Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019, 05-09 Agenda Packet
SCITYka ne po Valle k Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. May 09, 2019 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 2019 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily developments. ii. Study Session: STV-2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. iii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT PC ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only As of May 2, 2019 ***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative and subject to change*** To: Commission& Staff From: PC Secretary Deanna Horton by direction of Deputy City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings May 9, 2019 Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0006—Affordable Housing—Lori Study Session: STV-2019-0002—Baldwin Ave. Street Vacations—Connor Study Session: CTA-2019-0002—Marijuana Transport Regulations- Erik May 23, 2019 Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006—Affordable Housing—Lori Public Hearing: STV-2019-0001 —NEIA Street Vacations—Mike Basinger Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002—Baldwin Ave. Street Vacations—Connor Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0002—Marijuana Transport Regulations-Erik June 13, 2019 Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0001 —NEIA Street Vacations—Mike Basinger Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0002—Baldwin Ave. Street Vacations—Connor Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0002—Marijuana Transport Regulations—Erik June 27, 2019 July 11, 2019 August 8, 2019 August 22, 2019 Draft Advance Agenda 5/2/2019 Page 1 of 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall April 25, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley,absent-excused Karen Kendall,Planner Robert McKinley Michael Phillips,absent-excused Michelle Rasmussen,absent-excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins,Office Assistant Hearing no objections,Commissioners Kelly,Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA-2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA-2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: STV-2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation.Ms.Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road. Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation. Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms. Barlow continued,that there is not an application on file at this point, and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies, and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130,19.40.035 and Appendix A,regarding affordable housing. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential(R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51%is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church, school, and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what"share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner, requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max, they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres.Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 9, 2019 Item: Check all that apply n old business I1 new business I1public hearing n information n study session n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0006 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40, 19.60 and 19.65. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050, and SVMC 19.65.130 to allow multifamily development in the Single-Family Residential Urban Zone (R-3) if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, on a property with a church and school, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and other provisions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: The privately initiated proposed amendment creates a new conditional use to allow multifamily development in the R-3 Zone on parcels 10-20 acres in size, in conjunction with a church and school use. Multifamily development under this proposal is allowed only if 51 percent or more of the housing units are used for affordable housing. Multifamily development will be required to meet the residential standards of the R-3 zone, which include both density and dimensional standards, to create consistency with the existing character of the residential neighborhood. The maximum density allowed in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre (6 du/acre). The proposal allows density to be calculated by considering the entire site, including developed areas. Existing site amenities, such as parking and open space, may be shared rather than constructing new amenities to serve the multifamily development. The proposal modifies SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, SVMC 19.65.130 Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential and SVMC 19.40.035 Alternative Residential Development Options - Development Standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone. Under the current zoning regulation multifamily development is permitted in the Multifamily Residential (MFR), Mixed Use (MU), and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zones. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed amendment on April 25, 2019. During the discussion Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant properties within the R-3 zone could be aggregated by a single owner in order to meet the minimum 10 acre threshold. Staff queried the assessor's records and identified several collective properties that could potentially meet the criteria. Staff will present the information at the meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and deliberate on the amendment. The Planning Commission will adopt findings and make a recommendation on the amendment to City Council on May 23, 2019. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report(attachments previously provided) and Presentation RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-2018-0006 Page 1 of 1 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS e1 ftiftft BUILDING&PLANNING Spolne Valley. STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: April 18, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 9,2019,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Privately initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.035, SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130 to allow multifamily development in the Single-Family Residential Urban Zone (R-3) if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing,on a property with a church and school, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and other provisions. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.035,SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT:Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: CTA-2018-0006 Application, attachment and proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.035. SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC 19.65.130. Exhibit 2: Agency Comments BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Application Submitted December 14,2018 Revised Application Submitted February 21, 2019 Depaitinent of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt March 19, 2019 Amendment SEPA—DNS Issued March 22, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 19, 2019 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment creates a new conditional use to allow limited multifamily development in the R-3 Zone on parcels 10-20 acres in size, in conjunction with a church and school use. Multifamily development under this proposal is allowed only if 51 percent or more of the housing units are used for affordable housing. Multifamily development will be required to meet the residential standards of the R-3 zone, which include both density and dimensional standards, to create consistency with the existing Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 character of the residential neighborhood. The maximum density allowed in the R-3 zone is six dwelling units per acre (6 du/acre). The proposal allows density to be calculated by considering the entire site, including developed areas, similar to how density was calculated in the mixed use zones prior to the 2016 Development Regulation update. Existing site amenities, such as parking and open space, may be shared rather than constructing new amenities to serve the multifamily development. The proposal modifies SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, SVMC 19.65.130 Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential and SVMC 19.40.035 Alternative Residential Development Options - Development Standards—Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone. The basis for the proposed amendment stated in the application is to"Support development of affordable housing... consistent with the mission of the church"and"To use underdeveloped land adjacent to churches and schools"for the development. The application and specific language proposed are attached as Exhibit 1. The application materials include the definition of"affordable housing" as it currently exists in SVMC Appendix A—Definitions.No revisions are required to support the amendment. The definition is: Affordable housing:Where the term"affordable"is used,it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one-third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate to extremely low- income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Depai talent of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. Analysis: Currently multifamily developments are allowed in three zones(see Table 1 below).Multifamily dwellings are defined in SVMC Appendix A - Definitions as a building designed for occupancy by three or more families with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. Multifamily is allowed as a permitted use,subject to Density and Dimensional Standards in SVMC 19.70.020(see Table 2 below). Additional standards in SVMC 19.70.050 F and G which specify open space requirements and applicable requirements for development in the Mixed Use Zones also apply. Table 1—Current Zoning Districts that Allow Multifamily Development Parks and Open Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC MU I POS Dwelling,cottage SSSS Dwelling,duplex P P P P Dwelling,industrial accessory S S dwelling unit 'Dwelling,multifamily P P P Dwelling,single-family PPP P P P P Dwelling,townhouse S SS S S Manufactured home park S S The proposed amendment has the following implications in the R-3 zone: Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 1. Allows multifamily development as a conditionally permitted use. Pursuant to SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix multifamily development is allowed in the Multifamily Residential (MFR), Mixed Use (MU), and the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zones. Multifamily development is not allowed in the R-3 zone, except as part of a Planned Residential Development(PRD). The proposal would allow multifamily development in the R-3 zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)and consistent with specific criteria. A CUP is a Type III permit which requires public noticing and public hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner(HEX)pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. A CUP is subject to a specific review during which additional conditions may be imposed to assure compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. A CUP may be denied if the review determines that the requested use is not compatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity or does not meet the criteria set forth in the SVMC. Chapter 19.150 Conditional Use Permits identifies the decision criteria and conditions that may be applied to a project. The CUP process considers consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood character, scale of existing development, public health and safety, potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, and impacts to public facilities or services. The HEX may stipulate conditions to alleviate impacts from the use that are not addressed by the development regulations. 2. Allows multifamily development at a density consistent with the underlying zone. The R-3 zone allows for single-family residential development at an Table 2—Table 19.70-1-Residential Standards urban density that provides flexibility and promotes R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR(1) reinvestment in existing single- Front and Flanking Street Yard 35' 15' 15 15' family neighborhoods. Density Setback is limited to 6 du/ac (see Table Garage Setback 35' 20' 20' 20' 2).Multifamily development is Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 19' allowed in the MFR zoning Minimum district at 22 du/acre and at an Side Yard Setback 5 S' S unlimited density in the Mixed Open Space M/A N/A NIA 10%gross Use zones. The proposal limits area(3) the density to 6 du/acre, Lot Size) 40.000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. N/A consistent with the R-3 zone Lot Coverage 30.0% 59.0% 50.0% 60.0% but allows the density to be calculated based on the entire Maximum Density 1 dulac 4 du/ac 6 dulac 22 dulac site including the developed Building Heightn 35' 35' 35' 50' portions of the site. While the multifamily development would be clustered on the site, the overall development would not exceed the density anticipated for future development within the zone. The impacts to transportation, services and utilities, would fall within parameters contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan for the R-3 zoned areas. Allowing the multifamily development to occur at the single family density would not result in additional population, trips, or demands on services, but establish a flexible opportunity to cluster the housing rather than provide for it on individual lots. 3. Increases affordable housing opportunities in the City of Spokane Valley. Generally, multifamily development provides an affordable housing option for renters versus renting a single family home. Although the rent price is market driven, the rent can be influenced by the cost of construction. Multifamily construction is generally less costly than single family construction for a variety of reasons which include shared infrastructure such as driveways, curb cuts, yards, utility service connections, and parking. Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 Ensuring affordable housing alternatives to meet the needs of the community is considered in the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Providing a broad range of housing choices to meet the varying needs of City's income levels is specifically provided for in the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal specifically requires that at least 51 percent of the units must be used for affordable housing. According to the City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element the median household income in Spokane Valley is $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings, and almost one-third of the City's residents earned between $25,000 and $50,000 annually. It was further noted that 51 percent of renters were cost burdened by rent, meaning that housing costs are greater than one-third of their income. Affordable housing continues to be a need in the City of Spokane Valley. 4. Allows Multifamily development where amenities may be shared The proposed amendment restricts the opportunity for multifamily development to sites that are developed with a church and school that are 10-20 acres in size, or to a proposal that contains all three elements. The proposal allows for parking and open space to be shared to efficiently utilize the existing amenities without overbuilding. In the case of existing developed school and church sites,the uses already provide adequate parking areas and open space that is vacant during the off hours. Sharing the parking spaces and drive ways avoids the overbuilding of hard spaces and minimizes the need to handle stormwater created by more paved surfaces. Church and school sites typically have significant grounds for play areas, fields, or passive open space areas that are generally used by the neighborhood and could also serve the needs of the multifamily tenants. If a new development were proposed the "shared" amenities would be determined through the CUP process to determine adequate areas or parking requirements. Since the proposal requires single ownership of the school, church and multifamily development for the life of the project, the owner would be responsible for any limitations on open space use or parking that conflict between the tenants, school or church uses. 5. Has limited application to existing church sites due to the criteria. The proposed regulation has limited application. The criteria requires that the site be 10-20 acres in size and developed with a church and school. A review of properties citywide identified 75 parcels are church owned;25 of the church sites are located in the R-3 zone,and 2 sites are greater than 10 acres in size. Those two sites are St.John Vianney Catholic Parish,located at 503 N.Walnut Road,and The Carmel of the Holy Trinity,located at 4027 S.Wilbur Road. The Carmel of Holy Trinity site is 20.3 acres in size and technically exceeds the property size criteria, and does not have a school. However, these results could change as churches develop schools, or acquire more property. Additionally, it should be noted that the proposal is not limited to existing church sites. A new development containing a church, school, and Multifamily affordable housing could be considered through the CUP process. In any case, it is not expected that this would be used as a mechanism for private development of multifamily by parties other than religious institutions intending to provide housing consistent with the church mission. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has identified specific goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support the proposed amendment. In addition to the applicant identified goals and policies, staff notes that H-G2 and H-P2 also support the amendment. The Applicant noted the reason for the code amendment is that Spokane County has a high demand for affordable housing, and that a significant deficiency of affordable housing exists. The application further notes that the amendment allows churches to use underdeveloped land to further the Church's mission to provide for vulnerable individuals. Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and identified that the proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-P 14 Enable a variety of housing types Goal H-G 1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. Goal H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Policy H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre- fabricated homes, co-housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Policy H-P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. Policy H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has identified how the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment by providing affordable housing for low income renters. In reviewing the proposed amendment, staff believe that the amendment creates regulations that are consistent with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would create an opportunity for religious entities to provide alternative and affordable housing options in the R-3 zone. The amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The Notice of Application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. On March 28, 2019 comments were received from the Growth Management Services Division of the,Washington State Department of Commerce supporting the amendment and noting consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Countywide Planning Policies(see attached). No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the amendment and that the amendment is supported by the Washington State Depaitnient of Commerce. B. OVERALL CONCLUSION Staff finds the proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. Page 6 of 6 Sliolane j�alley Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing CTA-2018-0006 May 9, 2019 PROCESS : : '� 'JLO Study Session Administrative o •� April 25, 2019 c Report TBD a,' N = : •--' el a O W N © Public Hearing L� Ordinance 1st = : May 9, 2019 Reading TBD Po il ta : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd CiJ ll May 23, 2019 Reading TBD 1.4 © pi 4 .' Ner AI A A Today Proposed SVMC Amendment - Overview 3 El 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted use matrix Add "S" in the R-3 zone column — provides supplemental regulations for Multifamily development ❑ 19.65. 130 — Supplemental Use Regulations — Residential Add supplemental use language for multifamily development 19.40.035 — Development Standards — Multifamily in the R-3 Zone Add applicability section and criteria to be met for the site and building, and other related agreements Proposed Amendment SVMC 19 . 60. 050 -iim ■ I Permitted Uses Matrix Add an "S indicates the use Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial is permitted R-1 R-2 R-3 I MIR MU CMU NC RC !MU I subject to ae.el'-,g. ccqage SS S S supplemental use 1l,f;el . duplex F regulations. Dwel -g. i-rdu :vial accesso S S dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily C7b) F' F F Dwelling. single-family F F P F' F F F Dwelling. townhouse S S S S S Manufactured Dome park S S Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19 .40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R - 3 Zone A. Applicability. "May be permitted if at least 51 % of the units are used for affordable housing and subject to" additional criteria . Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19 .40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone Key Site Criteria al Other Site Criteria 1 . One parcel under single ❑ Natural amenities and ownership; all uses located on same topographyshall be parcel 2. 10-20 acres incorporated into design 3. Entire site utilized to calculate All buildings, including maximum density of 6 du/acre parking structures, shall 4. Shall include church and school have design continuity 5.Parking and open space may be Pedestrian areas shall be shared delineated and protected Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19 .40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone C. Building Meet the residential standards in Table 19.70- 1 for the R- 3 zone Minimum lot size not applicable Development shall provide 10% gross area of the site for open space Add supplemental use language for building development. Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options ■ 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone D. Other Agreement is required ensuring compliance with conditions — to run with the land Affordable housing shall remain for life of project Add supplemental use language for Agreement. Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development standards — Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 Zone E. Permit Type Shall require a Conditional Use Permit Add supplemental use language for Permit Type. --,. Vacant Sites Meeting Criteria „_,... , • (Size, Zoning and Ownership) .,,.,----;-r------' _ _ __ �., - , , . Pknp pvd �— - •,..EucII Pep ■ ' £u kap Aa. Mn —, • 8 potential sites -_ ._---- - identified r c ° . r g-k ;3 £ -- • Represents a i I. • - , y _ -� ro z - , snapshot of .. I -- property and 0 z 1112 ,7 T.-_-------4). g �`--�i ownershipr..._1— �u. — ,., • Circumstances are 6�:IP� constantly ' �°A changing - e\., � Legend �� •' � � vacant parcels- 10+acres Additional sites a can be -_�gth A� ' Lakes/Rivers aggregated ..” Appleway Trail Centennial Trail IM City of Spokane Valley NEXT STEPS : : �� 'JLO Study Session Administrative o •� April 25, 2019 c Report TBD a,' N = : •--' el a O W N © Public Hearing L� Ordinance 1st = : May 9, 2019 Reading TBD Po il ta : endings of Fac Ordinance 2nd CiJ ll May 23, 2019 Reading TBD 1.4 © pi 4 .' Ner A A Today 12 QUESTIONS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 9, 2019 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session — street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate 669.08 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225.49 feet of University Road and 19.90 feet of Glenn Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 08, 2019 from Circle M Family Properties, the owner, requesting a street vacation of 669.08 feet in length of Baldwin Avenue, 225.49 feet of University Road and 19.90 feet of Glenn Road ranging from 50 to 64 feet in width. The total area to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue is approximately 40,144 square feet, the area for University Road is approximately 12,926 square feet, and the area for Glenn Road is approximately 878 square feet. The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to four parcels (45084.1314, 45084.0401, 45093.1519 and 45093.2401). The property owner is making a request for the following reasons: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45093.1519 & 45084.0401 owned by Circle M Family Properties accounts for the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-ways; and 3. Interstate 90 intersects University Road and Glenn Road to the north hindering future right of way connection and Baldwin Avenue right-of-way is offset from the constructed Baldwin Avenue to the west which prohibits connection. On April 9, 2019 the City Council passed Resolution 19-007 to set a public hearing date with the Planning Commission on May 23, 2019. The street vacation process is prescribed in 22.140 SVMC and conducted following the City's process of presenting three times each to Planning Commission and City Council. Staff will discuss the project and the process at the May 9th meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the street vacation on May 23, 2019. RPCA Study Session for STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application material 2. PowerPoint presentation RPCA Study Session for STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 STREET VACATION APPLICATION rrrti c SVM0 22.140 Valley . Community Development — Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 i planning9spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: 2- Fee: PLUS#: File#: Ty ` PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL RECEIVED "THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED`" MAk U b 2019 ❑ Completed Application Form ▪ Application Fee CSV PERMIT CENTER ❑ Notice of Application Packet (17.80.110) —Adjacent Property(ies) SUB # REV. ❑ Written Narrative — A written narrative describing the reasons for—Me—proposed -s physical lim.ts of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. ▪ Written Correspondence from Utility Purveyors Telephone Cable Electric Other(Specify ) Water District Fire District Gas Utility Sewer Utility O Vicinity Map— Submit a map showing the general area of the proposed vacation ❑ Record of Survey, if available, for the subject street and/or al ey proposed for vacation, and abutting properties, streets and alleys within 100 'eet on all sides of the proposed vacation. Ei Written Evidence of all easements, allowances or reservations, if available, pertaining to the street and/or alley proposed for vacation. PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Brett Griffith MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99206_ PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: bgriffithOwhipplece.com PROPERTY OWNER No. 1: Circle M Family Properties, Brandon Michielli MAILING ADDRESS: 2123 N. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valley STATE:WA , ZIP: 99216 PL-15 V1.0 Page 1 of 3 (-I1111.11111"\ftlekSTREET VACATION APPLICATION 4••••*Valley PHONE: 509-928-3255 [FAX: CELL: EMAIL: brandon@spokaneiandscape.net PROPERTY OWNER No.2: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: , FAX: CELL: EMAIL: If more than two(2)abutting property owners, include information and written authorization on a separate sheet of paper for each. NAME OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road & University Road DIMENSIONS OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: Baldwin=60'wide, University E. ROW to Glenn W.ROW l Glenn =60'wide, Baldwin S. ROW to 1-90 S.ROW/University=50'wide, i-90 S. ROW—225.50'south SQUARE FEET OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: —53„948 S.F. ABUTTING TAX PARCEL No(s).: 45093.1519,45084.0401 &45084.1314 ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PARCELS: Unknown addresses ZONING DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use THE FOLLOWING Is CRITERIA EVALUATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FORMULATING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHALL BE ANSWERED IN A DETAILED MANNER; 1. HOW DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? 2. IS THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW AND/OR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN. 4. How WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES.(SPECIFY)? 6. DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES(SPECIFY)? PLEASE NOTE: PER RCW 35.79.040 (TITLE TO VACATED STREET/ALLEY), THE PROPERTY WITHIN A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BELONG TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE-HALF (1/2)TO EACH. THEREFORE, PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION. PL-15V1.0 Page2of4 �""`" ��/T vSTREET VACATION APPLICATION � � 1 Q ■a1 iey PER RESOLUTION 07-009 OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES FOR STREET/ALLEY VACATION PURSUANT TO ROW 36.79.030 PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of owner or authorized representative) I,Rfurjon )1J\ € )II , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. -rSignaturet (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE j SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this b day of (C,.y 1 , 2019 NOTARY SEAL OT. `Y SIGNAT E ,00,0msriiarlrrrr r, S‘`‘‘1309)1) ''',, Notary Public in and for th- State of Washington 1 ..• d,�`.S �'� S. Residing at: .]+`°1'C{VW COZ- /1 '�- `•• ••' � 1 . . Z3z 0 `� F My appointment expires: �,hrlrrrrrrrS rA. ,o`', WO LEGAL OWNER Na 1 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement: I, _ _ ,lam , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize 6/r.,4 to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. LEGAL OWNER NO. 2 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; PL-15 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STREET VACATION APPLICATION - NARRATIVE 1. How does a change of use or vacation of the street/alley improve service to the public? A change of use or vacation of this street will improve service to the public because the street is geographically separated from the City of Spokane Valley by Interstate-90 from the North and a large slope from the south just north of Mission Ridge 2'Addition,and should have been vacated when 1-90 was extended through the area.This vacation would also increase tax revenue(Land Use Tax)for the City,turning public right-of-way into taxable land. 2. Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access?(Explain) The subject street is no longer required for public use or public access. Parcel#45093.2401 is essentially land-locked with no reasonable means of access.The proposed project plans to provide a utility easement to Parcel#45093.2401,therefore access will also be provided through a proposed drive aisle of the project.Parcel#45093.1519 has access from University Road.The City has also mentioned no interest for an overpass at University Road over 1-90.Current road improvements also stop South of Baldwin Avenue,at the proposed vacation limits per the exhibit attached. 3. Would substitution of a new and/or different public right-of-way better serve the public? (Explain) No, a substitution of a new/different public right-of-way would not better serve the public due to the geographical separation(as explained in Question#1) and no interest to the City of Spokane Valley(as explained in Question#2). 4, How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions?(Explain) The use/need for this right-of-way will not be affected by future conditions because WCE already has a"conditioned" project. 5. Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities?The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies?(Specify) No easements were found in the subject area;therefore, no easements will be retained for underground/overhead utilities. Utility companies servicing the subject area include:County Sewer, Modern Electric Water, Century Link,Comcast,Avista.(Refer to correspondence with Utility Purveyors included in application packet). 6. Does the right-of-way include stormwater drainage facilities? (Specify) No,the right-of-way does not include any stormwater drainage facilities. Pro � Project /XV- ,9-Nq-C� 1_-- , RECEIVED MAR 0 8 "LlliS CSV PERMIT CENTER Page 1 1 SUB # , REV. # Spvkan.000 � Val ley NOTICE OF APPLICATION MAILING PACKET Project 1_`=0 l`7_ I MEMORANDUM RECEIVED ff To: Title Company MAR 0 8 2019 FROM: Department of Community Development, Planning Division SUBJECT: Notice of Application Owner/Taxpayer List CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB #! j REV. # 1 IJ Please furnish a list of the owners and taxpayers of record of all properties adjacent to the proposal (or total adjoining ownership; including optioned land, to the extent known) as outlined on the accompanying Spokane County Assessor's map(s), FILE No, : FART III TITLE COMPANY AND APPLICANT CERTIFICATION TITLE COMPA lY CERTIFICATION, I do hereby certify that the following list of names and addresses, consisting of the attached pages from the Spokane County Assessors or Treasurer's most current computer records, is to the best of my knowledge correct. I also certify I have provided loan numbers, if possible. when the owner is listed as a finance company. Signed by: Debbie Richardson Date: 2119/2019 Title Company Official) For: Spokane County Title (Company Name) APPLICANT CFRTIFICATION I. the applicant or agent for the applicant, have verified the attached ownership list with the attached Assessors map(s) and find that all tax parcel numbers adjacent to the project site, including owned or optioned land as shown on the Assessor's map(s) have been listed by the Title Company. Applicant: 1 WI Pfte CONSUoING 1A16 L,(ECOS (Print Name) Signed by: Date: — I — I I PL-33 V1.0 Paye 3 o` 45084.1314 45084.0401 45093.1519 Circle M Family Properties LLC University View Estates Pud Owners Circle M Family Properties LLC Assoc 4107E Broadway 4107E Broadway Spokane, WA 99202 1806 N Oberlin Rd Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 45093.2401 Thomas Flake 4729 View Cr Everett, WA 98203 L=50.34', R=11350.00' ti20 r CITY REQUESTED I`�rTERS TATE_9Q o - `1 a STREET VACATION o o „1to 0J, C APPROXIMATELY TAX PARCEL TAX r� r 12,926 S,F. 45093.1519 PARCEL E-- \,-, r #45093.1519 14.00' 19,90 12' 0�fi 509.12' 7 ////////////t/ / �/ /77,/,/ iiiii,,,,ir ir. BALIf1jiii lift r1V/ti (INDIANA AVENUE? / / 0 -32' ~"` o /..&i////////.t/i!/7 /7.f/////f/.././7/ °o',o ID DEl n PROPOSED STREET VACATION APPROXIMATELY 41,022.45 S.F. 1° Pfl14L1 TION JJ1//JPJ///1//J/✓A!/_LI////!/1//JJIt////Jf/!( CI a o 0 569 08' Cg Er-1:1 64.00'\1/4\_ 4.oa' TAX PARCEL {45493.1519 I� VACATION LIMITS PROPOSED 5.0 FEET TAX PARCEL FROM ENO OF ROAD W #45093.2401 IMPROVEMENTS Ly cnrn 41 10 11 12 `a I f I 1 f SULLIVAN z I04 I w J I �_ I a MISSION RIDGE 2ND ADDITION ADDITION _ ^ NORA AVENUE 4 MISSION RIDGE FIRST ADDITION ___________—� 1 PROD #: ]a-2207 N DA REVIEWED $Y,TRW - _ - TE: 03-0s- EXHIBIT !B!T AWC-E ❑R,aF-r€L7 BY: BAG PROPOSED S T R E E T VACATION R BA L D W I N AVENUE Wk{pPLE CONSUET1NG ENGINEERS SCALE: ; - {01:1 E SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 21SPINES ROAD SHEET 1 OF' SPOIKANE VALLEY,WA 99206 PI'50g-a93 25:7 FAX 509-928-0227 Project # k [4? RECEIVED MAR 08 2019 CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. # [ Ryan Andrade From: Ryan Andrade Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 PM To: 'Chris Wafstet'; Bryan StClair; 'Harvey,Traci'; 'Depner,Colin';; 'mark.welch@centurylink.com'; 'bryan_richardson@comcast.com'; john.luse@avistacorp.com'; 'michael.truex@avistacorp.com' Cc: Save Whipple (save@whipplece.com); Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Attachments: 2207-STREET-VACATION-MAP-030119.pdf All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation,on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, _ Ryan Andrade, EIT Project #6--)51V-900 -t03 Civil Engineer RECEIVED Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc, Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 MAR 0a 21119 'ANC E e CSV PERMIT CENTER Whipple Consulting Engineers SUB # REV. WCE pnavxfes Land DeveJc tnern seowe5 in the foliar ig areas.Land Strrreysg.CrvI. Svucfwat and Traffic Engt eer xg.+La+7d Pianr.np and Landscape Afchitecture. 7t""th p+rwx Road.!pOkanr Vohsy.WA 497,36 WhvpLCF co+r+ Ird •+•' Li 1 Ryan Andrade From: Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Kosehalk@avistacarp.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:34 PM To: Luse,John; Davis, Blake; Byus, Dave; Ryan Andrade Cc_ Save; Brett Griffith Subject: RE: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation To All: There are no gas facilities that would be affected by the vacation of Baldwin. No objections. Robb Koschalk, Customer Project Coordinator 1411 E Mission Ave MSC-060, Spokane, WA,99202 R 509.495.2034 1 C 509.280.7383 www.avistautilities.com .rr.,III5TA 81111Mme Nun Mow Call Mho yea dig. From: Luse,John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 3:09 PM To: Davis, Blake<Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com>; Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com> Ryan Andrade <randrade@whipplece.com> Cc:Save<save@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith<bgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb c Robb.Kosc ha 1 k @ avi staco rp.co m> Subject: RE; [External] 2207 -Circle M Street Vacation I will differ to Robb for the gas response. Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator VISTA r'1_I Gu.x fa'i C.-SL, Spokane.WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave. Spokane.WA 99202 P 509.495 2967 1 C 509.795.9150 http:ffvvww.avistauttlities nom 8" From: Davis, Blake Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:36 PM To: Byus, Dave<Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com>; Luse,John<John.Luse@avistacorp.com>; Ryan Andrade trandrade@whipplece.com> Cc:Save save@whipplece.com3; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece.com,; Koschalk, Robb r Ro b b.Ko scha I k @ avista co rp.co m> Subject: RE: [External] 2207-Circle M Street Vacation To All, No objections from the Avista electric side. Thank you Blake Davis Customer Project Coordinator any PO Box 3727 MSC-40 Spokane,WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave. Spokane WA 99202 P 509.495 2211 C 509.795.9554 http./lormu.aostautrlities.com �r.wilfia M�.wdr This email(including any attachments)may contain confidential and privileged information,and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited if you are not an intended recipient.please notify the sender and delete this email from your system.Thank you. From: Byus, Dave Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 1:47 PM To: Luse,John<John.Luse@avistacorp.com>; Ryan Andrade crandrade@whipplece.com> Cc: Save csave@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith<bgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com>; Davis, Blake<Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207- Circle M Street Vacation Ryan, I reviewed the area of Baldwin Ave you are wanting to vacate and have no issues with the request. I believe Modern Electric is the primary service provider for electricity and Avista is the primary service provider for gas. We dont have any gas facilities installed in this portion of Baldwin Ave. I could not locate any easements other than the utility dedication from the original Sullivan Addition plat which I have attached. Unless John, Robb. or Blake have an issue with something I have overlooked 9 would not oppose this request to vacate this section of Baldwin Ave 2 Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks Dave Byus Real Estate Representative ii i1'1STA PO Box 3727 MSC-25 Spokane,WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave. MSC-25 Spokane,WA 99202 P 509-495 2013 C 509 993.7852 http:/fwww..avistautllltl es.corn This email(including any attachments)may contain confidential and privileged information,and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited If you are not an intended recipient.please notify the sender and delete this email from your system.Thank you From: Luse,John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 10:25 AM To: Ryan Andrade<randrade@whipplece.com>; Byus, Dave<Dave.Bvus@avistacorp.com> Cc:Save<save@whipplece.com3; Brett Griffith<bgriffith a@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com,; Davis, Blake<Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207 -Circle M Street Vacation Ryan, I believe the gentleman you are looking for would be Dave Byus. Dave is the Avista Real Estate Rep for the area. Dave,are you aware of this vacation or have any insight for Ryan? Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator VISTA. PO Box 3727 MSC-46 Spokane.WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave. Spokane.WA 99202 P 509.495.2967 C 509.795.9150 http:lhtvww.avistautilities.com 3 .•..�a.ww. From: Ryan Andrade [mailto:randrade@whipp[ece.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 1:47 PM To: Chris Wafstet<cwafstetPrnewco.com>; Bryan StClair<BStClair@mewco.com>; Harvey, Traci <HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; Depner, Cohn<CDFPNER@spokanecauntv.orga; mark.welchPcenturylink.com; bryan richardson@comcast.com; Luse,John <John.Luse@avistacorp.com>;Truex, Michael <M ichael.Truex@avistacorp.com, Cc: Save rsave@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith<bgriffith@whipplece.com> Subject: [External] 2207 Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation, on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements,then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, Ryan Andrade, ElT Civil Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers Inc. Phone: 509.893.26 J.7 I Fax: 509.926.0227 „IWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers WCE p'ovrdes land Development serv+ces ,n the fotroevrrig areas Land Sdrverng.C►wr. Structural and Trare En incenng,Land P4.xr:rnnq and tandscape Arch,tecture, ?7 South P.M%P9ii•S*OMane VRtocy W. WhilliarCt cam cr3 D USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE'The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addresseels)and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient,or if this message has been addressed to you in error,please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 4 • . . Ryan Andrade From: Welch, Mark <Mark.Welch©CenturyLink.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:53 PM To: Ryan Andrade Subject: RE: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Hi Ryan, Looks like we have no facilities in the area of your project. Let me know if you need any more information... Thanks! 1-90 1 Ce g•_2iiiie.,_.-f.-0`,1-• - E BALDWIN LN )1- il 7 _zco 0 - 0- 0 LE E, _.,____,.= , re Loo 0—, 40, .____.....___ I.O cc :fill > Z II 1 1 Mark Welch Engineer II 904 N. Columbus St., Spokane, WA, 99202 tel: 509.835.4604 cell: 509.703.2705 mark we1chi[centuryiink corn CenturyLink From: Ryan Andrade [mailto:randrade@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 PM To: Chris Wafstet; Bryan StClair; Harvey, Traci; Depner, Colin; Welch, Mark; bryan_richardson@comcast.com; john.luse@avistacorp.com; michael.truex@avistacorp.com Cc: Save; Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation, on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this, Thank you, Ryan Andrade, ET Civil Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 Whipple Consulting Engineers WCE p ovules Land Oe.edcpmera swnr+res n Ilse folowing areas.Laanr!SUrvryrriy,Cm( structural 40.4 Traffic Er±gineetrng.Land PPannung and LiligkrCape Aich4ecture. ., .;•ithP•r. F•,:.r7• antVo;.-' W.' S`72o$ WitOrrIPCE con LI This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 2 4 t.1 COMCAST March 1, 2019 Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc ATTN: Ryan Andrade 21 S Pines Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Vacation of right of Way. Circle M Street Vacation Comcast has reviewed the vacation request. We have no objections to the vacation. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, / r n Rithardkon i• Contractor Coordinator for Comcast Cable,. Spokane (509)755-4717 1717 E Buckeye Spokane,WA 99207 www.comcastcorporation.com Circle M Properties Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Study Session May 9, 2019 j• y � 1 1 _____ _ ----7 i -- \ \--- f' ,VIcInItyMapjEEiL-_ ,,,,„,___ .. University Road, Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road r______ _ _ street vacation E 1NniArA Ro no G r --.1i L_Cr 1I CMJRA .1}- \ii N. Z' IN L }` \I • __ — p ._.s-4�v- _ '1 r ITh 1 IF l .IN J----E roissioNA,.—,–E— E MISSION AVE _ e. I JJJ - II ;' k , hm u. L millill I k3,71 ' , 4 T � .'if�l. y -� �_ ti� 1 T-.R,� I Q Spokane r. L �� — Valley , Fn-WIC C�fl: "i t� I�T . #EI.� hlTr, RD , rr �--y f. E'-1.`:T.]�I� 2 Process tu 1,1 : 5 te .- ,- cu cttcJ N Study Session ': ,m$ o M •° 5-9-19 • `� moo/ CSC y N '~ CA CJ w • - 5 Public Hearing Administrative cs : 0 5-23-19 Report '' .. •,� c d �7 4., an ., E o 0 U .E Findings of Fact t, Ordinance 1 st .. c U 6-13-19 U Reading o a au = p4 Ordinance 2nd Reading iv' leer _ A Today o.'°%41 ..,�' Valley �: dill 3 Background Street Vacation - • SVMC 22. 140 The complete or • RCW 35A.47.020 partial abandonment statutory authority for or termination of the public right to use a cities g street hi hwa or • RCW 35 .79 provides g y, public service procedural framework easement. to cities Spokane Walley �� ■ 4 Street Vacation Considerations : STAFF REVIEW: • Street connectivity L=50.74,R=11360.06' IF! \20 CITY REQUESTED !NTE STAT , 90 g$ Sl4EEr VhCpiicN Traffic volumes PVRaXiNn�eY ' PAR,EL TAX PARCEL • m Iz,az6 s.�. 445093.1519 �'45093.1S13 A_00' 603.1.1122' '990'J � ��`� 7S1iOS INDIANA AVENUE?),�/��N'm @.s2' �/{�/1J//1 t�f� ll�ff/l/ EfENIIOM • Future development a n d access �� PROPOSED STREET YpCATION 9.06'IMA ELb 41 022.45 5lF ppm 669.08 q O. 64.1 a' TAX PARCEL #45093.1519 �C VACATION L1MIT5 Z V PR6PosE6 5.4 EEET Z¢ TAX PARCEL. FROM END OF ROAD W? //45093.2401 POTENTIAL CONDITIONS TO CONSIDER: B0' IMPROVEMENTSI a I I I 1 I� 5 o 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 i 7 i 6 I 8 I l0 IL I 12 13 114 SULLIVAN P,` ,G I • Utility and access easements z _ MISSION !RIDGE 2ND'ADD'ON ADDMON NORA AVENUE' » • Removal of portion of street vacated -a-,e N -- MISSION RIDGE FIRST ADDITION O EXHIBIT AWC E RE+IEwEoaY.Tflw PROPOSED STREET VACATION BALDWIN AVENUE �+,p,u cw1su�mcwr®e • Design/construct road improvements SHEETIDEI SPOKANE VALLEY,WASH I NGTON Spokane Walley. 4. 411 5 Proposed Street Vacation : 114 Lr ? AL '"'5°I'-''''YBaldwin Avenue Glenn Road _n AR , , . ,, r e University Road IrilW .. '-ouWiNglic 1F. E 1 a...i,...p4,_. , „,: ,, - . iff_ _ # (11 _ 0 ° . , .. x kik r` .,�. 1: - 1 1" ,+. ...4 'h1+ g Ar iso, , - lii1 . Airj{ L ,ti fi .rkt Valley 41 6 Reasons for Request The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; fThe vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties; and Interstate 90 prevents future connection with unimproved right-of-ways. See Fehr & Peers (2015) Transportation Analysis regarding the cost and feasibility of a University Road overpass. lley 4! 411 7 - .err-- If _ ''�'7 ' r Y J i 1$IW,111i' ' 'it .. , , rr d r WOO Jr tikkam --.„.--- ... . 11' -3•' ' ... -,.. imaiii _.Iit -- e joi■ O Q 0 LIE CI Sari 0 ns ,.... ___._...„...............r ..... , , .... x� ,_ . . ..... ''.. _a at __ , _ . ..., , . _. _ : ftir T- r _ s ,� Valle 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 9, 2019 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2019-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session— Amendment to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Appendix A—Licensed Marijuana Transport Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations governing the zoning and limits on licensed marijuana transportation businesses in the RC, IMU, and I zones and to add related definitions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106;RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); WAC 314- 55-310; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; Chapter 19.60 SVMC; Chapter 19.85 SVMC; PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None by Planning Commission; City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.60.050 and chapter 19.85 SVMC for the zoning and buffering of licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail sales. City Council heard an administrative report on state law requirements for licensed marijuana transporters on November 20, 2018. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2018, City Council received a citizen inquiry regarding allowing licensed marijuana transport businesses within the City. City Council heard an administrative report on November 20, 2018,and determined to forward the matter to Planning Commission. Currently,the City allows licensed marijuana production,processing, and retail sales pursuant to chapter 19.85 SVMC. The City prohibits all other marijuana uses, except for certain limited home medical marijuana use. Pursuant to RCW 69.50.382 and .385, and rules promulgated by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB)in WAC 314-55-310, applicants may receive a license to operate as a licensed marijuana transport business to transport marijuana and marijuana products between other licensed marijuana producers,processors, and retail stores. Staff has identified proposed regulations to allow licensed marijuana transport uses within the City. The proposed regulations are similar in form to the City's regulations for producers,processors,and retail stores. The proposed regulations allow marijuana transport businesses to be located in the RC,IMU, and I zones. In the RC zones,the transport business must have a lockable enclosure to keep the fleet in, as the WSLCB rules allow transporters to have marijuana in the vehicles for up to 48 hours and staff understand that there are instances where transporters will have marijuana in the vehicles overnight. Further, as with the production and processing uses,the proposed regulations have added buffers to certain sensitive uses in addition to those set forth by the State. These buffers prohibit marijuana transport uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property(other than stormwater and ROW), and prohibit such uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. The attached staff report identifies other impacts and applicable state regulations for marijuana transport businesses. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was sent to the Spokane Valley News Herald for publication on May 3, 2019 and May 10,2019. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of Title 17 SVMC. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F)provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s)must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on May 23, 2019. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report B. Proposed Amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A C. Presentation D. RCA from City Council's November 20, 2018 meeting E. Minutes from November 20, 2018 City Council meeting COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS *Wane BUILDING&PLANNING galley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 23, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend chapter 19.60 SVMC, chapter 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations governing the zoning and limits on licensed marijuana transportation businesses and to add related definitions. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval. STAFF: Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date SEPA Determination May 2,2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing May 3,2019 and May 10,2019 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies May 8,2019 Depaitment of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to April 17, 2019 Adopt Amendment PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Appendix A by(1) amending the permitted use matrix to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses in the RC, IMU,and I zones, subject to additional supplemental regulations; (2) adding supplemental regulations to set buffers between marijuana transportation uses and certain sensitive uses and requiring marijuana transportation uses in the RC zone to provide a lockable enclosure for fleet vehicles, and(3) adding related definition for"marijuana transporter". Background on Existing Regulatory Framework: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502) in November 2012. In response to State legislation,the City undertook an expansive process to identify appropriate marijuana regulations to address recreational,medical, and home growing of marijuana within the City. The City has adopted chapter 19.85 SVMC to govern the siting and restrictions for licensed marijuana uses. Currently,the City allows licensed marijuana production, licensed marijuana processing, and three licensed marijuana retail stores within the City. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks,but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. In response,the City has adopted additional local buffer limits,prohibiting licensed marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property, excluding City rights-of-way and swales. Further,the City prohibits marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. Finally,the City prohibits marijuana retail shops from being within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail. Marijuana uses require licensing by the Liquor and Cannabis Board(WSLCB), and such licensing includes strict operational requirements, including security measures, employee background checks, traceability measures to ensure no illegal distribution of marijuana, and clear operational plans for such businesses. The State has preempted the City from imposing restrictions that impose upon the ability of the WSLCB to license such businesses,but statutory and case law makes it clear that the City may still impose reasonable land use restrictions, including zoning on marijuana businesses. In addition to allowing certain licensed marijuana uses,the City has expressly prohibited all other marijuana uses, including marijuana collectives,marijuana clubs, and any future marijuana use that the State may authorize. The City does allow some home growing for medical purposes pursuant to state law. See SVMC 19.85.040. In late 2015,the State adopted RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385,which authorize licensed common carriers to transport marijuana(i.e.,marijuana transporter)between licensed marijuana producers,processors, retailers, and researchers. Further,the WSLCB has adopted regulations to implement the marijuana transporter authorization in WAC 314-55-310. The requirements for marijuana transporters include the following relevant provisions: 1. Marijuana transporters may transport marijuana,useable marijuana,marijuana concentrates, immature plants or clones,marijuana seeds, and marijuana infused products solely between licensed marijuana businesses. No home delivery is authorized by these provisions. 2. Marijuana transporter is considered a"common carrier" and subject to applicable"common carrier"regulations, including necessary Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits. 3. No firearm carrying or usage by employees unless the employee has a private security guard license. 4. Must have a physical location for operations and insurance. 5. Must keep printed transport manifest with the product at all times. 6. Transportation log documenting chain of custody for each delivery, including driver and vehicle used. 7. Drivers must be at least 21 years old. 8. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in sealed packages,which cannot be opened during transport. Page 2 of 4 9. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in a locked, safe and secure storage compartment that is secured to the inside body/compartment of the transportation vehicle. 10. All deliveries must be made within 48-hours from the time of pick-up. Impacts Generally,marijuana transportation businesses will be similar to other delivery services. The WSLCB requires a physical location,which generally means an office for the operator to keep business records and schedule deliveries. The operator will maintain a fleet of delivery vehicles,which to date generally include vans, although there is no restriction on the size of vehicle. Marijuana is not permitted to be kept on site in the physical location, so there is no risk associated with the office use. However, since deliveries are allowed to take up to 48 hours,marijuana may be inside of the locked compartments within the vehicles at the physical location overnight until the delivery is made the next day. This could pose potential odor or increased risk of break-ins to the vehicles. Further,there is no limit on fleet size and so there could be potential traffic impacts to neighboring areas. Given the similarity of office use and the combination of the unique aspect of marijuana, staff propose zoning uses similar to other allowable marijuana uses within the city. This will allow the use in the RC, IMU, and I zones,which will allow flexibility in use,but also ensure that the potential impacts that stem from the traffic, as well as the unique aspects of the marijuana product, are minimized on surrounding mixed-use and residential zones. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals by protecting residential areas, encouraging diversity among commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility,predictability, and stability. ED-P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU-G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Page 3 of 4 LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land. LU-P10: Ensure that freight-intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed marijuana transport businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments, staff makes no conclusions. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendments are consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F)and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 1/5 Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks and Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS *5* Lodging Bed and breakfast P P P P P Hotel/motel Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana Uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Marijuana transporter Medical S P P P P P Chapter 19.85 MARIJUANA USES 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A.Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City;provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.010: a.Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan,or program adopted by the council;and b. The Appleway Trail;or 4.a.Any facility or building designated or identified in any document,plan,or program adopted by the Council as"Spokane Valley City Hall"or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location;or CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 2/5 b. CenterPlace. B.Marijuana production in the RC zone shall only be permitted indoors. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A.Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City;provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.020: a.Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan,or program adopted by the City;and b. The Appleway Trail;or 4.a.Any facility or building designated or identified in any document,plan,or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall"or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location;or b. CenterPlace. B.Marijuana processing in the RC zone shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. A.New marijuana sales shall not be permitted within any zoning districts. B.Marijuana sales uses in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to July 27,2016,shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use subject to the following:marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1.Centennial Trail; 2.Appleway Trail; 3.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 4.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 5.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City;provided any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan,or program adopted by the council shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.030;or 6.a.Any facility or building designated or identified in any document,plan,or program adopted by the council as"Spokane Valley City Hall"or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location;or b. CenterPlace. CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 3/5 19.85.040 Marijuana transporter standards. A.Marijuana transporter uses shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana transporter facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City;provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.040: a.Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan,or program adopted by the City;and b. The Appleway Trail;or 4. a.Any facility or building designated or identified in any document,plan,or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall"or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location;or b. CenterPlace. B.Marijuana transporter uses in the RC zone shall include a lockable enclosure for any vehicles used for marijuana- related transport. Such enclosure shall be subject to applicable setback,transitional,and screening requirements. 19.85.0450 Other licensed or registered marijuana uses prohibited. Marijuana production,marijuana processing,and existing marijuana sales,and marijuana transporters shall be permitted pursuant to SVMC 19.85.010, 19.85.020,E 19.85.030,and 19.85.040.All other commercial and noncommercial licensed or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zoning districts of the City. This prohibition includes,but is not limited to,marijuana clubs or lounges and marijuana cooperatives.This prohibition does not apply to home growing or processing of marijuana by qualified patients or designated providers in residential zoning districts as set forth in SVMC 19.85.0630 and in compliance with state law. 19.85.0560 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington state law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings,residences,domiciles,and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal,state,and local laws,any owner,lessor,or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit.In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations,lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling,residence,domicile,or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use,development,zoning,and building regulation requirements including,but not limited to,all applicable requirements set forth in SVMC Titles 17 through 24 as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended,and the following regulations: A.Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; B.Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person or allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed,blocked,or sight-screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation.For purposes of SVMC 19.85.0560,accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles,or other similar types of structures.Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary site-screening; C.Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules,including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board;and CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 4/5 D.Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1,R-2,and R-3 zones. APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. 1.For the purpose of this code,certain words and terms are herein defined.The word"shall"is always mandatory. The word"may"is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3.The present tense includes the future and the present. 4.The singular number includes the plural and the singular. 5.Use of male designations shall also include female. B.Definitions. Manufacturing,petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving,roofing and coating,and petroleum refining. See"Industrial,heavy use category." Marijuana club or lounge:A club,association,or other business,for profit or otherwise,that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises,whether licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or not,or such other similar use pursuant to RCW 69.50.465,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana cooperative:A marijuana cooperative formed pursuant to Chapter 69.51A RCW,as now adopted or hereafter amended.A marijuana cooperative is comprised of up to four qualifying patients or designated providers and formed for the purposes of sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources,and producing and processing marijuana for the medical use of the members of the marijuana cooperative. Marijuana processing:Processing marijuana into usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates;packaging and labeling usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets;and sale of usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana production:Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana sales: Selling usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board,along with any applicable other use allowed as part of the marijuana sales pursuant to an endorsement associated with marijuana retail including,but not limited to,marijuana sales with a medical endorsement,operation of a marijuana club or lounge pursuant to an endorsement,or delivery of marijuana that may require an endorsement,all as provided pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 5/5 Marijuana sales with medical endorsement:Marijuana sales and medical marijuana sales by a marijuana retailer licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board that has been issued a medical marijuana endorsement pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporter: A common carrier engaged in marijuana-related transportation or delivery services licensed for such marijuana-related transportation or delivery,all as provided pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporters shall only include common carriers providing marijuana-related transportation services between licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors,marijuana researchers,and marijuana retailers and shall not include any residential delivery or delivery to end-users. Marijuana uses,category:Marijuana uses conducted in compliance with state law,including but not limited to Chapters 69.50 and 69.51A RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Market,outdoor:A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including,but not limited to,pumpkins,Christmas trees and firewood,as well as crafts and other items,are offered for sale to the public. See"Retail sales and services,use category." *** CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Marijuana Regulation Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations in 2016. On November 6, 2018, Council agreed to have staff bring an administrative report forward to discuss amending the existing regulations to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses within the City. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations governing all licensed and registered marijuana use within the City which are set forth in chapter 19.85 SVMC. As part of those regulations, the City Council determined to allow licensed marijuana production, marijuana processing, and the existing three marijuana retailers within certain zones of the City and subject to a number of other requirements. Understanding that in the future, there could be additional rule changes by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) or other types of marijuana uses authorized by the State Legislature, City Council adopted a prohibition on all other licensed and registered marijuana uses in the City. This prohibition is set forth in SVMC 19.85.040. Thus, the prohibition acts as a proactive measure to allow measured review of new uses prior to them being allowed, rather than having to rely on a reactive approach such as through a moratorium. One use that is prohibited under SVMC 19.85.040 is licensed marijuana transportation. The State Legislature permits common carriers to receive a license from the WSLCB to operate a marijuana transportation business to "physically transport or deliver, as authorized under this chapter, marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana concentrates, immature plants or clones, marijuana seeds, and marijuana-infused products between licensed marijuana businesses located within the state." RCW 69.50.382. Thus, transportation is only allowed between licensed producers, processors, and retailers and home delivery is not allowed. See WAC 314- 55-310(1). A marijuana transportation license requires that the license holder have a physical location as the primary business location, that all vehicles for the business be permitted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission as common carriers, that the license holder carry certain insurance, and that the license holder maintain detailed records of the marijuana items being transported, including clear documentation of the chain of custody for each delivery. WAC 314-55-310(2-4). Only the licensee or employees of the licensee who are at least 21 years old may transport any product. Id. Marijuana must be in sealed containers in a locked storage unit within the vehicle. Live plants may be transported. Id. The WSLCB rules do not specify whether marijuana product may be stored at the physical location. However, since the transportation license only allows transportation, presumably no storage onsite may occur. To allow licensed marijuana transportation, the City Council will need to adopt a code text amendment to chapter 19.85 SVMC. This requires consideration by the Planning Commission through the standard code text amendment process. For comparison purposes, the City currently allows marijuana production and processing in the industrial zone outright and in the regional commercial zone with strict limits to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Further, the City requires that marijuana production and processing uses be at least 1,000 feet from a number of specified uses, including vacant school property, vacant library property, and City-owned property (except for right-of-way and stormwater facilities). Marijuana retail sales are allowed in the mixed use, corridor mixed use, and regional commercial zones with a number of restrictions, including buffer requirements. Staff has not conducted a comprehensive review of where licensed marijuana transportation may be appropriate, but could see something similar, such as allowing it outright in the industrial zone and in the regional commercial zone with requirements such as that vehicles with any marijuana inside be stored indoors in order to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Staff is seeking consensus from City Council on whether to have the Planning Commission consider recommending proceeding with a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation, or to leave the prohibition in place. OPTIONS: Consensus to either move a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation forward to the Planning Commission, or to leave the existing prohibition in place; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion: Consensus to (1) move a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation forward to the Planning Commission; or (2) to leave the existing prohibition in place. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington November 20,2018 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz,Councilmember Caiy Driskell,City Attorney Linda Thompson,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer Sam Wood,Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marlin Palaniuk,Planner Carrie Koudelka,Deputy City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket—Lori Barlow It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as presented.Senior Planner Barlow told Council this material was discussed at last week's meeting and that the City has received three City initiated map amendments and four text amendments. She referred to Exhibit I in the packet materials and pointed out that CPA-2019-0007 and CPA-2019-0005 also reflect updates by the City's Economic Development Senior Planner, including the bike and pedestrian network map, route recommendations and new funding programs. She said all the information will be explained fully when the amendments come before Council for consideration. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vole by acclamation:In favorunanimous. Opposed. none. Motion carried. 2. Motion Consideration: Barker I-90 WSDOT Interlocal Agreement—Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for engineering services associated with the Barker Rd/1-90 Westbound Interchange project. City Engineer Helbig said this is the first of two items for motion consideration tonight that deal with the Barker/I-90 interchange. He said Council was presented with information at the September 4,2018,meeting and he highlighted some of the items again in his PowerPoint presentation. He said in the morning peak hour,the level of service is "E,"and the southbound queue can approach a quarter of a mile of backup traffic. He said the City has selected a consulting firm to help with the design of the interim improvements and it appears the best plan is to turn the signalized intersection into a single lane roundabout.The interlocal agreement provides that WSDOT will fund the interim project up to $900,000; the City will submit payment right away and any unexpended funds will be returned to WSDOT. He said the City estimates the total cost of the project between $500,000 and $550,000. Mr. Council Study Session: 11-20-2018 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: 12-11-2018 Helbig said the next steps include approval of the interlocal agreement and the consultant agreement with HDR for design of the project. He said WSDOT will do any needed right-of-way acquisition in the spring and the project will be ready to advertise for construction next fall,contingent on them getting funding. He said they are still moving forward on the southbound interchange over I-90. Councilmember Wick asked if the funding is only for the interim project or if it also includes the Connecting Washington package. Deputy City Manager Hohman said that in his conversations with WSDOT, the Connect Washington money from the current gas tax are for the interim solutions.He said we are getting a portion of the funds for the interim improvements at Barker, but there is no money in this package to look at the ultimate solution at Barker. He also said he has been told the bridge will need to be replaced and there is still a question as to whether 1-90 is to he lowered or if the bridge is to be raised,but we can expect it to be a very expensive project. Mr. Holman said that even though this is an interim solution, it will not need to be torn out and replaced, we will be able to maintain it and add lanes later if needed. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none, Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Barker 1-90 HDR Contract--Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager tofinalize and execute the Consultant Agreement with HDR_for a maximum payable amount of$373,012.27.City Engineer Helbig said this is the second motion consideration for the Barker/I-90 interchange and said it is for consulting services with HDR for the design of the westbound interchange. Councilmember Woodard inquired as to whether we would have used City staff for the design of this project if we would have had authorized engineers on staff. Mr.Helbig responded that we would have tried to do the design in-house if we had the staff to do it. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation:In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins explained the process,he invited public comments: Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley,said with regard to the art piece that was put into storage,she thinks the new high school in Greenacres would be a good location for it and said it would connect the students to art, it would be in a safe location, and it would be low cost to the City. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 4. Fee Resolution for 2018—Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor said that Council last took formal action on the Fee Resolution on December 12, 2017, setting the fees effective January 1, 2018. She said as part of the Master Fee Schedule process, she asked department staff to submit fee changes to her; three fee changes were submitted by Community and Public Works,and the Parks and Recreation department proposed additional fees to meet customer requests. She said there is a minor change to Schedule D, reflecting that credit card transaction fees are non- refundable, and under Schedule E Other Fees, she said the amounts for business registrations will be changed to meet State registration requirements. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the revenue generated by the new fee resolution for 2019 will be roughly $2.8M, or 6.19 percent of the total General Fund recurring revenues. Councilmember Thompson asked if the $50 fee for "CenterPlace Laptop Usage" is to bring a personal laptop to the event center or if it is to use a City-provided laptop. Ms.Taylor said her understanding is that it is for use of a City computer, but she will have that information for the December 11, 2018 meeting. 5. Open Space Proposed Code Text Amendment--Marty Palaniuk Senior Planner Barlow said that in December 2017,Council requested this section of the code come before Council for discussion. She said it was dissected and compared to other jurisdictions for open space requirements and through the course,two concerns came up: I)Property owners outside the exemption area Council Study Session: 11-20-2018 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: 12-11-2018 may be disadvantaged by being required to provide open space; and 2)Other multi-family projects should be forced to provide open space for residents. There was a consensus of Council to have the Planning Commission look into this section of the code and provide a recommendation for Council consideration.In January 2018, the Planning Commission began their discussions and she said it appears on paper that they discussed it on several occasions, but while it was on the agenda, there were three meetings where it was not discussed because their agenda was too full. She said in March,they conducted a review that looked at a broader comparison of jurisdictions including Yakima, Tri-Cities, and Boise and concluded approximately half of the jurisdictions required open spaces in mixed-use zones.She said they also looked at development in our mixed-use zone and whether developers provided open space and they found that the majority provided open space even though it was not required.She said it did not appear the property owners would have been disadvantaged by the requirement to provide open space because they included open space based on what they likely thought would attract residents to their development. Planner Palaniuk said an environmental review was done, and after the public hearing in September, the Planning Commission recommended this amendment go forward to Council. He said the amendment primarily deals with open space in mixed-use zones as defined in our code.He went through his PowerPoint presentation and reiterated the amendment only applies to the mixed-use zone.Mr.Palaniuk said the current regulation does not require open space be provided in multi-family developments of less than ten units,nor if the project is within 1,300 feet of a public park,which would include the Centennial and Appleway trails. He said nearly eighty percent of properties in the mixed-use zone are exempt from this provision because of their proximity to trails and parks, so when it comes down to it only twenty percent of prospective properties are subject to this provision. He said the proposed amendment provides a few exemptions for mixed-use development and cleans up some of the language. He said open space would not be required for projects where non-residential uses make up all ground floor units or an entire floor on any level, with residential uses located in the remainder of the building.He said open space would not be required if twenty- five percent or more of the mixed-use building is for non-residential use,or if the project is part of a larger mixed-use project where non-residential uses equal twenty-five percent or more of the total development. Councilmember Wick said the definition for wanting open space is for leisure or recreation and he said if there is an office space on the ground floor,people cannot recreate there.Ms. Barlow said mixed-use zones do not require the commercial businesses to allow residents to use the space, she said the purpose of the zoning designation is to allow a mix of different uses in that area. Councilmember Woodard said he thinks the Planning Commission went backwards and asked what the options are if Council disagrees with any part of their proposal. Ms. Barlow said Council has two options, they can send their recommended changes back to the Planning Commission to conduct another public hearing or Council can conduct their own public hearing. City Attorney Driskell said if Council wants to make changes to the proposal, those would break down to "substantive" and "non-substantive" changes. He said we would not need a separate public hearing for non-substantive changes,but if Council is looking to make substantive changes to the recommended amendment, they can send it back to the Planning Commission or schedule their own public hearing. Councilmember Woodard said he does not like what came back from the Planning Commission and he said open spaces are not needed in mixed-use zones by intent. He said he would like all commercial mixed-use and mixed-use zones to be exempt from open space requirements and he would like Council to hold a public hearing for more discussion and public input. He said Spokane and Spokane County do not have this provision and if Spokane Valley does this, he thinks it will disadvantage Spokane Valley property owners from developers who will go to the County, Spokane or another jurisdiction to build their projects.He said smart developers will consider this requirement when determining where they will build. Councilmember Thompson said she is an advocate for open land for children and seniors to use and she said she does not think the trails are a substitute for parks because they do not have monkey bars or swings. Council Study Session: 11-20-2018 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 12-11-2018 Councilmember Wood said lie is not in favor of placing restrictions on property owners. He said Spokane Valley has a shortage of land and requiring open space eats into that land for development. He said he thinks the Council should conduct a public hearing. Deputy Mayor Haley said she is in favor of moving the amendment forward the way it is, because she said it appears the developers are providing the open space without being required. Councilmember Wick said when Spokane Valley was developing as a city,we did not require parks and open spaces because the lots were designed to be bigger and people did not need other open spaces, but he said that is changing and our code should reflect our philosophy and where we think we want to be as a City. Mayor Higgins asked for Council consensus as to how to proceed with the amendment. Mayor Higgins and Councilmembers Woodard and Wood said they do not want to move it forward; Deputy Mayor Haley and Councilmembers Peetz, Thompson and Wick said they want to move the proposed amendment forward for Council consideration as it is. 6. Marijuana Code Text Amendment Transportation Use—Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb said the City allows licensed production, processing, and retail sale of marijuana. In 2016,the City adopted a prohibition on every other licensed use, including transportation. He said marijuana transportation is a licensed use by State law to transport marijuana between businesses,and requires that detailed chain-of-custody records of the marijuana be maintained. He said the majority of the transportation involves moving product from the east side of the state to the west side. Mr. Lamb asked if there is consensus as to whether Council wants to move the amendment forward to the Planning Commission to consider and provide their recommendation to Council or to continue prohibition of marijuana transportation. It was the consensus of Council to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. 7. City Logo,Proposed Code Amendment—Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb said the City Logo Use requirements have not been amended since 2007 and we would like to better align our logo regulation with our operations. He said we have a few entities that are allowed to use the logo, but the current code is fairly restrictive. Mr. Lamb outlined the changes referenced in packet materials and said they will provide for our three logos: Spokane Valley logo, CenterPlace logo, and the Economic Development logo. He also said the changes propose removal of guaranteed uses to allow flexibility to respond to changing conditions. Mr. Lamb said clear criteria will be set, with considerations to include whether it is used for a service provided to the City, for Economic Development purposes, or whether it is a single use entity or community use, and allow the media to use our logo for new stories without pre-approval. He said under the current code, logo use is approved by the Mayor, but to be consistent with the City's legal construction as a Council/Manager form of government, it should fall under the administrative authority of the City Manager. He said another proposed change is regarding the penalties for misuse. Mr. Lamb said given there were no comments, if Council wishes to waive the rules for three touches, he can bring this item forward for a first and final reading. It was the consensus of Council to waive the rules and take action on this item after one reading. B. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins Councilinember Peetz said there are events held in Spokane that people have expressed wanting to move to Spokane Valley and she would like to see those events held at CenterPlace and that the City be proactive in recruiting them. City Manager Calhoun said CenterPlace and the west lawn are open for business and he said if anyone is interested,they are encouraged to contact us and he is interested in working with whoever wants to use those spaces. Councilmember Thompson asked for and received Council consensus to have staff provide an administrative report on gambling tax. 9. Information Only: The Department Monthly Reports and Quarterly Survey Report were for information only and were not reported on or discussed. Council Study Session: 1 1-20-2018 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 12-11-2018 10. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgiins Councilmernber Thompson said she will be in Olympia during the December 4th Council meeting and asked to join the meeting by phone. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley seconded, and unanimously agreed to allow Councihnerrrber Thompson to participate in the December 4, 2018 Council meeting via remote access. Councilmember Wood said he attended an STA board meeting and reported that they were granted$2.64M for six electric buses. 11.City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said there is no Council meeting November 27, 2018, and that on Thursday, November 29, the Rotary will have the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony at City Hall beginning at 5:30 p.m.,with performances by Bowdish Middle School choir and marching band and Council will recite `twos the Night Before Christmas. He said in July, Council authorized staff to apply for TIB grants for three projects and we were awarded funds for two out of the three projects. He said we were unsuccessful in our grant request for the Sprague and Barker intersection project but we were awarded $1.875M for the University Rd from 161h to Dislunan-Mica project and $406,400 for the Adams Road Sidewalks from 16th to 23r1 project. Mr. Calhoun then played the latest marketing video from ICREM set to air between now and the end of the year. During the video, newly designed City of Spokane Valley pins were distributed to Council to give out as part of marketing the City. 12. Executive Session: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1){i) It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley,seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session far approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:25 p.m. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. - - AT y.S P. L.R. Higgins, '4 - +r tL .1544"-44,0- C G^+ , - C: mristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 11-20-2018 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 12-1 1-2(118 CTA 2019 -0002 Marijuana Transport Amen ments J Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley May 9, 2019 City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney Propb�ed MarijuanaTransport Amendments : Background City regulations: SVMC 19.85.040 prohibits all marijuana uses except for licensed marijuana production, processing, and the three existing retail shops. Prohibits Marijuana Transport Businesses. Citizen inquiry in fall of 2018 to allow marijuana transport business. City Council direction to forward proposal to Planning Commission that would allow marijuana transport businesses. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney AMMO I Stat tfeenseel-Mar Trans art Uses Cw 69.50.382 and 69.50.385 and WAC 314-55-310: Authorize licensed marijuana transport businesses. ONLY transport marijuana and marijuana products between licensed marijuana producers, processors, retail stores, and research facilities. NO home delivery. • Subject to WSLCB licensing. • Must have physical location (e.g., an office). No marijuana allowed at the location (inside the office). Considered a "common carrier," so must also get UTC common carrier permit. Transportation logs and manifests required. Secured compartments that are attached to vehicle body. All deliveries must be made within 48 hours from the time of pick-up. Note: This means that marijuana may be in vehicles onsite overnight. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney Jl State law — Licensed Marijuana TransUses Prohibited from being within i,000 feet of: • School; • Playground; • Recreation center; Child care center; Public park; Public transit center; Library; or Game arcade. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 4 Poienrra I Imp acts Traffic. No restrictions on fleet size. Odor. Marijuana may be kept in vehicles. WSLCB was not aware of any complaints regarding odor. Crime? Marijuana may be kept in vehicles. WSLCB was not aware of any break-ins to vehicles. General office use impacts equivalent to other office uses. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney s_,P-reyred Amendments Generally: Allow marijuana transporters in RC, IMU, and I zones. Addresses traffic issues and limits impacts on residential and mixed-uses. Additional City buffers for vacant school, library, and City property (other than swales, ROW, and Appleway Trail). Consistent with City regulations for marijuana production and processing. Requires lockable enclosure for fleet in RC zone. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney P ro o e nts p Amend SVMC 19.60.050 to allow marijuana transport uses in Permitted Use Matrix. Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses 19.610.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks and Residential Mid Use Commercial Industrial Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 14IFlt MI CMU ! C RC IMti I POS Lodging Bed and breakfast P P P P P HoteL.motel p p p P S Recreational vehicle park,campground S Marijuana 11Gns Marijuana club or lounge Marij uaI1a coopei aid V e Marijuana proccssing S S M irijuana production S S Marijuana sales S 5 S Marijuana transporter ti 4 ti Medical S P P P P 2 City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 7 P çpgseLd==Amen=dm ents Amend SVMC 19.85.040 to establish buffers and limits for marijuana transport uses. 19.85.040 Marijuana transporter standards. A. Marijuana transporter uses shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana transporter facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.04/0: a. Any_st2caDvater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a tsplujiaatR, facility ht-of-way in any document, plan., or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document.,plan, or program adopted by the City as -Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term,that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or c‘egterPlau. B. Marijuana transporter uses in the RC zone shall include a lockable enclosure for any vehicles used for marijuana- related transport. Such enclosure shall be subject to applicable setback, transitional, and screening requirements. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 8 1,40 Prc@bsed Amendments Add definition for "marijuana transporter" to Appendix A. Marijuana transporter: A common carrier engaged in marijuana-related transportation or delivery services licensed for such marijuana-related transportation or delivery, all as provided pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporters shall only include common carriers providing marijuana-related transportation services between licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana researchers., and marijuana retailers and and shall not include any residential delivery or delivery to end-users. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 9 Next Steps Public Hearing May 23, 2019 City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney ro