shared (internal trips). In order to better understand the trip types available for land access a description of each specific trip type follows. New (Destination)Trips- These types of trips occur only to access a specific land use such as a new retail development or a new residential subdivision. These types of trips will travel to and from the new site and a single other destination such as home or work. This is the only trip type that will result in a net increase in the total amount of traffic within the study area. The reason primarily is that these trips represent planned trips to a specific destination that never took trips to that part of the City prior to the development being constructed and occupied. This project will develop new trips. Pass-by Trips -These trips represent vehicles which currently use adjacent roadways providing primary access to new land uses or projects and are trips of convenience. These trips,however, have an ultimate destination other than the project in question. They should be viewed as customers who stop in on their way home from work. An example would be on payday, where an individual generally drives by their bank every day without stopping, except on payday. On that day, this driver would drive into the bank,perform the prerequisite banking and then continue on home. In this example,the trip started from work with a destination of home, however on the way, the driver stopped at the grocery store/latte stand and/or bank directly adjacent to their path. Pass-by trips are most always associated with commercial/retail types of development along major roadways. Therefore, for this project pass-by trips will be considered. Diverted (Linked) Trips -These trips occur when a vehicle takes a different route than normal to access a specific facility. Diverted trips are similar to pass-by trips,but diverted trips occur from roadways,which do not provide direct access to the site. Instead, one or more streets must be utilized to get to and from the site. For this project,because of the many different routes that can be taken to and from the site,we believe that these would be difficult to track and verify. Therefore, no diverted trips were acknowledged for this analysis. Bowdish CPA change From LDR(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24,2017 Page 3 Shared Trips -These are trips which occur on the site where a vehicle/consumer will stop at more than one place on the site. For example, someone destined for a certain shop at a commercial site may stop at a bank just before or after they visit the shop that they went to the site to visit. This trip type reduces the number of new trips generated on the public road system and is most commonly used for commercial developments. Determining these trip types is more difficult to quantify and without specific guidance are usually determined by engineering judgment on a project by project basis. Although some shared trips between land uses may occur with this project, there is no supporting data to justify a large shared trip reduction. Therefore, to be conservative no shared trips were credited for this project Intermodal trips (non-Vehicle) Pedestrian Trips—When a residential or hospitality land use is located within close proximity of complimentary land uses such as, shops, restaurants, offices, or event centers, some vehicular trips will be replaced by pedestrian trips. The decision for residents/guests to drive or walk to their destination is dependent upon several factors and variables. The first may be trip length or distance; the second may be the route, typically the crossing of a large roadway without signalized crosswalks or other safe crossing facilities would be a deterrent; the third may be parking at the destination; and fourth may be the weather as rain or snow conditions may deter pedestrian activity. For this project pedestrian trips will not be considered Bowdish CPA change From LDR(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24,2017 Page 4 Trip Generation Characteristics for the Proposed Project As noted earlier, trip generation rates are determined by use of the Trip Generation Manual, 9" Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the number of trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. The purpose of the Trip Generation Manual is to compile and quantify empirical trip generation rates for specific land uses within the US,UK and Canada. Existing Land Uses For the existing Single Family residential land use, the highest and best use of 23 single family residential lots will be used therefore land Use Code(LUC)#210 will be used. The potential trips generated by the single family residential land use are shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Trip Generation Rates for LUC# 210—Single Family Detached Housing No. of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 Dwelling Vol. @ 0.75 Directional Vol. 1.00 Directional Units trips per Distribution triUnit Distribution Unit 25% In 75% Out trips per 63% In 37% Out s 23 17 4 13 23 14 9 Average Daily Trip Ends ADT) Dwelling Units Rate ADT 23 9.52 219 Proposed Land Uses For the proposed Multi Family Residential land use, the highest and best use of 100 multi-family residential land uses will be used therefore Land Use Code(LUC)#220 Apartment will be used. The potential trips generated by the multi-family residential land use are shown on Table 2. Table 2-Trip Generation Rates for LUC#826 Specialty Retail Center Thousand AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Square Feet Directional Vol. ( 2.71 Directional KSF N/A Distribution Tri sIKSF Distribution In Out p 44% In 56% Out 15.0 - 41 18 23 1 Pass-b 8 4 4 New 33 14 19 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 20%Pass-by Per Engineering Judgement KSF Rate ADT 15.0 44.32 665 Bowdish CPA change From LDR(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24,2017 Page 5 Table 3 -Trip Generation Rates for LUC#220--Apartment Na. of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dwelling Vol. @ 0.51 Directional VaI. @ 0.62 Directional Units trips per Distribution tripsUnit Distribution Unit 20% In 80% Out per 65% In 35% Out 60 31 6 25 38 25 13 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) KSF Rate ADT 100 6.65 399 Trip Generation Comparison Since the existing single family residential land use trip generation is proposed to be replaced by the proposed Multi Family Residential trip generation, the difference in trips generated is shown on Table 4 Table 4 - Trip Generation Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code (LUC) Vol. Directional Vol. Directional per Distribution per Distribution LUC In I Out WC In I Out LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed) _ - - - 33 14 19 LUC 220 Apartment(Proposed) 31 6 25 38 25 13 LUC 210 Single Family Residential <17> <4> <13> <23> <14> <9> Difference 14 2 12 48 25 j 23 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) < >indicates Land Use Code(LUC) Rate ADT Subtraction of number LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed) 665 LUC 220 Apartment (Proposed) 399 LUC 210 Sin le Famil Residential <219> Difference 845 As shown on Table 4 the additional trips of the Corridor Mixed-Use land uses are anticipated to generate a total of 14 additional trips in the AM peak hour with 2 additional trips entering the site and 12 additional trips exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, the Mixed-Use land use is anticipated to generate a total of 56 additional trips, with 29 additional trips entering the site and 27 additional trips exiting the site. The anticipated average daily trips to/from the proposed Mixed-Use land uses are 845 trips. TRIP DISTRIBUTION It is anticipated that the subject property is accessed via Bowdish Road. The roads anticipated to be used by the additional trips generate by a development of the subject property are listed below, Bowdish CPA change From LDR(R-2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24,2017 Page 6 Bowdish Road is a north/south, two-way,2-lane,minor arterial serving a large residential area south of Interstate 90, Bowdish Road runs south from Mission Avenue, and crosses several major arterials, until it intersects with Sands Road. Bowdish Road,between Mission Avenue and Dishman-Mica Road is a two-lane roadway. South of Dishman-Mica Road, Bowdish Road crosses the Union Pacific Railway and becomes a local access roadway. Sands Road branches off of Bowdish Road and continues the arterial to 44th Avenue. Bowdish Road is posted at 25 MPH on the local access portion, and is posted on the minor arterial as 35 MPH. Considering many factors such as the surrounding transportation facilities, typical commuting patterns, existing development in the area, and the ADT of surrounding roadways the traffic for the proposed development is anticipated as follows. 5% to/from the south on Bowdish Road, and 95%to/from the north on Bowdish Road, Where the trips will follow existing traffic patterns at the intersection of Dishman-Mica Road &Bowdish Road. Conclusions and Recommendations It is anticipated that a change of land use to Mixed Use would generate 14 additional AM peak hour trips and 48 additional PM peak hour trips. Based on the number of trips generated the location of the project and an understanding of the operation of intersections within the area, we believe that if the change is approved that there would be no impact from this project on the surrounding transportation system. Additional at the time of any "real"project the "real"project would be reviewed for traffic impact at that time. Therefore, based upon the analysis provided and a working knowledge of traffic in the area we recommend that the comprehensive plan map amendment be allowed to move forward without further analysis. Should you have any questions related to this document please do not hesitate to call at 893- 2617. Sincerely, - Q\ltt.Wfj1 "..;0of w . 4, / t f--4 / 1 /'' i .'1.Y•;:lf --lip iif Todd R. Wi•4ta. ". TRW/bng end. Appendix(Vicinity Map, Site Plan,Trip Dist%) cc: Sponsor File APPENDIX 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Trip Distribution by Percent 4. Misc. Information L 36 Lb -.- -i i \ ` • , _ .iy11`LL '_ - a ---- -- _ e _ �� ill ill �3_ � -' •min = r rd. __ �-- 'v" l. 'sem { „I ME=,1�'!r!! ' o Cr rS.- "4... U / -• L., ,, `',, r .__t ■■■■ _. 1 , ., ,.,. a ---� ''a ra C7 ,-• -•:�+fj • 11,1 ...,----• .'—':..,....,.----,._ s C 7 d _ ITIS, '} ti , ,, ,.. ._...„ _.:_:.:...._._, ' 1— J ., „._ „.. .. A ,. �....... _„4r- _.. _ Nester :, ,�, . to ., . •" • L. . . „ . ,_,... ...,, .„ , U -_ .__ . ...___ . % -_: „.. .-a•-' -- '''-' 1 1--- --I--- --- ___•5 4,:...,,i,...:___..1 1r -____. L- -. - ..-:-... ;l W - - r ' r - 0 A -14- 1 ,... r, .--_, ., CV ,-- p Ro J_EC : .)„ i „-_,----, ,7., 1 ra j j r fT� )C yJ .1 TY S I T E H • , r . I 7 k- _ -- N.`may - •' • LT. L i 111 4 PIIS I i } • I' 4,11 h A:r ►� w _124 ) ■■■■ . _ .. r•-• Lo I. _. k 1 -1 f.. : '1----- -NOT TO SCALE d 1 PRL]J 17 1904 I DATE: 10/20/17 CPA TRIP 'GpENERATION & DISTRIBUTION DRAWN: BNG 'BDWDISH CPA O APPROVED: TRW BOWDISH ROAD & SANDS ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON ANDTECONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVILLAND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING W 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD U Fl 6 U RE 1 VICINITY MAP SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 94216 PH:569.893.2617 FAX:599.926.0227 P. t-1 It. lit' '9-- ''' ,„ ',,iu, Iteit--• •,, p,:..r t 4. -rt'"%*...'"'" ./fitiii _.F._ r-- `"- t r...�. fir. I- _ - a _r ....es, •..;_Ankitx IN-._ - ' r YA Q0.. f a ?` �_ w J U _ ` _ �. _ • ?F.` -'ate- 4,6 �*c f'~.T . • i.. • 3 C:14 I cn ftv .1..--4 f U .,` ' Imo' -- _ + ,:, .1- . : fi 4, or. .0 , , I 'fil" f--- 1-1- --..- - 0.0 J ' Ta U3 1 7-c' r- ' '.7114'• r W N - . t-"- M1Vii- - ,' {{a y. V. ,'' rv. a,Y is Y :f W war - .{�� � ' 1 U {l n• Y� Y4 Sp , R —411e r Y - PRpJ #: 7 7'1 9p4 DR1 CII2a/1 CPA TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION DRAWN: N; SNG BOWDISH GPA a APPROVED: TRW BOWDISH ROAD Sc SANDS ROAD -- - SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLECONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING (Ca 2526 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD U FIGURE 2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99216 PH'.509-693-2617 FAX:509-926-0227 TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL[ TN OUT AM PEAK 14 2 12 PM PEAK 48 2_5 23 CI t is, I t7 eyM I-- AM(2/11) o N PM{24/22) • 0 �- en BOWDISH ROAD 95% .D _ ci w So BOWDISH ROAD C7 4 1 L �Q � 1S\to ce 4%11 AM(D/1) ca_c v� PM(1/1) EC • N- 0 y 3 a 0:1 I a Ct. us U V- 0 Q r- el V LT-1 ILI w U NN NOT TO SCALE F*Ri7J #: 1 7-19D4 DATE: 1 CPA TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION wc E DRAWN: TRW B 0 YV a PIp ► APPROVED: TRW BOWDISH ROAD & SANDS ROAD y}qIpp�CONSULTING ENGINEERS SPOKANE VALLEY, INA S N I N GTO I CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING LL] 2528 NORTH SULLCVAN ROAD 0 FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 PH.569.893.2613 FAX-509.926.0227 Photo 1 —Property Frontage—Bowdish Road looking North , 1,4 4..i -'" ' — .': tlawl ill �:_ ami - •„ ..-.fir _ -•-- - Photo 2 — Intersection of Dishman-Mica Road & Bowdish Road, Looking North k Ati . i a ,' ' , •'� -� '� c +7 y • �9'47.„ , ,y,5,* w . -. ;`~ �4 � � •"�• - {, �. � r 5 Propane- ; .-� 509 PES i. __ r APPENDIX 1. Exhibit-1 Existing Land Use Overview 2. Exhibit-2 Existing Zoning Overview 3. Exhibit-3 Proposed Land Use & Zoning 4. Exhibit-4 Hydrology Map 5. Exhibit-5 Geohazard Map 6. Exhibit-6 Habitat Map 7. Exhibit-7 FEMA Map 8. Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area 9. Figure 6-2 Spokane County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 4 1_11111J LJ I I I I [1 1 i IJ-1-� , -_ *� (` J ♦,� ti IME■ ii n 1E11_.1111 .4\:-..-.,,,,' - , Parcel NL ti,,, • 4 WI i..1 1 I\ moi }r ' i I 1 ,� � `s. �- , ::• : I1•' ■IMI \ 6. �1 � `L—_- _ III ' .' CMU j �. = SF � 11�`-l : - ,iii.l .,-___ 1. - ri . -1--_11-i-e---.,,- -a 7 s F ::-',\/N:. — • PROJECT -i' — > SITE ' \ , 4 /Ail . •- mI fli �Iu Ii. i 1111 7� I 1 rn "' 1 - Mi M 22 Hi■E Esri,HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA,US ST I I A., n o Legend Layer List Basernap Galle CMU — 641. 1 Operational layers :7, E Iiii 1M W MI MF pity,of Sp I•„n �,,;ILo��L:unr1 U a MU a. o I NC . PCIS I';:a" Ci • SF m EXISTING CONDITIONS F.n E 0 r N t. a 0 m 1 c u W-- E S 0 E 1 PRCJ #: 17- 9E14 cc EXISTING LAND USE OVERVIEW DR1 0/2.4417 Q. DRAWN: 8MM 3 AlAirC BOWDISH RD AND SANDS RD REVIEWED: TRW n WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS c CIVIL,STRUCTURAL AND SPOKANE VALLEY, WA TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EXHIBIT 1 g 2528 NORTH SULLNAN ROAD 3 SPOKANE VALLEY.WA 99216 PH'51:19-893-2517 FAX 509,926,0227 u 3 'jICA :,, 11-:. \\"\, I \',',., __7_17171 Ir w 1 "x t.t 7- AL1 t t I `i 1 r !!1: f=ISI" 0a r' . k\r, '. �\. ^; .1-` I , S. -_L-. :z MIK I v L ....0 .I. y _ H ----j r IBM ME �- 1'1 - , i ,? , i J:[�1� s }< - / ' illlf� - •`.• iii 11!■!■ni � .,z ,;7 ,`� /vie, .), ,,, -....,... CMU -""--:•Z--,� MI NIH 1 f j ;, - f �` - tei...;er,... ri R3 = � mil. . � I PROJECT -i..' : - _`, ``-;'`( '` Wit. SITE j l a i 1 1 , I■I—E1- (Atli m 1111111 ,I..■ I v I I Esri, HERE,Garmin,INCREMI NT P, NGA,USGS [ C Legend Layer List Basemap Gallery I R2 L" I x •I 4 a.a 2 O o _ , CMU g ro - t EXISTING CONDITIONS ro E" E 0 L-E, N I 1 0_ 0 W Fp E m n 0 r§. PRDJ #: 17-7904 acAVVC E EXISTING ZONING OVERVIEW DRAWFV:DATE: 1D'� SMM 0. WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BOW❑ ISI—I R❑ AND SANDS RD REVIEEWED: IVTSRW a CIVIL STRUCTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING SPC] KAHN/ E VALLEY, WA iDc 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD EXHIBIT - 2 SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99215 1 RI-1:549-893-2517 FAX 544-92S-0227 V yy, `° r. I I f l,J l I I I 1_ l l J L�LJLL :,A....:„..,,,,,,,:,,,4,_-1-_,,,,,( ti ;/ 'n■nJ.s : I, L _111.1_,-:\v- - ri Parcel N I 1�'J ma . I11LJ �. �_ ,�, *2 mg miI4� Namurmm , . i =: -,in---G1 \ • _ }` l�l . s i■■■_null ■ -` II °°, rTs-j='� I ilar'.'"' r CMU ■viii : R3 ° ��I �,��� : SF \ I n - --z..----•_. -z4-:•-,-. • ...„--,- , i.--_. _ -, e ' • - P -I. R2 ' N. CMU i 4J- o� Ilr` \\ .--, NIr? . 'r. ±r f 2 . 1_ N.,\\ ii li, -S,)41 E ii TT I nu- -' ■ii `\ /I` M \I .1111■ ii }� v R2 TO CMU ry r. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO a CORRIDOR MIXED USE 3 11 E I x z s J a 1. O V C, m t7 3 0 d o, t v a a E v o 3 m 0 n S W-G- E 5 50 W PRCI.,I #: 7 7-1'9C14 a E PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING PO 7OI85117 B❑WDISH RD AND SANDS RD REVIEWED: TRW 3 WHIFFLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS o CIVIL,STRUCTURAL.AND SPOKANE VALLEY, WA ry TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EXHIBIT - 3 a 2528 NORTH SULUVAN ROAD O SPOKANE VALLEY.WA 9921.6 ms's PH 509-893-2617 FAX 509.925.0227 u - 3 s a S PROJECTITE I l I 1r Find address or place 0. , --. -,.--- 1-iester . _ ...... .....„ -, -,-, ---"----"'----'------------,k'0 46 /8.4., .___ _ ., -•... :1t, ,-....ss --, ... c -,., • -1... ," -.. / N... ... , )4: - .--,- ra 2 / . ---- f 7 -.. --.,......,,„ ..,,,... ...---.... Lei 1 Spokane County,--Bureau of Land Management, ... f , I / I /- 1 ,- --1 .-I Legend Layer List Basemap Gallery 'E rAA20 _ co NaturalEnv = - K.ftg,_21..itu 2 2%Annual Chan I z 2c... Annual Chance ci Floodhnsi 1 .. Floudin4 IN A -I%Chanc=of o I'l %or.trng.no BFE- .._, A- 1%Chance of g I'm Floodtng, no BrE• • At Regulatory ' Floodway ..., o • AE Reaulatoty I',3” , •,-- . ' - 9. •Away Palcels "Lk ' . u " ' al c re v c re FTI. 0. E 0 u I.1 N 0. W-6- E u § S 4.- , ,:i AV%---4-7-C PROL.I #: 1 7-1 9C14 ce HYDROLOGY MAP DATE: 1 0/2 5/1 7 a D RAWN: S M M BOWDISH RD AND SANDS RD R EVI EWED: TRW ti WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS CNIL.STRUCTURAL ANO SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 0 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROD EXHIBIT - 4 a SPOKANE VALLEY.WA 99215 PH:5094393.2617 FAX 509-925-0227 l§j i- 6, t.V ti A':e t,. Q , E 371h Ave 11, rf v E 381h 4..'e E 3rf - PRDJECT -:. r r. SITE E 47th Avc -4..11 r• it P, 'u Z D Chester n ID = re L E if) ' Li z c FK Ave co — 2 �„ E 44th Ave i . 1 a ' Spokane Count, Bureau of Land Management,Esri,HERE, -- 4 — VI r.in sgend Layer List Basemap Gallery c. 'aeoHazards Operational Layers _.r 1.1.11-1 .,,,In.., ID C , m • I x z . / '' . I ' ' I 2. U.C L u G L. L 0 L I a 0 m I 0 n V W NE 5 Q FrR❑J 3': 1 7-1 4C4 GEOHAZARD MAP DATE: 5/1 7 L. B ❑WDISH RD AND SANDS RD REVIEWED: TRW L WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS o CIVIL,STRUCTURAL AND SPOKANE VALLEY, WA g`V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EXHIBIT - 5 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD 0 SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99215 >y PH 502-895•2617 FAX 509.928-E227 u a rL y f P.rI.. cTJs 7— [. r PROJECT L= - :„,, ty: tiT = �7 SITE f Eb y. y E 3 Tth A' U a F CE ia C,nlrnarar, -" �: "" f:C�CFCY _ r :6: ='F .:MClUfJTAIN x t. eft i NORTHWEST E “th Ave. 1` H(TE-TAILED kr_ DEER rv+r CST LED _E 46th‘ t - R C: _ LJR. L r MF .- - ;i, Spokane County, Bureau of Land Manac v Layer List Basemi L J a HWEST WHITE-TAILED TAILE[ DEER ` NORTHWEST WHITE-TAILED DEER HIES AND STEPPE '6 H PRAIRIES AND STEPPE :IAN ZONES W n RIPARIAN ZONES .._KY MOUNTAIN ELK ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK 2BAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE ATERFOWL CONCENTRATIONS E URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE ETLANDE 7 WATERFOWL CONCENTRATIONS ' - . Y WETLANDS G Li P. a E 0 r N 1 0 i.0 a a W-c'r E S M 5 5 N 1t,'7,' PROD : 17 04 " 19 HABITAT MAP DATE: ❑ -19 7 /41ACEB ❑WDISH RD AND SANDS RD REVIEWED: TRW wii[PPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, ALLEY, W AN. I CIVIL,STRUCTURAL AND a TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERING EXHIBIT - ]1 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY.WA 99215 3i 1 PH 599-893-2617 FAX'509-9254227 v 3 illi • ' T 1.11 111 ` ie PROJECT ,. ' ■ .. _ SITE lir'-, ••,,,,,....._ , 4 '..,.. ,f,- N1%. a 'AI .. ._zisiditioselliC . �+ AREA t F M IN flvIAL FLOOD ` RCS —he -.., ,., '11111,4% 1 I \ PAFIEL PAMELA. 5306344.- 32 `` _ 3 63CC1 51❑i rlib i.t.-,' ''4',-- ieuit.,2111 l ► eff. 71{11209,0ieffs7620101 a i ill ll Ef r . }r i , vr •* • * 6C 1 X10 1463A m f 1 o #► eft 3.'1712015 [C ItiA.' .' 1. ' -0 1 '''‘ " • wip, - 00 ,''p s . — _-,k. _ . .:3 _ Lala 6 d 1 0 U m O N rn c V ar 0. Lig r i N 0 u W C E S A G f � E PRQJ #: 7 7-1904 FEMA MAP DRAWN: 10/25/1 w RN; ShimB O W D I S H RD AND SANDS RD REVIEWED; TRW o WHIPPLE CONRULTING ENGINEERS SPOKANE VALLEY, WA SCALE: NT5 CIVIL,STRUCTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EXHIBIT - 7 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD O SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99276 W PH:8M-8 3.2517 FM:509.926-0227 g Q SPOKANE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANUAL Pend dreille County Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA) MI Streams&Lakes ,, 3 /.'.17. Tr- . •IN ‘).1 /-' \-_, ,? Townships ti ,�1 ..---.........4--%=.-__� "\.: r? �l , I ....—•- Cities „ ;; : r - r. ° e ' N f� Yl. � it ,,) J;. ^.'-,`. Y1. r} •!f : --1--L tom r. ,'' 1_ J .'ri }f- , • 1 3 1l a lii , r ,►.7 .I'1'd . '. ti — lad !�•• „. 't' tiE +-- j..y�/ '_ ( r. ' .. f•,,;L .[f !'' ` -r..^_ice ° i RI [fir w r 4.+- •M1 "vr V��i rt` �[ 14 :7 r —1--.- •i cy ,-��/ r-1N7-'-''''.. y°c_ / .,J ° _f 11 - T � e. 24 ; . '..0 (1.: t 4iL : ( , , •/..--;;Z.,..,. ."- 1 I rf . 7 {`r, r ` J� �. r • -i t - • -'. .' • *r ,..I f i - • �.� ., r ` fl _, i. ••, _ to • e % ' I !µ_. 1 rr,` ice. i .. FS CE PIir let:t P43F R/1. A1r Whitman County Figure 6-1—Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA) April 2008 Chapter 6—Water Quality Treatment Design 6-2 SPOKANE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANUAL AQUIFER. fC-LeCac SUSCEPTIBILITY Tr—: Il + +o i.r tv +r..+... < 1 }-• --c ry fi•+.ter i 4. . I 5 _-� ▪ t ! f ▪ II P. 46 i. a + f .+ { ►1-... ti rte^ �II 6; + r '-♦i ▪ } -r i � Y� 'yll" •i - • C r 1 % ` rittipo • • +▪ —+II p `-• S' • • -- • .r 4 -- _ + i . _ ` Ii a 4. YYYW/// 4t ♦f t •• •1•1• : I• I. I+ • s - -1--F 1 #..410 d' i -4- -1-7-4'- +- + -+---. • i • -I ° a 1` " 'i',�1�K1r'f 1.' } •▪'`�•1::71:1--sa •r- . -i•--° - I- r -- -1 I. 4 –.-- --4.•+--+—r_- + S 1 (e P. )' —i �+ 4,i•_ - i ' • .-t• +.4-4'R f -*--.-7— T 4 1 •p... 1 1 i „,,,• •,- . . L.;.,• , ,•1•,.,.. .,.,-; •;.,• , • • -,r ii 1••;. 4444 + ,Tt4 r't' • ,,..1 1,2 -+� ;•r•;�,y,F+1 4 t ' , I 'a I•C !•1. 1 f • kir •I• `` • 1 .F f # t. 1 lL�p +:,,,.,;/-,k a `.I •; •I•I•i.•_ 4.-4444"_T�▪!_- •L -.d--1 • # el ' ' Spokane County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas — Figure 6-2—Spokane County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas April 2008 Chapter 6–Water Quality Treatment Design 6-4 COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY a Date Submitted:, -/G/ /i 7 Received by: 77,/.I/1, Fee: :9 /(t 7O PLUS#: File#: (1,09c (7 " COO" PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION 6Map Amendment; or ❑Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Heather Bryant 'Y ECigineeri l MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washington,Suite 500 3 ? 2011 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP:99201 PHONE: 509-481-0809 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: heather@asdsrealty.com PROPERTY OWNER: Steve/Tresa Schmautz MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washington,Suite 500 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 721 S University RD PARCEL NO,: 45212.1349 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial :'ALLEy ZONING DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban F:ii:luN!T y D� °di~Cpli 'i PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): The owners.Steve and Tresa Schmautz,of the parcel located at 721 S.University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have this parcel 145212.1348)zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of Spvkan�ems""~` Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION 1 (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, 1- CAr Cal , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are rc\iii\s. ade truthfull and to the best myknowledge. Y g ) 7.,./ - . 0 griri.A 1 0 0 7/90/3- (Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 . 11V day of arreri pp ,20 j NOTARY SEAL zgl ---;cL--- NOTARY SIGNATURE Duniiiiimilionminimmiliffinicislotary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary Public State of Washington = �J Oki El CARLOS A. HERRERA 2esiding at: �I" MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 01,2019 — T]IIIIiirmiiimIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImillttllin My appointmentexpires: '\if Ui dl7 ZDv LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applic s not the legal owner(s),the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, 16G` ,owner of the above described property do hereby y authorize \-\-erAADD- aV to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL.06 V1.0 Page 5 of COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Sch1 AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 J 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 •Fax:(509)720-5075 ♦permitcenter(t,sspokanevailey.org Year � � €1 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period.Applications are due by November 1 st of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing, The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper, 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption,in accordance with RCW 36.70A,290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow(c spakanevalley.orq) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(a staokenevallev.orq), 509-921-1000. PL-06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 mtr� SPOla Valley COMPREIIENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I -- REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A. Submit the following for MAP AMENDMENTS: .,;❑ Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) 0 Completed Application Form 0 Application and SEPA Fee c. SEPA Checklist: One(1)copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non-Project Action supplemental form. (Note:Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) Q Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note:DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City.Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing,) One(1)copy of a narrative describing the following: iFf 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 inconditions 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. B. Submit the following for TEX-AMENDMENT,§: ❑ Pre-Application Meeting Request(include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One(1)copy of the text proposed to be changed,showing deletions by sN+kethr$ug-h and additions by underline. [] One(1)copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. 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; e. 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 PL-06 V1.0 Page 2 of Narrative for 721 S University proposal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2018 Narrative: The owners, Steve and Tresa Schmautz, of the parcel located at 721 S. University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have this parcel (45212.1348)zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. The proposed change would allow both parcels owned by Steve and Tresa Schmautz to be zoned to neighborhood commercial. Parcel #45212.1349 located at 729 S University was changed to neighborhood commercial in 2017; while the proposed parcel was zoned R-3. Due to the current parcel boundary lines, as well as topography of the parcel, having 721 S University zoned neighborhood commercial allows for a more cohesive master plan in the future. The proposed amendment bears a relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment by allowing the parcel(s) to be developed in such a way as to allow for small-scale neighborhood-serving retail and office uses such as those identified in the Spokane Valley 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. The proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, especially in regards to creating a coordinated and planned growth plan. Although the proposed amendment would affect a portion of the City's adopted plan, it is felt that since with the owner of the adjacent property to the south and partial west is the same, it would be a benefit to the overall plan. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in the current zoning of the parcel completed in 2017; where their adjacent parcel (729 S University) was changed to neighborhood commercial while 721 S University is R-3. Amending the current zoning allows for the property to develop business(s)that fit within a close-knit community. Adding services to the neighborhood within walking distance. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would have minimal impact to the physical environment or effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. The goal would be to eventually develop an area that blends into the community in use and visual impact. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would increase the compatibility with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would have limited impact on the community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools. Small scale neighborhood shops often increase sense of community and loyalty for those within the neighborhood. Should the parcel be developed, the current vision is to develop small scale business that would bring missing elements to the neighborhood at time of planning and development. This development could potentially bring in more jobs to the local neighborhood, but not significantly increase traffic congestion or noise. Increasing this area to neighborhood commercial could add another buffer between the traffic along University Rd. ,Rsaw{ --y: y `...—~ iL lT Ir i i §Rib Ave - E 7tF Avg_ ._. E l' i G ^wnr.h recuh n x int -4 ' _ ¢._ 72,1 s urvivEeslivsr� 1,,,-4- i 'I F ., 1 � .I � � AIS � t ,-'.i / � I�." ____,/ -.: 4., Soutli 11r'- r University Road a f.y 1- r L Y illy 4 eft i4 Aproximate boundary a 4. line for 721 S. University k0to1 - _ - _• �� g -gates E 8th'Ave -- P I ars — 721 S University 5s Schmautz Family Site Plan c Sheet. aposal far Comprehensive Plan Amendment to 721 S Steve/Tresa Comprehensive Plan Amendment \ 'sity, amend to Neighborhood commercial North CONTACT, Heather ALT ®sy©nt HeatehrO5D5REALTY.GOM A 721 S University Rd. ,. C .bas-451—O 9 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 DATE: 10/25/2717 Not To SCALE/ 11x17 ane SETA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240♦Fax:(509)720-5075 ♦ permitcenterr}i,snokanevallev.org STAFF USE ONLY ��° Date Submitted: /(' ,3711/7 Received by:, Xi --!- Fee: PLUS#: File#: C'.F.f} .7G/7-4904/ PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDE❑'* Completed SEPA Checklist t� IL/Application Fee Or ..��'' Hai Reduced Tom; Site Plan of proposal in 8112"by 11"or 11" by 17"size Sr. ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering :,M PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: �` , The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to =, �■ consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS)must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPJCANTS. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS.Answer the questions briefly,with the most precise information known,or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not know"or"does not apply."Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. 138E OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of rrkane SEPA CHECKLIST For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"and "property or site"should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and"affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 721 Rezone to 729 Neighborhood Commercial 2. Name of applicant: Steve/Tresa Schmautz 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 708 W Cliff Or.Spokane,WA Heather Bryant 509.481-0899 heather@sdsreally.com(owner representative) 4. Date checklist prepared: October 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley-Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S.University parcel to be same as 729 S.University during 2017's review period. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion,or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Nothing planned at this time; 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No know applications 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. No know applications 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S.University parcel to be same as 729 5.University during 2017's review period. Propsal would increase functionality and cohesiveness in boundary lines and topography PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of ""`r ane SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 721 S University Rd,Spokane WA;Parcel#4521 2.1348 primarily on the corner of 7th Ave and University Rd.with a portion of it running south towards 8th Ave. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? UnknowrPriority Sewer Service Area?Unknown(See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area(CARA)I Aquifer Sensitive Area(ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of(including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). No changes to current systems 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? No changes to current land use; chemical storage etc. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out ofdisposal systems. No changes to disposal methods; any future changes will follow proper disposal guidelines as provided by environmental agencies 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? None identified at this time PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of CrG��Y�. ane SEPA CHECKLIST pav b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock(if known)? None identified at this time 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. No change to current B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY �) Earth a. General description of the site(check one): ❑flat,Q rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? *1-3-8%estimate c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. gravely ashy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe, unknown e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. No change to current f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so, generally describe. No change to current g, About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No change to current; potentially 50-75% PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of ,�"ol�a` �pSEPA CHECKLIST ne h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No change to current; would use decorative natural features if needed in future 2} Air EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known, No change to current b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No change to current c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No change to current 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. No 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals ordiversions?No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. PL-22 Vi.0 Page 5 of :T,t* SEPA CHECKLIST 4,000Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. No change to current c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? No change to current Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No change to current 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,if any: No change to current P1-22 VI.0 Page 6 of " Ile SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR 4) Planks AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ®deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs n grass D pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑water plants: water lily, eelgrass, rnilfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed oraltered? No change to current c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No change to current; any future changes would include native vegitation; preferably draught tolerate, low water consumption 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: unknown ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. unknown c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No change to current PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of SpOl a SEPA CHECKLIST Valler EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. No change to current; future electric and/or natural gas b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:No change to current; future would include LED fixtures energy efficient items 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? No If so,describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No change to current 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No change to current b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)?None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None PL-22 V1.o Page 8 of n`m. SEPA CHECKLIST 4 ley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Rezone Neighborhood commercial (729 S. University; residential home b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing housing and outbuildings d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? Not for this proposal and/or planned in near future e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R3 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? No If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?No change to current j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No change to current k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No change to current I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: No change to current PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 7[Y(9I SEPA CHECKLIST y EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. No change to current b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. No change to current; potentially 1; middle income c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No change to current 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?Nothing planned at this time; estimate tallest point 16'Iblock or metal siding b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?Nothing planned at this time Any potential building would be setback in potentially similar location as existing building(s) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would incorporate landscaping and natural elements to keep cohesiveness of community; and work into the new 'Appleway Trail` feel 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?No G. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d, Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Sang SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?Appleway Trail b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. University Rd/ 7th Ave; small portion of 8th Ave Foresee potentially traffic off of 7th Ave or property directly on to University to avoid congestion at corner of 8th and University b. Is site currently served by public transit? No If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 7 Blocks c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No change to current PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of *Plane SEPA CHECKLIST '"Malley, d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private). EVALUATION FOR No change to current; potential change from private to public AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so,generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No change to current; unknown expansion at this time; any discussions have been proposing small scale business to serve community homes g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No change to current; any future work would involve work with traffic control and civil to reduce/control 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,police protection, health care,schools, other)? If so,generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: [Kelectricity, I natural gas, ®water, © refuse service, ® telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other-describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No change to current C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: AO,/ j PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of gll po e SEPA CHECKLIST ,soosirValley, Date6' 981 Pio r , I - Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances;or production of noise? No Change to current: a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish, or marine life? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodpiains,or prime farmlands? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No Change to current; PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?If parcels developed for neighborhood commercial,may see minor increase in traffic a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: Evaluating best routes for traffic to move inlout of proposed property should the current land be developed for business use 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No known conflicts E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Address: Phone: Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of e - mai l TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2017 TO: Heather Bryant, SDS Realty PROJECT: 721 S University Road Rezone Dear Ms. Bryant: Thank you for contacting Sunburst Engineering regarding this project. Spokane Valley always requires a trip generation and distribution letter for a rezone. The document created under this proposal will determine the number of trips generated by the site, and in general ways determine where it will go. The trip generation and distribution letter describes the project, the reason for the letter (such as rezone, building permit, etc.) and examines the traffic generated by it and then describes in general ways where the traffic would be distributed. These characteristics will be built upon if subsequent traffic impact analysis become necessary. Once a draft of the completed trip generation and distribution letter is ready for review, a copy will be emailed to you and/or whomever you designate for review. After you have reviewed and approved the document, it will be submitted. During this review please let me know of any changes you would like to the document. I am requesting a budget of $1,000.00, lump sum, to prepare the letter and will bill you after it has been submitted. I anticipate being able to have a draft of the letter ready for you to review within five working days from when the signed proposal has been received. If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and e-mail this proposal back to me. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call and thank you for this opportunity to work with you. Proposal acceptance: L`r�,41111 .A , 0-.10111- Date: 16 I 1,9017 From the desk of... Phone (509) 924-2155 16402 E Valleyway Ave Ann L. Winkler, P.E. Fax (509) 228-9440 Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Sunburst Engineering Vicinity Map CPA-2018-0005 1I _4.ntoinel' — 2e V g ' s a Z a � LL, do 11111 EFra cL4,ase I motif F A L -MIM M V ' :w<_os_s F.tix�> on .. c = =OEM. - - I.liffroallu ,,-,z..2EFFD _o ..----c) ow 1 _ . 4 HN iii u �1``I am ra6r ,pec Melffi , a9�1111�11 ■■ I •. East alley 11 I.. ;. E/— 1_,1_111111 'r l■ii 1�s • �I E est '.0 Senior IMMEI <'.. k =� Trennlood ■■ ir, �Tiddlg 5 hp,„Te anal —1 , oul.. F:I[4E�L _ -C m1��� � ■il J a /c'.FIr.,,, I1■-d_ }s m/ '_ Q —T-1r1 -■i l_. i E1ennerktar. 11614 KM .t �C N1 i■ . ■l _m MEW q. ' ' ii■11 r L F-I�u II did''' c NM ul 4, Ellin1■ ` ■1 u ; . 711 atF a i1Ia� ..ii & i & 11lim =im Ir a s.l ►..� �ii11�'milig r, ■ ■ r 7J�711-�a.c . ar_k..� —rrrrralc:�l1 l�iliihh"ec J1!"WU .i -j� •�ll�■� l F�L ei-Ili',ME MMININ 11.Iw1 x 1 ; ■Ii2I. ar;1111 :•c 1111 � \t � r�1 sir J �s M- IG _ 1 _ 11 a A---' 11 hi ' ■ = �WIli -, 11 Nom 1�� �11Er iii m. ■�� F.I(flrls' ti ■R.rl..k%_ HE 111 111 i ui r F tiw,ii. ii rl.' ,�.,. ',r ,Iii c- ' M■11111■11111111AW _- � 1��1i1111111..15111 l ,, Him 1��� Iy M ■. -1111. = - L 1lI _: I. IIIUllit.r ■■C ILE P..v— F'8-011- arnp 1:'ry.t, ' C ■ MI WWI I IMI Z �R -�.- � � r11 - „L=_, � Mims 0 125L.5 1 Aerial Map r . • ' til +'• P 9 Al110• ig El WAN' 1 Millie 1 t• ,. . omisiii,...,„...,___, .ter te . A r,Vy ,limo _Eeml` i 4 � Y•,x = r# GA II, k - - --<t.':T.,-,..„___A_.4_,..-....;:iii. __,Ilk,i / ......:,-,:-...,,,-.- ----IM w v it,,,,,.. ... , , 1 - - __-,_ m 111111S ,m,_ - ....:,,,,...... ...:, .. . ,,, ilip - . ... Ill...7\ --„. k,__----ii„,.......&. -,;-.-.---- .........„:„......:_. .lt . , . _ CPA-2018-0005 Request: ��++L,I,�; Owner: Five Fifty,LLC&Tupper Inc City initiated proposal to expand ►.7 . . Parcel#: 46352.9052,2.9014, 1.9049, Neighborhood Commercial 4000 Valley 1.9005,4.9127 (NC)designation and zoning to ����''JJ Address: Unknown eliminate split zoning of parcel Comprehensive Plan Map NC SFR SFR E'y+8rAy.. E CrcwnE Cr;;: `S 1 +�y CPA-2018-0005 Request: Sp([I l ut Owner: Five Fifty,LLC&Tupper Inc City initiated proposal to expand 0 ane Parcel#: 46352.9052,2.9014, 1.9049, Neighborhood Commercial(NC) 4000°valley 1.9005,4.9127 designation and zoning to Address: Unknown eliminate split zoning of parcel Zoning Map NC R-3 ,7 cc R-3 z E Evweft Ave E Cr c.ii • 4#� 1 CPA-2018-0005 Request: Owner: Five Fifty,LLC&Tupper Inc City initiated proposal to expand ►.7pokane Parcel#: 46352.9052,2.9014, 1.9049, Neighborhood Commercial 4000 Valley 1.9005,4.9127 (NC)designation and zoning to ����''JJ Address: Unknown eliminate split zoning of parcel Vicinity Map CPA-2018-0006 N �' en �°�� II Ave. 1 . �,e IIII. to�o 4j I]-. 1111 - b E-Olympic fl xl c. East Valley 411 E '•• ct East Senior 0.4 I i_`� °1' Valle !.1.-f-raba.sh,= a y E East Highve m -- �.........� ..._ :����z z gMiddle Valley. � � ���� �m School ')l l `,. ■ �1/'I I I Q l I E Broad Ave BroadF-- o i l l - A,e � '■■■uu■i1 it r u E Eastland C ' ITrentwood I■■■■omms. �x= '��1111 ` � EWellesley Aver � njjjj; � � �� ISk" L� 1 � � ■■ .■ z Elemtary _ z m .M� IV%, I lE Hemy Ave - MI_M_M E Heroi. r��� E, roy Ln; ui. ` �`� 111111 z_--___ z EA ero . I Y i- - v �� Ave ILong allow •z ��b �_ •� ,a•U•••• SIE Lon Ke 11 I I �ng€c11ow to Io I v .. .if rn • �,,,1_��111 Mill I- ve J a i U z ■ OM E Rich Ave II� _ E�L2ich Awe b Z E Rockwell z E Rockwell -1��- m A?' on il©ll•11E1111E11W [l' ----------------- • III IAve( A� 2���� �RapfRamp el L. 11 ....... ����� EPrOngamP — --I. E: -OffRarnp --_ e Z I UW ---___-- Erne .111111 -------- AW E Lacrosse Ln EMI o _ E-Industrial-Park-A-St reiiziw0I lirr , i E Kierna;Ave E Industrial Park B St v E Industrial a _ Park a 1 Z •`� v z 1 :z Z E Industrial Park D St Z I� ===-7.= ===,-------- ---;:====--- _ -- - - it 11' E II n AS E Industrial Park E St01 e E-Such Ave 11 II u E Euclid Ave Miles 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Comprehensive Plan Map Study Area 4 45015.1409 16205 TRENT /AM Trent Ave t 'I CPA-2018-0006 Request: *plane Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC QlParcel#: See Map City initiated proposal to expand 4. ValleAddress: See Map Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation J and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel Zoning Map Study Area • 45015.1409 9Ca=3Q TRENTL? CPA-2018-0006 Request: *plane Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC QlParcel#: See Map City initiated proposal to expand ValleAddress: See Map Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation J and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel k . _ ........ _. _ . ...... . . _ , . , . .i. .. .. , .: i. , _ . , , 4... ,,..,..4, IrermiN . , I ill 4 .E jA. Study Area II , . , AitpLI. j: .mit ft, �. yl r 't4 . *` + T _ s `_ Y 14 45015.1409ll " qtagog TRENTI lir i ' 1 ¢- - "II S A or r 1 1111 1_111111111-111111r CPA-2018-0006 Request: ` "'�T�� Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC pQ e Parcel#: See Map City initiated proposal to expand 4.000Valley Address: See Map Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel tit► SEPA CHECKLIST poiiane SVMC 21.20 40.00ValleY 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5075 •nermitcenter(a)spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 12-18-17 Received by: Fee: N/A PLUS #: File#: CPA-2018-0005: CPA-2018-0006 & CPA-2018-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community& Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley,WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption in May/June of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental Impact Statement was completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No. If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Spokane Valley Council approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) These are non-project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City is initiating three comprehensive plan amendments.. Two of the non-project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. CPA-2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA-2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA-2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). The Spokane Conservation District recently purchased the property and intends to keep it as natural area, with the exception of their offices. The proposal brings the designation in line with the Conservation District's intentions to conserve the land for public use as open space. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. CPA-2018-0005: 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127 (Parcel numbers were updated). Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2018-0007: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505; addressed as 4418 East 8th Avenue; located at the SE corner of 8th Avenue and Havana Street; further located in the north half of the SW quarter of Section 23, Township 25, Range 43, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)?Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area?Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) /Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. a. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential im after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2. pacts. Not applicable. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS applicable. 2) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):❑ flat,❑ rolling, ❑hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Each amendment site has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percentslope)? Unknown. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Valley EVALUATION FOR V AGENCY USE ONLY PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 4) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a Type F stream located northwest of the proposed amendment CPA-2018- 0005. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley Standards 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location (SVSS). on the site plan. 6) Yes, CPA-2018-0005. The property is within a 100-year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. Yes, CPA-2018-0007. The property is within a 100-year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0563D and 53063C0564D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. 7) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Not applicable. Will this water flow into other waters? Not applicable. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of ur+��`kane EVALUATION FOR SAPAI�CMPOKQST 4000 SCI Valley 5 Plants EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ❑ pasture — crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 6) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 6). Energy and natural resources EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Not applicable. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of pakane SEPA CHECKLIST Valley EVALUATION FOR 8). Land and shoreline use AGENCY USE ONLY a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CPA-2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA-2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue(SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. CPA-2018-0007: The property has an office building and several warehouse buildings with the majority of the area vacant. The site is owned by the Spokane Conservation District and currently not occupied. Surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family and multifamily uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Unknown. If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. CPA-2018-0005: None. CPA-2018-0006: 9,375 square foot commercial structure built for office and warehouse use. CPA-2018-0007: Approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial buildings built in 2003 according to the Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel data. d. Will any structures be demolished? Unknown. If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CPA-2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA-2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA-2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CPA-2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA-2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA-2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 0°.#\pakane SEPA\ptalk_ S4000 CI F1 01 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None of the proposals are located within the shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. CPA-2018-0007 is located within a 100 year Floodplain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Not applicable. Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 11 ). Light and glare EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no designated or informal recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity of each amendment. CPA-2018- 0007 will designate additional parks and open space for recreation uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? None known. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. CPA-2018-0005: Is located adjacent to Progress Road. CPA-2018-0006: Is located adjacent to Trent Avenue(SR-290). CPA-2018-0007: Is located adjacent to 8th Avenue. PL-22 v1.0 Page 11 of 15 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley b. Is site currently served by public transit? Yes. If not, what is the EVALUATION FOR approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: At the time of future development transportation will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? The CPA is a non-project action. There are services in the vicinity and anticipated to be available at the time of development. If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, — natural gas, water, i- refuse service, ❑ telephon�0 sanitary sewer, septic stem, .ither- describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. PL-22 v1.0 Page 12 of 15 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is anticipated as the sites develop impacts will be mitigated through the City's regulations and outside entities with jurisdiction. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To be determined at time of development. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? It is not anticipated any site development will affect vegetation or habitats of any kind. Specifically CPA-2018-0008 intent for a zoning designation of parks and open space 2P/OS) is to preserve and protect vegetation and animal habitats. b. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: To be determined at time of development. 2. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It is not anticipated development of any kind would be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: To be determined at time of development. 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? It is not anticipated development would affect environmental sensitive areas, however protect and follow established critical area regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of 15 0°.#\pakane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? It is not anticipated development would affect land and shoreline uses, however protect and follow established regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It is not anticipated development would increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Any impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon the regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: To be determined at time of development. 6. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated the proposal will conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Sig nature: Please print or type: Proponent: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Address: 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5026 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of 15 s11o1 \4mmmlI5111 jUalleyA 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Planning Commission Study Session February 8, 2018 Comp Plan Annual Amendment Process • October 31 , 2017 deadline for applications (60- day notice) Docket • Admin Report — Discuss Process and Introduce Docket — Nov. 14, 2017 • City Council takes action on official docket — Nov. 21 , 2017 • Public Noticin • — •ubli hin • •n • •ostin • on site for Site Specific CPA's a, o ' arming Commission Study Session — Feb. 8, 2018 c •g • Public 'nearing — e.. , • • F, • Deliberations and Recommendations — Mar. 8, 2018 V • Administrative Report T • First Reading 0 0 • Second Reading V Approval Criteria o Required Findings o Other Considerations ❑ Supports public health, safety o Effect on Environment welfare, and protects the o Compatibility and impact on environment existing uses and neighborhoods o Consistent with GMA and o Adequacy and impact on Comprehensive Plan services n Responds to a change in ❑ Benefit to City and Region conditions o Quantity, Location and Demand o Corrects an error for land o Addresses a deficiency o Projected population for area o Other effects on Comp. Plan Comp Plan Annual Amendment Process SVMC 17.80.140 ML Staff Role Planning Commission Role ❑ Facilitates amendment ü Conducts public hearing process r Deliberates and makes o Conducts review and recommendation to City analysis of proposals Council o Prepares reports and public notice Comp Plan Annual Amendment Process SVMC 17.80. 140 City Council Review Within 60 days must consider PC recommendations (Study Session) May hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Rules and notice requirements Council Options Approve Application Disapprove Application Modify (if substantial, must conduct hearing or remand back to PC for public hearing) If approved, move to First Ordinance Reading Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project Number CPA-2018-0001 Applicant: Robin Petrie Owners: Robin R & Lori A Petrie Audrey N Green Application Change the land use description from SFR to MFR and the Description: zoning from R-3 to MFR CPA-201 8-0001 7 6 iie naotW aw Avo OM i 2 v Q . Ts e 2: 2 ,. a 1, ..:, _6 Ei2.:'`.:r.. e. Project Site ::„, „_.. .„..,, . Li 400000,00.0,••••• cs 6C ?[ u cc x z 1, Spokane Spra;ss.�:•� =F'par_1c,.•_r VValley Opportunity .ic' ve tx: 8 a ro a 1. E :'rt.3.r. r. i E 3s t,/, 3 ✓. F 4h A .r. CPA-201 8-0001 8 Valleyway Avenue ,Study Area .%-- if, . .1111 Q 2 , , . . TOM zolconmean 4 < t... - amocig * %. , ammo• Wg s r, CPA-2018-0001if, :. . r `°�' _ Looking west towards Pines Road • t:"4,1101415150,1••,' ...-,,,-.,Y.' '0 'fir �. � wrt . 0 it ' 4' { 0 r Eq1 tv�r . Looking South onto site - ,. r. CPA-201 -8 0001 10 M. W 1 N a Study Area z a = CMU W e a I = MFR W Z 45153.2M Q = SFR12416�E CL 45153.2801 VA L LEYWAY AVE 1 12.402 EI VALLEYWAYAVE O 45163.2835 r 1241'6E U 1 ALLEYWAY AVE CPA-201 -8 0001 ,,,, _1 -- _1. a Study Area Q = CMU } 'L''a11e-ISR 0 = MFR 45153.2836 1'2416 E Z i 45153.2801 VALLEYI�VAY AVE = R-3 -: 12402 E! Z J VALLEYINAYAVE O = � 45153.2835 z 124116_E N r VALLEYWAYAVE 8-0001PA-201 1- <. , . Study Area, Z 0 ,, r ;_ , N - WwEIG .; 14 -~ D4132010 l2t76 E r OVAL14..„ E:YWAY . ,,, .: p 416,-- 1 2y 'AK Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project Number CPA-2018-0002 Applicant: Don Nelson and Char Detro-Foo CLW-n Owners: Char . - . illia qt� '� Wtt Applicati ¢n Change . • - 5184.0903 and 55184.091 from SFR to Descripttoc.: • rridor Mixed Use (CMU) Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project Number CPA-2018-0003 Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers Owners: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Application Change the Land Use Designation from Low Description: Density Residential (LDR) with Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) with Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning classification. CPA-2018-0003 : ..„. .2 •. tl - -.g SCG lyre. I.... m 6 E 14th Awe a rr:P l.Park E 24th Ave a E25th Ave ' m N N , E2Gth xlx•.: `� Vr.r. Q _ E 2 Yth Ave :. ESkyc•ie'r:q,,.. Project Site 2 .. E31' 1 keF ..,, .. . • _,,,...... _.,.,.\. ' E 33 ntl Ave Castle Fa 11. cS ,-- � >MI c • I04 L Q.,. ....-i maran Er ')'••hha d� • _ v Zr; t. Ponderosa V • Neighborhood',, i m L�> . s--. .---a .i ,.. £ a T� s m j VI /4 Tip �.. = Gi' ( , CPA-2018-0003 16 t • 1-1old 'y ~ * -yt,� • t - . i�� I ..----7:„. t �� ,I,.,. .,.. . .,y . . 3y4 , ..i.i. i. " w WI .,,iii- ,. .,._,.. .„_:.1,:.--3---,' .41 Q 7tilliliot . .a \'r. „ a .4 y , i . , . . ,,,,.. .. _._. 1 ikkit',.": ir 7 '111.6,41.'NN. * e. -:.',..--. . . Agit. ,.1, :... ,, :1 , ___ ...... ...tol, .‘t ,„_::,,,,z,. • .....„:„.,,,.. ,.„ .....„,. : * t 'A •' •• A IC , , ti,...„-"-- ,41,..i / •lrir, . ii,I . el* •*(A.V.1l ,..„' ' A 1 baa 'A # , • ,I` # ! «I ry �laf t ~ ,, =�. w I _ fie." 1T_ Q br 7_... is,„, ., S S .1. :. - n . i .. - . .,. ,, -- � . _ ems, �. .4 - _______ bs ,_ • ., • •,...,,,,,„, ... _ - +� �F ,._..i:s.:::..=2:::,...,:. „.._ .,1 ...,„!it. ,:is., .. t AI { +dam ` ' �. �: _:!...A:.;::::, t = !, My LL d: Fl 1 4 1 CPA-201 8-0003 iii_._ ._ . _it 5,a �. _:,� 3.- - ,. _ ' v , .., ,,,gr ,,,,,...... •,,,i.„4- , ..- „, '7'.' w apwl i ii Ilk,— l'' � r _ i . a - r - u w kik --. Sr. 0 ___-..'...-2.''',T,AN„:1; -.r-V.K7;i..>-..ii:g',,, 7-.1.,...,,,S.-..-.:;-:-.;47.7.:-- :..-1..-.'-.-- .--r. - ��� $ tea. � y may, • 0 latial ----tk,.., , : _ ,.._,: • fj ',‘..,,,Ni,,,' a �' Ml i r.-�: • h.ie , \ ltilif yF ._ ' 1 Vs •F l e,r '” _ 44. 0 CPA-201 8_0003 LU > = CMU ._.,,. LLI * , , Ch est er -,- 6, !. = SFR Ce Z f- 11 CM 44 c'ri' CL .,t.: ..., •: , 0 •"1 1., tilli ..— ,, • i.—,• t_t: 4,..... g' ..T.1 1 PA-201 8_0003 E 4,rAye I. = CMU Chest er 7 = R-3 0 - • :„ C PA-20 1 8_0003 >,,.5./ .//w/z......„.„,,.<<..7./..:,,,,< „,..„,,,„ .... i,VOrK,n,:n OM ,2 411:14 :',//.'i:////' ,,///,///,..,,,' '<.:,'?Y co E 2.E 41st'Ave 1 ... /1,,/,',/,//,/,,,,//,'A,.> ,, .•. / - AE Zone — ../ - <•:: - • . • '•. .,. -fee',4_, .c2- •'Z, - . . . • ',_.. ''' k• 0 Chester • . , . •t, ,,•./.,/,,;;:, ''',,,)„. = 0 2 % . v•-x// //,..-2>y ,•„,-;,,, ''''''%,: -- ,..,. i •• ', ., 7. ... Annual Chance ,,,, of Flood 8 '1. t i/v,;" // /;.- -- '-'<c,..,,•< /,-',.2.:/./..<.,',..,,,./7.°:/,,.' ., • - • .;//41';'••-/:'/./7/ /%1,,,./ •* I••'..,-,•,7.-, "--•"/„?=:.0 -/,',/..;.4,<.//,,, ,•z...,,• ,.. •'.,,, -, .. .. . /,-• Flood plain modified Um .. by CLOMR — F . ;.::..,.. March 17, 201 5 \.... ) CPA-201 8_0003 D . O o' ' ...' 4:( 4 chester „, ,.., = Alluvium Soil ›– V) , •-:' .,„,, .1 „cc • . ,,- .1 c, — ict . 'E,,,,r,,,0, O kl .4 F- (,I 0 E . A ai CPA-201 8- 0003 Ask_ii * \_,._..._, a ., y 1.1.1 = Wetland w t/1 ►,est ae,..^�. = DNR Stream N ati r° i :g s Z °.,Y , ► `�\ Wetland Studies a vo isit ). indicate no Ezmm°'°° Fy >> ! wetlands on site; DNR Stream 1.1.1 j located outside . property boundary 13,q: CPA-2018-0003 23 s s mem.'E em.aa M' fa I141N R.0.1%, N 578'.2'E 84.11 R7 I i,, W N V•15•534"w 2442 C 12 II u'+&`+7 w 21..11 Rz)_.. e DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, AS PLATTED AND SHOWN HEREON, WHICH ARE FOR THE PURPOSE DF CONVEYING AND STORING STORMWATER RUNOFF, AND FOR INSTALLING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING DRAINAGE O PONDS AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES WHICH DISPOSE OF AND TREAT STORMWATER RUNOFF, ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO THE CITY OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. Q THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL RUN WITH TI-IE LAND AND SHALL BE BINDING ON AND SHALL INURE _�� ' �'4 �> P E, TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES REFERENCED HEREIN, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. NO MODIFICATIONS Ev • F„'.6 '�40 TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS CAN BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. 0414 I ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE BLANKET DRAINAGE 7 @LANNET CRAJNAIE EASEMENT • EASEMENT (LOT 7, BLOCK 1 SEE SHEET 2), 6 6 1 IEE IIEENCAr N) �' 'r 0 3.6” e515 =OF-WAD 4EC1E1ETNR KiSIO J'CV+J-1' BOKOk�+db18 AND SLN@51rN E511.111W z Ce ' .5 C OF IRIS 9 ST17RY f]NN GE h .,:i" r '..1-59111)7.1:071.1- 0 <-Y-€ IJM - ulkr5155 MINIM O CIM y' i. E 241 k ..c, N CREW 'OW 1f11LRE5 'S. Y� �' -SEE[01116x11 EN[) ao.�� rYSe'E '&56,,,..,-e a • N1 - `---4 -. E 5&S�N B0.CU ta fxi CN S . mit€AyI X F13,REA e M � 4 y , + . `1S' e r. i 00 I'"" 15 g 1 , w `-/ 124 . do �F) 8 -SEEME I '^11,C't 0)4 55:-... N 55.5•0 E aO ION I I . -5-aa4,-4152) -N l4'gir CS=Lb W] N x'{1'16'E 1252 EN3] 1'MI55EE d-Z` 16, '415SOPI° PER RI (SEE RpfE]} ,rip. u CPA-2018-0003 ..„..._ µ - f ..e,.., .____: tt - . ,:-...., - _•-•......- - - ' ,,,o, , U.* -At inorl a. -, i_ _ 1. a""' . 4e,. 4 ,' .1.i• i' ' - . , --rivtll all zi • , .- 1., \ ". ..,_, ._, :1.:, �\ \ v N - id i •. 4 40, 1 !, 114:`,--..,:7*: 1. _ ,‘!1'.. 'fir 4041 W t s.a + ' 5 S, / ]vf' ' . _ _ ,'tet. .. .'4 S T 7 - Q " •' t j �_ _ I6 :fay i,�g�. ` + �C. '�/'�� .,y f,, '0 + �Y jitli 'A,'"•.I.ta . ,frws •Ati jr. Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project Number CPA-2018-0004 Applicant: Heather Bryant Owners: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Application Change Land Use Designation from Low Density Description: Residential (LDR) with Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning CPA-201 8_0004 . . , . 0_ z = z z . z z . P _. City Hall ESpraA 2 E D Ce >, •F l/) a.) x C x >MI _. ig 42 z 4r!,,,L . n E 4th Ave ii =..r,• i tLn Z , ,,,,,, , itl:.Av6i , . ,, g. 9 LE 5th CI L Ail i 11, = r. M ' E 61h Ave e LIP , F 71h Ave c7 ce > ,... Eight Ave Project Site .-; LL ... ,. ,t L IOU: •.: en L 8-0004PA-201 ,. .,,,,:,,,,,, -:..,,,,, ,,,,,.,..,, ,,4,,,,\,4'''..,;',.„,, .,T':' .!,..,- N - „,,,:.•--,--,i,f*'-ii..-...'-' ,.,- :';.••••'-A-,,,,,,---•:..--,,, ,:„.,,..-..,,,-2.,•,,,...:.,..„1,71,....-4, '0,0-•I''''Y',=',T,,:j • K' t+ � _ l4 f, Ian : =:CIM _ 46 - CI . fi _ .4'. ” few. , Z .4., \ ' '.._fr:,-, ,, ' . ,,,,,Q • _ _ _ spy r - sfit W = ate_ T- - _ Q fs. LLJ Z (../I : r CPA-201 8_0004 LU > _ = SFR CL Z 4CE ILI _ = NC CL* 4CE 12.-1 ir 0 U , PA-201 8_0004 = R-3 0 • = NC 0 F 8TH E N E! 8-0004PA-201 ► ' . .. ill -I - � P r `OW w to.. I ., _ . 4 a :•# N t •fredi0 - ... • "'� •u ,Ix � }- pp liellik It D a = t�\LILL117ki r . PP I; • , * isr . 46i a t,;" " _� If .--r-me'' _f , 4 _ CityMap InitiatedAmendment Project Number CPA-2018-0005 Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Owners: Five Fifty, LLC Tupper Inc Application Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation Description: and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). L \,r- ' Project Site CPA-201 8 000 5 �l�`y rr 32 A iirpi. / OM Q41141 IL Z.C5C) 2 . ., , - -„,,, = . r,— ,,,,,,,,,, s.eret A' eJ +� � �y >m *—%= 2 II. .... 2r E certI 4.• :Mill f I. ilk Z a c1: 1;4 ! li" 1 iimPelliiiilim ' ! anP1` 34��aty 43� 4WI' tik - East Ohl f E_ •aka fila E-�ti,shs�}( !—Ftt; East . Valley x Vl ;plz, `� ME IL ■■ ani` fiddle ■ �` 1�lementa�� t:"i it' tti . I-1... � .__ _ _ 1 -.f, ., ■ ;y u;: �_:_, ,FII/ 1Q1'. ,,,.. ,1ev_ ri• J 1 ��rj LME"Mid .111100_ ELK - 7 _.� =r'� 1iI 'LR��.� m F— ti ,- , a.. • P w ,. SSR -_ . 4. CPA-201 8-0005 �� �� . t . 0:_v., 1 Y .b~ ..SII a • •• 1. T 33 11#_'``F + • • 0- >Portion of site is in # . •, r Q the floodplain 2 ., I iTiLl'. ... . '1,A J > 500 foot wide BPA -13 Q easement 1 't -. ZDI - JG - !gap ._ - A ___ lair ark - ,..., .4- 0 < I- Aim: ° NEL fr. a_ CLOMR under review ,, -' VIIIIIIIIM 4,,o;r"' , • - by FEMA to modify Floodplain CPA-201 8-0005 34 e• .• 0 0 CIM - • .. _ CPA-201 8-000 5 35 W a Z Q = SFR W W avo 0 E Crown Ave E CR:: V 4 t:Uueen!Avd,.,w CPA-201 8-000 5 36 a = SFR 0 Z NC 0 E Crcv.n 4 d N 1 //,•--- CPA-2018-0005 A(&&, , ,...........______,,,r/Ae.. W x v e-,,,,,,,,,//// Z = 5fc Q ///////eC;//////e//7//1 3/0„,V 0 = ;,,c .k.ii .,.. 1/://A ' 1,c - et Area of change CPA-2018-0005 N : • 0 z F H T., CityMap InitiatedAmendment Project Number CPA-2018-0006 Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Owners: MPR Spokane, LLC Application Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and Description: zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcel currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). CPA-201 8-0006 40 _Aoki ri _______. I,t East Valley •�. --- C. East 7 i i Senior Project Site 111 CL t Faller rHigL ha,h o� �lliddle Valley -rn *�'�� ��/► �. < i School 2 `,' ��'-— ` 1 I �"° LW eIlesley_Axei■■■U■■■II■■ .: 1 A — - 2 d . T= MiTc Sk. ice. : 1 I iI r � 'r ■ ■■ ��� :Elemental- II `Y 1 • ,r l2- - t ' � /A —E Il o >= ' � y� Ar rntIlkeIMrLNOS,rr �f '"W p=I, - 5 Lila,111 ��l��_ii_�_" f_ i_►,/�1 ell; L _ , ‘ Zftq 111111b' - eta e 71z1 ON 1111111.111101 ,-11411111 "hi p � OaI - -E.-14 1.A• e' ■ F_ LP4 > ---- S kan a1 Iac,O Ln R. - a alleyr •Induclri .Bark-A.5 0� -12 .; f � e I , Z CPA-2018-0006 le 1 '- Study Area 1 r �:_� - .. - -.,,,,Ntr, .. .. . ,_ ... 41 - _ .- . , . , } OM r Q ;moi - ` ➢ Site developed in 2017 . T >Area split zoned is 15 4520:25 14 r feet wide and was - V ,t ._ Q developed with =� pt stormwater facilities. LU I < 4 '._ SR 290) Trent Avenue CPA-201 8-0006 42 0 H 0 _ IN dB INIIN IP MI 1110 1 CPA-201 8-0006 Study area;. 43 W za 450,1511489 W 11620$E = IMU TRE Ta W SFR 0 CPA-201 8-000 6 Study Area 44 0 = IMU 4505 1&1409 16 0 TRE z = R-3 0 N E T eat Ave CPA-2018-0006 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ , In Z ,; 0 H N W , D IN a _ _,...._ • • 0 1, MB ft I- 1 • Ii. • • J , . . Ni 4. - a � • �I • a � o 16 '"" ! seiffiig C PA-2018-0007 .. . II IF - r I 46 1 ,kI . f ) '' '1 .• 1 . - '‘-all' a * • , ; ilk do...-- ..,•-,,* Q • 2 dia ..sysr .... . 01.lsign .4 -. ,. ,.. * _. ,; • . . . 1...irs _ - ``‘tsAI .11319% t ,. ir- _ .' . ' ltr . ik . , *hro:. -..• r sitv F - , '4 # 'ea "" L - et *,e`< c , i �+' NEXTtp Amendment e s - P • October 31 , 2017 deadline for applications (60- day notice) Docket • Admin Report — Discuss Process and Introduce Docket — Nov. 14, 2017 • City Council takes action on official docket — Nov. 21 , 2017 r • Public Noticing — publishing and posting on site for Site Specific CPA's Planning • Public Hearing Commission • De i •era i• • . • • %IP • Administrative Report • First Reading City Council • Second Reading