Loading...
2019, 05-23 Agenda Packet stio"ne Valle y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. May 23, 2019 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 9, 2019 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: 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. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. iii. Public Hearing: 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. iv. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT PC ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only As of May 15,2019 ***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 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 5/15/2019 Page 1 of 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 9, 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, absent - excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange, Planner Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 agenda. The motion was to add item i.a. Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did not attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. 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.a. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment". The language was changed to accurately reflect the Commission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amended Findings of Fact for CTA-2018- 0005 as presented. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote, he was in favor of the adopted language. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. 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 development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. Barlow advised that staff 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 did not apply. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. 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. The 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. Ms. Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and multifamily units all located on a site 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 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. 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 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms. Barlow advised the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms. Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site, buildings that include parking structures shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. 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 a building height limit of 35 feet, and setbacks,to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the life of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and gave an overview of the process. Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Staff's analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all circumstances could change. Ms. Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms. Barlow explained the City's GIS specialist queried single property owners within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could apply to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms. Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a City initiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to be private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for a church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hipple, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Mallahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities mission. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Mallahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities has a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. He continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Mallahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mr. Mallahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project on a parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Mallahan continued that seniors often times downsize due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. He addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29%with only a 6%household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Mallahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will proceed with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation. Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County Human Rights Tasks force with him. Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population in code could be a liability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51% as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was for limiting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the internet was to narrow the amount of land that this would apply too,but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CUP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Commissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms.Barlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that might take advantage of the locations that staff identified. Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51% requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained that trip generation studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic. If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Ms. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing.Mr.Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal background check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 E Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Harold Road their will a new development of thirteen houses. He does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder, 417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zielfelder explained that his concerns are the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic impacts and for the infrastructure. He works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. He feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. He added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. Zielfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood. Thomas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road;Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard. He and his wife chose to buy in this area due to the character and location. He is concerned with traffic impacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this. Mrs. Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman,9920 E Broadway;Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were no studies being done regarding traffic or water. He found it hard to believe there were no adverse impacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be accessible on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed. Ken Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fode, 124 N Walnut Roadd;Mr. Fode explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure. Christine Fode, 124 N Walnut Road;Mrs. Fode explained she moved to the area because she liked the street. She was shocked to receive a letter dated April 30th from Catholic Charities and St.Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing;she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield, 205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Holder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Holder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property values going down and the unknowns. Ms. Holder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few times a year where they block off the street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road,Ms. Lieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, agrees with Mrs. Lieuallen. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to be a bad idea and still is. He continued that parking and traffic are already a problem as the current students get dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Strauss continued that Catholic Charities is big business trying to make money with no respect for the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss continued that this monstrosity is too big and doesn't fit and asked the commission not to institutionalize the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss concluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room. Commissioner Walton stated he felt it important that the Commission is professional and appreciated the statement in terms of the audience. Commissioner Walton pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than limiting comments to three-minutes that they have the ability to do. He reminded the audience that if they are repeating comments to keep them succinct. Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter left on her front door regarding this meeting. Her concern is that the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also concerned with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber explained he will use the same statement he used eight years ago. The founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to respect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't want to move out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure. Mr. Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she no longer lives on Walnut Road partially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all of the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the 51% suggested does apply to for-profit builders as long as they are a low income property for a specific number of years. Ms. Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in bankruptcy. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone else. Commissioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais. He felt it unfortunate that while tensions are high with strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal and asked again that those comments be directed to the dais. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt that everyone present knows what Commissioner Walton just said. He agreed that some individuals may have been carried away due to emotion and added that Commissioner Walton's' constant interrupting or comments when someone speaks to the issue is intimidating. He told Commissioner Walton that he feels he needs to stand down as the audience knows what the rules are and are doing a good job at holding back emotions and stated he had heard enough. Commissioner Walton moved for a three-minute recess, with no second, the motion failed for the lack of a second. Daniel Hipple, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr. Hipple explained that he has the most to lose out of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr. Hipple advised he had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acres there could be 76 units however,this 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hipple asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they be attending the meeting on the other side? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the House of Charity. He is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendick, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendick lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property from being built? He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason, 5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the area and was there in support of the Hipple's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. He gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. Gleason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building across the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Elton Road; Ms. Rulea used to own a home at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the building will look like, traffic problems and with the water and sewer. There have been problems with the sewer before. Ms. Rulea is also concerned with the possibility of extending Valleyway Avenue, she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she heard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to make a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catholic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, agencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. Currently there is no project under review therefore those items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City does have water concurrency requirement. The applicant would have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain a certificate of water concurrency from the specific water agency before being allowed to move forward. Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an effort to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up. Commissioner Walter added he can sympathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be on the other side in the audience. He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions for the proposal and that the Commission were reviewing a zoning change that would allow any applicant to apply. He added that he understands how difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria. Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as he has strong concerns related to the for-profit entity could come forward,the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward and the idea of a school on the property is the most limiting factor. Commissioner Walton 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there are zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put a burden on them due to cost. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal, because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76-unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their comments. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the proposal was denied by both the Commission and Council. Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing but does not feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and if the Commission was not looking at a Valley wide change he may have different considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity for individuals whom may not be as neighborly as Catholic Charites. He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type of multifamily construction project would not fit in the R-3 zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend denial of CTA-2018-0006 to the City Council. No further discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV-2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between I-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South and further boarded by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the Findings of Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access,removal of the portion of the street vacated and design or construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road and 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be vacated. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle M properties. Mr. Lange advised that I-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. Lange concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of non-significance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25,2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative I-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing, process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even though it was brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system due to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins. Mr. Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer,money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial(RC), Industrial Mixed Use(IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hall is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non-conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lamb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone. This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall. Subsection B states they must have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must be in sealed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that he will research and provide at the public hearing. Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr. Lamb stated he is not aware of any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however;there are businesses that do advertise the use. Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol,nicotine, oxycodone or opioids and Mr. Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process are in place for a reason. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 He felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. He stressed that if there was any idea that what he was saying was meant to dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly pushes back. He added that the incivility of the Commission members toward each other should be avoided at all times as they are there for the same purpose. He appreciated that it was brought to his attention that it was concern and he did not interrupt any speaker at any time. He thanked the members of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that Chair Johnson did an excellent job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. He understood the points and felt as though Commissioner Walton was supporting him in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your beliefs do not change the reality. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote on the motion was six 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 23, 2019 Item: Check all that apply ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0006 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact - 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 Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed amendment on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. The Planning Commission deliberated and voted 6-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2018-0006 be denied. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation for CTA-2018-0006 or provide staff further direction STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: PC Findings and Recommendation CTA-2018-0006 RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-2018-0006 Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0006—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2018-0006 is a privately initiated code text amendment(CTA)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. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2019 and conducted deliberations on May 9, 2019. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council deny the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria a. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the following provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: 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; and LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. b. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment based on the following reasons. The Applicant identified that the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0006 Page 1 of 2 of the environment because housing is an essential component of health and safety. The basis identified by the Applicant for the proposed amendment is to address"a significant deficiency in the availability of affordable housing." However,the proposed amendment is a limited scope amendment that will not allow significant creation of affordable housing due to the requirements that a church and school be located onsite. Further,the amendment allows intensive multifamily uses in single-family residential zones,thereby creating incompatible uses that will cause conflict due to increased density,traffic,potential commercial uses, and increased noise and disruption. Affordable housing should be located near commercial and social services,public transportation, and within high density areas such as the Multi-family zone, and Mixed Use zones,but the amendment allows affordable housing outside of and away from these necessary services. Adequate area for multifamily development is available near the necessary services. 3. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council deny CTA-2018-0006. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0006 Approved this 23rd day of May,2019 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0006 Page 2 of 2 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix S in R-3 column for Dwelling, multifamily Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC 1MU I POS • Residential Dwelling, multifamily 5 y P P P 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations 19.65.130 Residential K. Dwelling, multifamily. Multifamily shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options, Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.035 Development Standards—Dwelling, Multifamily in the R-3 zone A.Applicability. Multiple family development in the R-3 zone may be permitted if at least 51 percent of the units are used for affordable housing, and subject to the provisions of this section. B.Site. 1. Site shall be one contiguous parcel under single ownership for the life of the project 2. Site shall be between 10-20 acres in size 3. Density shall be calculated at 6 du/acre using the entire site 4. Site shall include a church and school 5. Parking and open space may be shared 6. The school, church and residential facility shall be located on one parcel 7. Natural amenities such as views, significant or unique trees, or grouping of trees, creeks, riparian corridors,and similar features unique to the site shall be incorporated into the design. 8. Emphasize, rather than obscure, natural topography. Buildings shall be designed to"step up"or"step down" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. 9. Projects shall have design continuity by using similar elements throughout the project,such as, architectural style and features, materials, colors, and textures. 10. Parking structures shall be architecturally consistent with exterior architectural elements of the primary structure(s), including rooflines, and finish materials. 11. Pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas shall be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color,and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas using landscaping or other methods. C. Building. 1. Multifamily development shall meet the residential standards in Table 19.70-1 for the R-3 zone 2. Minimum lot size shall not be applicable 3. Development shall provide 10%gross area of the site for open space D. Other. 1. Prior t❑ issuing a certificate of occupancy, an agreement in the form acceptable to the City that ensures compliance with the provisions of this section shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor's Office.This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the applicant. 2. Affordable housing units provided shall remain affordable for the life of the project. E. Permit Type. Multiple family development in the R-3 zone shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter SVMC. Definitions 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 Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. Comprehensive Plan LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,employees,and visitors. LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. 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. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 23, 2019 Item: Check all that apply n old business I1 new business I1public hearing n information n study session n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019 from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue is 40,144 square feet, for University Road approximately 12,926 square feet and for Glenn Road approximately 878 square feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 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. A 2015 study by Fehr& Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among city staff regarding the University Road right-of-way concluded that the University Road right-of-way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The site does not contain any city facilities or utility improvements. All improvements stop at the edge of the pavement for University Road which will remain as dedicated right-of-way. Although the majority of the lots are owned by one entity a vacation of the right-of-way would leave parcel number 45093.2401 without access for both ingress/egress and sanitary sewer. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.E "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway. " The RPCA Public Hearing for STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 application states that an ingress/egress easement would be established to allow access to University Road across parcel 45093.1519 that is owned by Circle M Family Properties. Spokane County Environmental Services has requested a 20 foot public sanitary sewer easement in lieu of the public right of way. OPTIONS: Recommend approval of the proposed street vacation with conditions, recommend approval with changes, or recommend denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of the proposed street vacation for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road to the City Council with staff conditions. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Presentation RPCA Public Hearing for STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS carr`or BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane Viley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE: STV-2019-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2019 FILE NO: STV-2019-0002 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. STAFF PLANNER: Connor Lange,Planner, Community&Public Works PROPERTY OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019 from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue is 40,144 square feet, for University Road approximately 12,926 square feet and for Glenn Road approximately 878 square feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 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. A 2015 study by Fehr&Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among city staff regarding the University Road right-of-way concluded that the Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 11 May 15,2019 University Road right-of-way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The site does not contain any city facilities or utility improvements. All improvements stop at the edge of the pavement for University Road which will remain as dedicated right-of-way. Although the majority of the lots are owned by one entity a vacation of the right-of-way would leave parcel number 45093.2401 without access for both ingress/egress and sanitary sewer. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.E "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway." The application states that an ingress/egress easement would be established to allow access to University Road across parcel 45093.1519 that is owned by Circle M Family Properties. Spokane County Environmental Services has requested a 20 foot public sanitary sewer easement in lieu of the public right of way. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC—Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC—Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC—Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Application Material Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics The unimproved right of way area is approximately 40,144 of proposed vacation: square feet for Baldwin Avenue, 12,926 square feet for University Road and 878 square feet for Glenn Road. The entirety of the subject right of way is unimproved and covered in grass and weeds. Adjacent Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Adjacent Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Adjacent Land Parcel 45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45093.2401 are all Use(s): vacant. Parcel 45084.1314 is Tract C of the University View Estates Planned Unit Development which is utilized for drainage and is planted with grass. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 11 May 15,2019 II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and no utilities are located within the right- of-way. However, Spokane County Environmental Services requested an easement for sanitary sewer. The applicant stated in the application materials that an ingress/egress easement would be created to provide future access to parcel 45093.2401. The vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road are expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of-way for access. However, the vacation of University Road has potential to impact the general public. As referenced above in the Background section, the right-of-way could provide future public benefit and therefore, staff recommends the City retain the University Road right-of-way for projects that are unforeseen at this time. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. The site is bordered by Interstate 90 to the north which provides no reasonable means of connection for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. However, as referenced in the Background section University Road right-of-way could provide potential future public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing was ever proposed. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Public access is not needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right-of- way for access and the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-way is owned by Circle M Family Properties. There is no need for a new and different public way. An ingress/egress access easement will be required to ensure access for parcel number 45093.2401. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Based on the comprehensive plan it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that would require the use of the Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road right-of-way for public access. However, as discussed in the Background section the vacation of University Road has potential to provide a greater use than currently exists. The right-of-way could provide future public benefit with a pedestrian or vehicle access overpass. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 3 of 11 May 15,2019 The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments have been received following the notice of public hearing issued, mailed and posted on April 19, 2019. A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property April 19, 2019 in three separate locations and public hearing notices were mailed to all owners adjacent to the right-of-ways being vacated. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 19, 2019. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on April 19, 2019 and April 26, 2019. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Where necessary, comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval in Section V. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Public Works Yes 4-19-19 Spokane Valley Fire District No.1 Yes 4-18-19 Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 5-10-19 Spokane Regional Health District No Avista Utilities Yes 3-4-19 Spokane Transit Authority No City of Spokane Valley Police No Department Century Link Yes 3-4-19 Comcast Yes 3-1-19 Modern Electric Water Company Yes 5-10-19 WA Archaeology and Historic Yes 4-23-19 Preservation WA Department of Transportation No Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 4 of 11 May 15,2019 Spokane County Division of Utilities No Findings: Notice of application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. On April 19, 2019 comments were received from Ryan Kipp (Spokane Valley Traffic Engineer) which did not recommend the approval of the vacation for University Road due to the potential future public benefit of an overpass at University Road. Spokane County Environmental Services submitted comments on May 10, 2019 that requested a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement for vacant parcel 45093.2401 because it will no longer have any access to the public right-of-way. No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the proposed street vacation for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2019-0002 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate a 669.08 foot unimproved portion of Baldwin Avenue and 19.90 feet of Glenn Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2019-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 8. 3. The following easements are required to be established. Submit recording number on record of survey and written documentation of easement for City verification. a. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Parcels shall be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment or an easement shall be created to provide access to parcel 45093.2401. b. An easement acceptable to Spokane County Environmental Services for access to public sewer to serve parcel 45093.2401. If, parcel 45093.2401 is consolidated with an adjacent parcel that has access to the sanitary sewer system, no easement is required. 4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 5 of 11 May 15,2019 Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review. 5. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right- of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 8. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 6 of 11 May 15,2019 EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 7 of 11 May 15,2019 L - , , ._._._.___.______,_____..____,__ ii_____L j____„.J.,,,,, _____________________ ,- „.....:-..„:_______=1:-___ _ L ./ # ,j ` i . p.--- on ...._______________„__ _____„____________.:, 11.__E.s_ii ___________________ _________ , ___ L IND;ANA RD --�4 -. -1 .. •=1, mii _ , _zi_r- ------------ .,__ _._ - rn 1 , I riFL m , , iiiii._ \ } tlK iiel -••� F irirvis II Syr J ;- I. Hill -- :1o - A TLiIr 10 AVE El - -1-1 1 - _ [- 1 [1- 1 � M_ 1E11,-11 _�) . -- __ ', � ; ~ _1 Ilia =_1 _- __�_,� - I �L, s aJ - € 11THit 11 _ , -e--- - — s ,- -i��1T __y=s --° M�� T-T', '11-1.--1 — -,0 EXH I BIT 2 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 8 of 11 May 15,2019 J -1 1w--11-7. . 10-144-----. .., __• '114.144. ag:--.47.11,71,._, Fr*,..., • , - - , ..47., ..1..._..11: Nu . +1.1,1 1.-- . ""`" : ilk ,.° s .• ,. -11fli(P3: 1•• • • , fil .....1.-,.....„.. .-1".".7-.... lvi N.. . .4 Pt 4 -• " 64 ..10. °lc Prr. 111- *1. ,.. s 'I, ,. . , -...4..... - 11111,- 4 A....; , 4,4,...v..-...-.. lb ;. AillL* 41'.- , • ..,..1.• - -'', 1 „, )1. .A,A, - 10air ., .-, - •- , , . Ti. tii I --------._____ _:z.:.jkiki% •It ..,:- .,: ._- •q 1.4 is ils " i . ... frt fr. .1, q I, v r iepo - _-",.91,4 Il..LSIMP -• 1 , I lir / '..1 A ."!...---A.- .- iftium. r ;., ,,. . . liddlil ,lial .) ,. •,• !“I . 16-14 li&I r' 4 I.,. . .... I AA • ' Hiallir ' 1,,....1 ir . ., . -.,-.. irr, 1 . . rr - - "S , immiliir ..,' I' % 11*, k irwAN: E 1 . rimimilliMcw' 1. _ wm. ,ii.t. ilk 41. . rtl: Ilk. Ile ._ v., 14,..• Vt. IL .".1i1/4.1140 , • \. v .. • ,owilLIritisikA 1, . 4,..- .,. 4 liwiriA,_ ,, , , ,. • • 4. . illY_Ik 0. .1.111,. ..i, .,, , .., 1 _ UpiatiLvaffwiwwak.1— . ; lit, I , 1,11121114 r Oh. ' 1 111=m1410.111- - ..... 1"111° lir..e f , . • . ... pli, ' la' . . -r • I .. -.- tr, • - 41.. ' _ .., .„.., :I ..- . I _ _ I f kb. EXHIBIT 3 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 9 of 11 May 15,2019 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. # 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 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 fSULLIVAN 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 Spvkan.000 � 1 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 EXH I BIT 4 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 10 of 11 May 15,2019 WIG< Community & Public Works Department 4000 Val ley Building&Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PETITIONERS(IF ANY)AND ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING THE STREET PROPOSED TO BE VACATED BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW: HEARING DATE: May 23, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. REVIEW AUTHORITY: Spokane Valley Planning Commission STAFF: Connor Lange, Planner; (509) 720-5332; clange@,spokanevalley.org. FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0002 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length),University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington APPLICANT:Whipple Consulting Engineers (Attn: Brett Griffith); 21 S Pines Rd; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEALS: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley City Council. Appeals shall be pursuant to SVMC 19.90 Appeals ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal/project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing at Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community and Public Works, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206; Attn: Connor Lange, File No. STV-2019-0002 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: Individuals planning to attend the public hearing who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 720-5102 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. EXHIBIT 5 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 11 of 11 May 15,2019 To: Connor Lange CC: From: Jenn Bruner Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 Planning/Building Subject STV-2019-0002 Stage: Final Phase: Vacate sections of Baldwin, University, Address:Baldwin and University CO01 Comment: Because the street vacation would leave a parcel that will not have access to public sewer, a sanitary sewer easement, with a width acceptable to the Environmental Services Department, will be required for parcel 45093.2401. A 20' public sanitary sewer easement will be required in lieu of using the public right of way that is to be vacated. Connor Lange From: Chris Wafstet <cwafstet@mewco.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:39 PM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor: Modern Electric Water Co does not have any facilities (electric or water) that would be impacted by the vacation process. If the owner has any requirement for new infrastructure and/or the relocation of any existing infrastructure in and around the project site, they will need contact us (MEWCo) to initiate the new construction procedure. Any other questions, please let me know. Thank You GIS Operator Modern Electric Water Company Phone: (509) 928-4540 Direct: (509) 755-9006 cwafstet@mewco.com F7.7 ODERN ELECTRIC ,. COMPANY reliably serving the Spokane Valley since 1905 Cali 8I1 tYafore yim dig,. From:Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:30 PM To: Chris Wafstet<cwafstet@mewco.com>;jbruner@spokanecounty.org; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Good afternoon all, I am working on my Staff Report for the street vacation south of 1-90 for portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. 1 didn't see in the application materials where either Spokane County Environmental Services or Modern Electric had provided a response to Ryan Andrade and didn't see any comments during the Agency Comment period. 1 am just checking to make sure that SC Env.Services & Modern doesn't have any facilities that would be impacted by the vacation process.Thank you From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright 1 \ ( Connor Lange From: Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:47 AM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: 5TV'2019'0002_AgencyRouting Hi Conner, DAHP has no concerns with this project. Regards, Dennis Dennis Wardlaw, MA. Transportation Archaeologist Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 111UCapitol Way South,Suite 30 Olympia, WA 98501 Voice: 360'386'3085 Cell: 360-485-5014 please consider the environment before printing this email From: Connor Lange<clangespokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:35 AM To:SEPA(DAHP) <sepa@dahp.wa.gov> Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday, April 1O, Z0193:33PK8 To: Bill Helbig<bhelbigPspokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevallev.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudsonVDspokanecounty.org; CBEPNER@spokanecountVorg; 'jb/uner@spokanecounty.org' <ibruner@spokonecountv.org>; 'Paul Savage' <psavaqe@srhd.orq>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric) <cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; `N3tterstnom@spukanetransit.cono' <KOtteotronn@spokanetransit.cono>; dave.byus@avbtacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard /karen,stoddard@century|ink.conn\ <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan richardsonff@cab\e.comcast.com; Christine 1 Connor Lange From: Chad Phillips Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:57 AM To: Connor Lange Cc: Ray Wright; Ryan Kipp; Bill Helbig; Shane Arlt; Chad Riggs;Aaron Clary Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor Stormwater has no concerns with the proposed vacations. Existing stormwater facilities are in place at end of current roadway improvements. Thanks Chad Chad Phillips, P.E. I Engineer,Stormwater 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5013 I cphillips@spokanevalley.org lite .. .•.. r ne Eley_ This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>;Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org;jbruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric)<cwafstet@mewco.com>;figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen.Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org;crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org;Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 1 Connor Lange From: John Hohman Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:46 PM To: Connor Lange; Ryan Kipp Cc: Jenny Nickerson; Ray Wright Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, I suggest that you incorporate a statement such as "Staff recommends the City retain the University right of way for future needs that are currently unforeseen" or something similar. I believe this is a safe position for us to take. Thanks, John From:Connor Lange Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 3:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevalley.org>;John Hohman<jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc:Jenny Nickerson<jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello Ryan &John, I am requesting some clarification regarding the comments made on April 19th from Traffic for the Street Vacation (SW- 2019-0002). It was my initial interpretation based on feedback I received that the Fehr& Peers study demonstrated that the cost of the University overpass was significant based on the level of service it would actually provide.Therefore, not making it feasible. I am preparing my staff report for the Public Hearing to Planning Commission and want to clear up the record regarding the University Road overpass issue. At this point it appears the application complies with appropriate portions of SVMC and I could recommend approval to the PC. However,without amended comments from Traffic my recommendation would exclude University Road from the proposal to be vacated? If the position of the city is that the University Road overpass scenario is infeasible then I would request updated comments from Ryan stating that Traffic has no issues with the vacation going forward as is. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you From: Ray Wright Sent: Friday,April 19, 2019 9:06 AM To:Connor Lange<clange@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevalley.org> Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, please see Ryan's Traffic comments below. Thank you, Ray 1 From: Ryan Kipp Sent: Friday,April 19,2019 8:33 AM To: Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt <sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Traffic would not recommend the vacation of University ROW. There are have numerous discussions in the past of there being some type of overpass over 1-90. Traffic would be okay with the vacation of the ROW of Baldwin. However are there any requirements for there being some type of turn around on University? Ryan From: Ray Wright Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 4:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevailey.org> Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting FYI From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecountv.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; jbruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>;Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric)<cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurvlink.com>; bryan richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org;criohnston@spokanesheriff.org;Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP)<dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; StephanieJoiivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north)and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5332 I clanae@spokanevallev.org ' t ne This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 ' 1.,401,'Iii'..;...'1.'1,4,31:.11,[1,[ -",- MOP. 1,[i J lil[rtSeii IFIT. ,N. it:o. qpipohfik,.,11,11! ..111:g. ,1,,I;r11 _ — v.?: ---_-,-,,, , --,-v ‘,..v ,__V ,''''.. --'.- . BRYAN COLLINS, FIRE CIIIEF En Orin ai h.- 2120 N.Wilbur Spokane Valley,VWA002O6 (5O9)9]8l700Main (509)892-4125 Fax April 1O. 2O19 ���,`a'� r-:"osmokariava|leyMre.com „�r _' ,- � - � � CityofGpokaneVoUay m �~ =���D 10210 E. Sprague Avenue -% ,��n Spokane VoUay. VVA 99206 r~, ,� " w ~"'� RE: GT\/ 2019-0002 �|ry �1� 8POK4 N.EVALLEY Between 1-90 and Nora Avenue—Baldwin Avenue; University Road & Glenn Road The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the Street Vacation. AH specific fire department requirements shall be conditioned on future commercial permits. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ..-29/9aftY r_LA-tig«�Y� ,� Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department � , . . , , Circle M Properties Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Public Hearing May 23, 2019 j• y � 1 1 Process tu 1,1 : 1 te .- ct cA 6 N : Study Session c$ 'y� ilz o ri . 5-9-19 ^cu cs c : �" = • - 5 Public Hearing cttAdministrative c : A 51. rg : ; 0 5-23-19 Report '' .. •,� c d �7 4., an ., E o 0 U .E Findings of Fact t, Ordinance 1 st .•. U 6-13-19 U Reading cJ c o a la au = p4 Ordinance 2nd Reading 14/ leer _ A Today Spokane `�' Valley 911 2 Proposed Street Vacation : APPLICANT'S REASON -_,, 4 'r+.t .�- .—yam'+ q.:_r=.`"' Yw. to A 1*` , 1°ar , ) s r4-. _ . xr �xaFp�� �� ,r FOR REQUEST: 1.0 _,:, �, ;:•,. x� ,� 7yf, *.'t,,k , ➢ Unimproved and 7 - w 1'�1. �r ,,',',,,-,7 fl4 4. k`A Glenn not maintained - - ! .� �� Baldwin ``--- � Road Avenue ,,. . ' , ) ---: ----- ------ > Allow maximum NI 4 , t100 a ly4nlly Pr 1 perties 1 use of abutting * Road Circle M Family Properties properties ab "0_ 1 tIr � w l ➢ Majority of ` ownership is same • `- .. Circle M Family Properties E i:...,;..„.n..,0.. � _�' =. �, owner 0 ,,, ' 1. -114 1.7^ I` = 1 y l ➢ No feasible future , "airM E. lipII rlr. p ,r right-of-way i F r.tb;... y � r connection Y ..........am ���a Spo ..:,---"-N-__,_. ,....*Valley it 4 City's Recommended Proposal Change : ... F .e.nri . , .':;.i CITY'S REASON FOR -rt c r%, "? . -,4*.i;! ';;;;,':. CHANGE: *Pow ... - , . ,,--o. . .., . , ,. 04 . Baldwin Avenue Fehr & Peers (2015) _. _ -. . and Glenn Road ri,00v still to be vacated evaluated feasibility ., ., , - - - - , -- — - . . of overpass : - 1 - -_ _, 117‘" Removal of connection at 1 University Road University Road. - ,... p... ....._ .. , ., Right-of-way could owki--Arc_., 1 rilritirbi j i 11-. 1, i it ,., Ai provide public .....„k • , P I 1,-2 ' ...., ,. benefit in the -- hicity IL i recommends A r IlL Li_ .......i : , t re-8 vr i e !I'd 116 L ' ;It"'11616 ...A.I . retaining University ,,,...1 Road. ........... ....„. ,61 ..11... 1•ffliffs.0.1.11.1., lir ' ''' ., , i. IA .ii Z allIEM ' Sliolial e 40,00Valley ll' iii i 5 . II Public Hearing Notice Requirements : 1 . Posted in 3 places City Hall, Center Place, Valley Li T 2 . Published in the Valley Herald 2 times 3 . Written notice to abutting property owners along University Road and Baldwin Avenue 4. Signs posted at each end of proposed vacation area jY � � 6 Criteria of Approval : SVMC Title 22 . 140 . 030.A • Is the street still required for public use or public access? • It is not anticipated that Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve the public use. Access and sanitary sewer easement requested. • Will conditions change to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? • The University Road right-of-way may provide a greater use in the future if an overpass is proposed. • Are there any public objections? • There were nop ublic objections. Sgokan��'' �Valley �w4IMM 7 RECOMMENDATION APPROVE amended proposal with conditions to City Council j� y. y �L='_JCL.3�', .R=11 90,00' - _-_ -- - - I. 1--. ''''":1:-."5',.::".::1 a�i�.titiv ti,• 'IT'r' F1.E UESTET) '4 r ,C+,,— 11'f' r-7 T4sit.k' , i Ln A19'E 1ATELY �siti '• S ,• -. 1'r . rAnEL i& M - , ; ,-1;_ ,--...,`.1 -.1 - A?4 ci j 1.,5!9 ao4-5 L . s ':':•-'-t--;, ..!‘-.‘‘:',yti+ 4 _' :rr' ,J.f - ,. r' a ..-1::>.;',/,...---'''-1,--'',"--'-','"-,-'-':- 4I t'�'�� 7°� *.a f"'• Il—..`}' h�'✓ -'-.-"4:-.-:--',--`/-..,-r f �1+ .,-}�'1 / � �° J f%'J J .I.I Y Y..1 �� iJf J F { .✓H:•3. I, '..s42.;;.' is r4-'-'-'-'' rJ -'•:,"-r- --"- ---,-4''' tr " , t, J`J'.‹.-:-.F.,"--`.."'-/.-" '' _ -.+ .rte r'f r"J " rte' ,,>-:;--::� f r F "' ! 'ti w3 ,y .r t �, J a�'rJ. r 'Jx �! •'r' ' ' ' '% • r f "'—'.7,',- 7,-.',-.'—` 'J,' f f aY J F '' .� pJ' " J'r r' _ Y ,'417 " � .y ,.{..r lam p G��yy ` p � .��i�r + r,l ••,:::-‘:.-.- -:, 1ln Pt ', =D $ 1'{L 1 t{r5 .',D.0%; AP F R 0 X I IV P4, E� t" 111.1.M.,-0..,-' A� Rl I --'>7,..-2",,/,/,..,,...2-;.`"'...,;„:,,,........),J FJ .. , 'S 4 _Fr://rJJ .--`,..-':'-',."...`-PR• .Y Farm ' I 3'4 'may[}, 3 �, r.-i meq. EL 54• nt-i' ° ua� TION E�I4r1T�' rl 0 I illl. PROPOSED5.0FES 0 @ca0 Di Q �, � TAX t�l+�R'! " ii47,,Dflo .:-..,-: 11661-'RrTv/F1.A EIN TS 0 RD — 4 . I I :{`� _ I -`�'- .J 4 :_A t-7 •� I.4 " ” 1 i CI p ! 1 „ :. ..y �. r j t 1 14 1 ;;..-11_1.LLIVI " ' -.- I A 1-nhi rT 1i . r 0.2 t11.' �1z I1:�� ZC. "sj ��:.��►+�a'a �nrl h n.1. Tl�Tlfi}1',I 152, tiIli ;- --- z� -4� _ I NJI, C� l L? 1.11-?.ST 1?F)7 F"[ Pv' �- ` z �_ -` — - z " � 1 _ 77 .v�-, ,m... A P F 0 P I B E D s 1- R EZ-11- V E I D IN / S`� 4okane ,ti4-wrrg racer-raaw IR A al_D 1. F .V ir: NJ Li e-E: Talley �+ E ti1"® K.4-TNT K ''Jel4.LiLCY, W SH1NtLTEIfid 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 23, 2019 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business ® public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2019-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—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: Study session by Planning Commission on May 9, 2019; 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. On May 9, Planning Commission asked the following questions. •First,Planning Commission requested information regarding transport of live plants. Under the law, live plants are allowed to be transported in a"fully enclosed,windowless locked trailer, or in a secured area within the inside body/compartment of a van or box truck." The"secured area"is defined as"an area where solid or locking metal partitions, cages, or high strength shatterproof acrylic can be used to create a secure compaituient." Finally, other than the front windshield and side windows necessary for driving,the secure compaituient must be free of windows. WAC 314-55-310(5)(f). • Planning Commission also asked about what markings might be required or allowed on transport vehicles. Staff spoke with a transporter who indicated they have no markings. Further,WAC 314-55-155 provides"No marijuana licensee shall place or maintain, or cause to placed or maintain, an advertisement of a marijuana business or marijuana product...[o]n or in a private vehicles...." This appears to limit advertising on transport vehicles. •Finally, Planning Commission asked about what is required of drivers to assist law enforcement if they are stopped during transport. Staff spoke with a transporter,who indicated that every vehicle is required to have a copy of the marijuana transport license. Thus, if stopped by law enforcement,that information would be easily available to demonstrate to law enforcement that it is part of a valid transport business. However, law enforcement has broad authority to ensure that such transport occurs lawfully, and WAC 314-55-310 provides that every"vehicle assigned for the purposes of transporting marijuana,useable marijuana,marijuana concentrates, or marijuana-infused products shall be considered an extension of the licensed premises and subject to inspection by enforcement officers of the WSLCB. Vehicles assigned for transportation may be stopped and inspected by a WSLCB enforcement officer at any licensed location, or while en route during transportation." 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: Conduct the public hearing. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, consider the proposed amendments through deliberations. 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 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 23, 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 Jl State law — Licensed Marijuana TransUses Planning Commission Questions: Live plants? Yes. Secured compartment - metal partitions, cages, or shatterproof acrylic. Must be windowless (other than windshields and windows necessary for driving). Vehicle markings? Law appears to prohibit advertising of business on private vehicles. Information to assist law enforcement during stops? License, logs, etc. required to be kept in vehicle. Further, law provides that vehicles are extension of licensed premises and may be stopped and inspected at any time. City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney 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 8 P çpgseLd==Amen=dm ents Amend SVMC 19.85.040 to establish buffers and limits for marijuana transport uses. 19.85.040 Marti u arta 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 9 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 ro Questions ? City of Spokane Valley-Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 23, 2019 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Northeast Industrial Area Street Vacation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: A study session was conducted on April 25, 2019. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 2019 the City Council passed Resolution 19-005 initiating the vacation of four unimproved rights-of-way (ROW) and Resolution 19-006 setting the public hearing date with the Planning Commission. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the ROW contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROW includes 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. The area of vacation is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels: 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066. OPTIONS: Recommend approval of the proposed street vacation with conditions, recommend approval with changes, or recommend denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of the proposed street vacation to the City Council with staff conditions; STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. PowerPoint presentation RPCA Public Hearing for STV-2019-0001 Page 1 of 1 c i i of COMMUNITY&PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 40, Valley FILE No: STV-2019-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 2019 FILE NO: STV-2019-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated street vacation for 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. STAFF: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; 509.720.5331;mbasinger@spokanevalley.org PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066), further defined as follows: that portion of Tschirley Road located in the West half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M, in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and that portion of Long Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of previously vacated street (by County vacation number 2093) said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67; that portion of Rich Avenue further located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E., W.M., Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and adjacent to Tract 54, and Tract 55; that portion of Greenacres Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25N., Range 45E., W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54, Tract 65, Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75, in Spokane Valley, Washington. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 2019 the City Council passed Resolution 19-005 initiating the vacation of four unimproved rights-of-way(ROW) and Resolution 19-006 setting the public hearing date with the Planning Commission. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the ROW contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROW includes 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. Page 1 of 4 The proposed vacation will eliminate public ROW access to parcel 55061.9060 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.F states "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street or an easement for a private driveway. "The owner may consolidate the parcels,reconfigure the parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment, or create an easement for access as proposed in the recommended conditions. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC—Title 20(Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC—Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC—Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Resolution 19-005 and Resolution 19-006 Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics of The ROW consists of 1,266 feet on Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of proposed vacation: Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. Adjacent Industrial(I) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning Adjacent to Industrial(I) ROW: Adjacent Land Use(s): All eleven parcels abutting the four ROW are vacant. II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use ROW for access. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The City of Spokane Valley is constructing a new road (Garland Avenue) between Flora Road and Barker Road to service new industries in the area. Page 2 of 4 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to future development and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: A Notice of Public Hearing signs was posted on the property on April 25, 2016 and public hearing notices were mailed to all petitioners of the vacation the same as the eleven parcels abutting the four ROW on the same day. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 25, 2016. Lastly,the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald and Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3,2019. Staff received no public comment(s). Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2017-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. No concerns were raised in public comment received. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Conclusion(s): Spokane Valley Fire Department provided a response stating that they completed a review of the proposed vacations and have no comments. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2019-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent,through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate 1,266 feet by 30 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet by 30 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet by 30 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet by 30 feet of Greenacres Road subject to the following conditions. Page 3 of 4 1. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office. 2. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction,repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be completed. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 4. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the industrial district. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 5. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 6. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 III - 11 ■ I 1. 1.1. op 00.--immi fi I BIGELOWGULCH RD 'AM 1.1111■�■ Vicinity Map I M=7 • iiuilira' liIi Alis■■■■ ...rai II �����■�■■ �■11►��'■■■ •\t!!.I7 ■f ■■i' a ■■' iII■� IIIIIIUirii PARIIIii.1IIIIi■■■..rii_I P 1 •"m . EMN omit& Him;■ 111.*:;....4,41,1prouradi. t. ,�. :.,,A ill - ailimmr� ���11■� ! ! W7. lifilmillim:rdit��1I, i1iI 7,In �""`•a '{� rpit_iibra. II G��gE.Ia������-II=■■�'_-- Z !ra` • e.• •.) 1111� �� •.tiii ��_--� M��_1—-- (� _■ �r g•' �:'`ry ■fwu" � •�+}'�K'i`i .1.•■i ==. viii,■.= ■ 'I� YAV ti e :"1I I iMg__IIIIIWELLESLEYAVE ■��■Ie �rII :1,11�• -■`MIMiii '������'• i �i■■��==':11=� a■�' 11 7■'o I� 'I-...•=i1i�;■l ce ' °re re > = a'� .r.l '��I per I ■ 0 =,1= —� �! - •�- _ 6■n111�r1r1■Illiil7lr. `--' Ip a _ - _ D w ,II■! -- - Y M. -ate 1, 41 ■:piJ1iL — :a"11. I. - C`�1. . . . .../, g j...MI _ — k. Aid NI—■■ rM I lI--- - --- mm= ' 111111 .811 MUM■■4UIII■ ■II EUCLID AV EUCLID AV • t/CG/0 ANft ■ F x.111 �ETTAAV t a 1�I■��IP1 � ' As a a IL tit, . MAR Y l��Ilo" _`�� . �!` w o -__!)7,, ' . Tll � a ,Ase9 _.Z �u1• "�,1 iJlllll m:- ,,,''�_ �' .., -. 111111e co trCCI tei'I 1 s a> >. _, L„,),-IImilu!_ao mii ..,,i ii, - `dl� ' 7 = �o,�* �� oil _ L . INDIANAAV,_„,----,- n �-I :11111' .,� r■■ ; .................11;1111, ,,,-h„.„,,_� — we i-o• Interstate 90 ` = 1 ■■■ I■ lI r wa sa`1 rn 7 -i ■: II11� IIIb' 111■HI". - 1 a I , ...--ty P\e �. ■■ /nterStat Ii i. i '1111 :III ■NO' ., 1' I ����, , moi■ c, . PP ,w .. e 9 = 0 '� E�■ IIIII�w1I■ III""',M_ISSIONAV� I.-'= ytiti ;01 IS of M/$S� -- � i `,�` _ _■ RI II l'. d ,■ u...... ._, r ■ lis ,� ae �� M- S' Al �I 1 l ONq htlq rytQr I I �:■ II' IIIIIII V I�u I■I I t7■ to m V a ` r L [ I-� Ni! a •n,,. sr to 9 .at -9 _�� �' IIi■■■'_1.A a-_I "•2! .mmil. zila' �9 • ��`� < k.,.. VVP D L n d e .II■", II O ce r .r. 9 �0 f O-_ ..11 ■-_ to liar I �+ + X",.. 0 ui II■. IZ :J F' 1■+!�R tea hit e 1 LL ■1 IIII• =triers..amp go to°r .,.: ■■:e■: -ff ° rst 90�••-i 9���:e1: 1�■ ,n{e state -‘1.s ���0 1" -� IN___ w UO NI..==_f=_=E: -- ate . T7TR r -- I BROADWAY, Interstate 90 ots' r �, j - ru iil AV r 11 COUNTRY G f� y oY Legend I.Ir7■i I:.■■II, 11111E Ellehe. _., ■■■■■1 VISTA DR _ �� „ II 1111 1111111/11 ■'"III:-"::::::"7" •'nn �." sin \■A ra _II �„ + :i LL 1,::i. �.• \nngrr 7� 4` �''VIII H JI��III?�Id� impmph � .`:i .... W*f w� p l S. -■--■� L . 1 91111, 1111111■■- ill a' ��.� /-. • + It Affected Parcels ..11III�I iv 111 1 1- 14.... iiii, ..•r. 'WAY AV 1 + ■ nl ■� n 11+ '‘ °'!j tPtp sty+ r SiAs v=' j . IIpg11 �I�� �' . .e6 Fitt r l��s ;F'�r .11•M ri o.� — t!litiVii•j0.--,n, f ■IPy�n4�.. '1r µ r�.... ,•�,�rlasFt+w;► ��i'i fl<* iI q 11 Spokane Valley Boundary �;�110.11 �: I■�. 'It ,,� ►►::: 19,�F : is SPRAGUE AV 11 _1-I�L....alLI :�-_ i i_l■,1. ce t.jC � 1 n 7)►' IIMI III♦ ■■■■1■ - 11II:11!Idl=- ::3L9■ Immo";-- - !' ■ w %f ` •!e _ MI��I itTa1111■I ■I _ ■?111111■ I' L■ 11111 ■ w a�� _.„,„,,,,....,,,o_�� y, e._�� ! ■...re's.=,_.'.-.�i1to ■ .nw --` ■r=�im-�k3E __. ulllll::.� f:. ■■■■a■■■E I■.■■ul■n..i�<�dli■ Mm. �i 1E►a\_ _d a h` 0``• —e EXHIBIT 2 r k 110- 4 i 73 re 00 :. 007Aerial Ma 1--" _ o - JI J 7 71‘7. 1 C f. N. E�Ce�t Pie I 1 ♦ 4 :'' / '- I.,,-' IX Y I ii /i 1 m IT JJ o .-ter`-- '-., F � _z - - aGarland alB i Mi h't; Y� f i - 410k064$'1 Apir --. ,. ito Legend '.11R r,�,' 4oci �� �''�� Courtland/ve'�='f - ,� . CD r _ 9 I� � I Proposed Vacations • *" ] lig 11 :• iirr., ; - o Z 'III 65 m Eigridgepoit e.11 o.IIIL' Affected Parcels N {� 'T - o �, z 3 ili 1�1 Spokane Valley Boundary I �^ - x '_ �,! 1��: I = 1, 7, - 1' .. .:_j_..).___,---E,L�berty4P�e_' z6 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUN'T'Y, WASHINGTON, INITIATING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION REQUEST STV-2019-0001 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Tschirley Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, West half of Section 6, Township 25 North,Range 45 East,W.M.;and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Long Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume'l'of Plats, page 6, lying north of previously vacated street(by County vacation number 2093)said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67; and WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley owns the Rich Avenue right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E.,W.M.;and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No.3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and adjacent to'Tract 54, and Tract 55;and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Greenacres Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6,Township 25N., Range 45E.,W.M.;and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54,Tract 65,Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75;and WHEREAS, upon incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley acquired all public rights of-way within its municipal boundaries, from Spokane County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, the legislative authority may by resolution initiate the vacation of any street or alley or any part when it is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to vacate the streets as shown in attachment"A"; and WHEREAS, SVMC 22.140.020 establishes authority for the City Council to initiate by resolution the vacation of certain sections of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue,and Greenacres Road, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,as follows: Resolution No. 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 1 of 3 Section T. The City Council hereby initiates the street vacation of sections of Tschiriey Road, Long Road,Rich Avenue,and Greenacres Road,File No. STV-2019-0001,as set forth in attachment"A." Section 2. Effective Date.This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 9th day of April,2019. CITY QF SP ANE VALLEY • ATTES, Q(//7/5. 1? Higg.• . Alt 1 ) L _ l Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as ti-5-1 •rn: ' D iceft eCiJi ey Resolution No. 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 2 of 3 Attachment"A" 1- 4 1 ,,>,...._________________________—. 14 '+ N40,60, 00 0 1C1 .. �� i0 o NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. c 1'A'., 4 .,rte ' ''t.' CP I MUM MR •t. .A1,--Y�• i. - ..0•A , MI , ,t �, Y' 07,1. 110011115 al : rtm.f .•s r- rff: Resolution No- 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION REQUEST STV-2019- 0001,PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has initiated a Street Vacation request (File No. STV- 2019-0001) for the vacation of 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue,and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road,located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to twelve parcels (55065.0105, 55063.0151, 55065.0170, 55065.0190, 55064.0171, 55064.0169, 55065.0107, 55064.0170,55064.1 107, 55061.9062, 55061 9066,55064.9030); and WI IEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35.79.010,the legislative authority shall, by resolution,set the date and time when a street vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof; and WHEREAS, chapter 22.140 SVMC establishes regulations and procedures for processing the vacation of public streets; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 22.140.030, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, and shall develop and forward a recommendation regarding STV-2019-0001 to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,as follows: Section L Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001. The required public hearing for street vacation request STV-2019-0001, as set forth in Attachment "A," shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission, May 23, 2019 beginning at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as practical, in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 9U1 day of April,2019. • CITY F Ager: ALLEY L.R.Higgins_ . Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as t. orm: OçfY/ ote Cily/At orne, Resolution No. 19-006 Setting Public!tearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001 Page l of 2 Attachment"A" 1 ' I �iY �0. TOO°14PG1F1G 1 NOW h0.ERN PAW(G RY, C f . i.S' 4111 _ ; ,,,,,,, ,,,,... . ,....„ ._ __di. .„. . .... hp — o. I --- F "7 , .. "II% t. I. I; 1, Resolution No. 19-006 Setting Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 4 alley sotane NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PETITIONERS(IF ANY)AND ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING THE STREET PROPOSED TO BE VACATED BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW: HEARING DATE: May 23,2019 at 6:00 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley,WA 99206. REVIEW AUTHORITY: Spokane Valley Planning Commission STAFF: Mike Basinger, (509)720-5333,economicdevelopment@a,spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0001 APPLICATION/DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated street vacation for 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road; 1,565 feet of Long Road; 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels(55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066), further defined as follows:that portion of Tschirley Road located in the West half of Section 6,Township 25 North, Range 45 East,W.M,in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts,said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and that portion of Long Road located in the East half of Section 6,Township 25 North,Range 45 East,W.M.in Plat No.3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6,lying north of previously vacated street(by County vacation number 2093) said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67;that portion of Rich Avenue further located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E.,W.M.,Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6,being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6,said street being north of and adjacent to Tract 54,and Tract 55;that portion of Greenacres Road further located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25N., Range 45E., W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54,Tract 65, Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75, Spokane Valley,Washington. OWNER Parcels 55065.0105, 55065.0170, 55065.0171, 55065.0107, 55064.0169, 55064.9030 and 55064.0170: Centennial Properties,Inc.; 999 West Riverside Avenue; Spokane,WA 99201-1006 OWNER Parcel 55061.9062: Shelley Family Rev Living Trust; 23217 S. Cross Rd.; Cheney,WA 99004 OWNER Parcel 55061.9066: Old Dominion Freight Line,Inc.; 500 Old Dominion Way; Thomasville,NC 27360 OWNER Parcel 55065.0190: Spokane County; 1026 W.Broadway Ave.; Spokane,WA, 99212-0606 OWNER Parcel 55064.1107: BHO Holding,LLC; 6328 E.Utah Ave.; Spokane,WA, 99212-1429 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Economic Development Division has reviewed the proposal/project and determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and Section 11.10.070.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Interim Environmental Ordinance from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 22.140(Street Vacations)of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code;the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards;the Regional Stormwater Manual; and the Spokane Regional Health District regulations. HEARING PROCESS: The Planning Commission holds the public hearing to receive comments and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for an ordinance adoption. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7)calendar days before the hearing. The staff report and application file may be inspected at City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday, excluding holidays. Copies of documents will be made available at a reasonable cost. Send written comments to the City of Spokane Valley Depaitinent of Community and Economic Development, 10210 East Sprague; Spokane Valley, WA 99206; Attn: Mike Basinger,File No. STV-2019-0001. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 720-5102 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 5 ASE 4�f O�P4�Y ACCR, O,i6 Pursuing Excellence 40 `[ l Q CFA! p c-, 4$7 ' W ' m t ° BRYAN COLLINS,FIRE CHIEF [IRE DEPT '16 zo"z' 2120 N.Wilbur Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)928-1700 Main April 25, 2019 (509)892-4125 Fax spokanevalleyfire.com City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: STV-2019-0001 The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments to the proposed street vacations associated with STV-2019-0001. All specific fire department conditions shall be conditioned on future commercial permits. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Jacob Blanchette Environmental Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation STV-19-0001 May 23, 2019 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Process ,DZ - _ - - CityCouncil administrative report 1 CC Kip Trent_Av_ed . . _,..„_..2 ..... ......e.'-'-filch Ave City Council consent agenda Resolution 19-005 initiates street vacation = Resolution 19-006 sets public hearing with PC Garlantl Ave-Planned Planning Commission recommendation a , � m � 0 o s I Study Session LL Z z W -- Z Z_ Public Hearing EEuclidAve Findings of Fact s f� I City Council decision O I Fn Staff completes the vacationeR;'e °Kan Me I _, E E Mort9°mI 11 eN fru 2 Street Vacation . , ,. _ r- .. , , ^ ........,..,,,,- ____________...------- __ '_IF F , %I if. 1 1 W. — • iii. i i•1 i riL . I ��. il, E Garland J- 1, 1111.1 1., IN Tschirley ROW ==-- Long ROW .�, J t,, __ Greenacres ROW I �-_-, 0 Legend F Rich ROW - '�'� E•CcwrtandAve _ Proposed Vacations �. I'�' T F Affected Parcels _ • i L 5pnkanP Valley Ruiary h r f .:_ ;� "'A t .-- *. t 3 Public Hearing Notice Requirements : 1. Posted in 3 places City Hall , Center Place, Valley Library 2 . Published in the Valley Herald 2 times 3 . Written notice to abutting property owners along University Road and Baldwin Avenue 4. Signs posted at each end of proposed vacation area Approval Criteria Does the vacation better serve the public? Is the ROW required for public use or access? Is a new and different public way more useful? Conditions will change to provide a greater use? Objections by owners abutting the ROW? Recommendation Approve with conditions *Wane jMike Basinger,gec AiCP Economic Development Manager