PC APPROVED Minutes 05-09-19 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:
La. 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 Z 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.
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 Ianguage 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 Cityinitiated 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 Hippie, 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. Manahan 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. Manahan 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.
Iden 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 3Oth 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 Hippie, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr. Hippie 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. Hippie 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 S 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 Hippie'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 Walton 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 1-90 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