Loading...
2018, 07-24 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer, Genesis Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on July 24, 2018 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $2,002,324.10 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15, 2018: $347,580.12 c. Approval of Avista Natural Gas Easement d. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes, June 12, 2018 Special Meeting, Workshop e. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes, July 3, 2018 Study Session f. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes, July 10, 2018 Regular Formal Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Ordinance 18-014, Comp Plan Amendment — Lori Barlow [public comment] 3. First Reading Ordinance 18-015 Comp Plan Amendment, Zoning Map — Lori Barlow [public comment] 4. First Reading Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 5. First Reading Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] Council Agenda 07-24-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 6. First Reading Ordinance 18-018 amending SVMC 2.75, Public Records — Cary Driskell [public comment] 7. Resolution 18-006 Amending 17-017, Master Speed Schedule, School Zones — Bill Helbig [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: TIB Grant Applications — Bill Helbig [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Mission Avenue Street Preservation, McDonald -Evergreen — Gloria Mantz [public comment] 10. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Euclid Ave (Sullivan to Flora) — Gloria Mantz [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11. Review of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Federal Lobbyist — Cary Driskell 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed) 13. Department Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"-1 and 4t1 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1.,_3a1 and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats normally do not have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. 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. Council Agenda 07-24-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 2018.Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 07/10/2018 6268; 6326; 6328; 6330; 6343-6345; 6347; 6359; 45012 $352,097.22 07/12/2018 45013-45061; 4434310; 4434328; 4674228 $1,403,496.93 07/12/2018 45062 $712.59 07/13/2018 45063-45103 $165,373.45 07/17/2018 7759-7785 $3,358.30 07/18/2018 6346; 6362; 6363; 6366; 6368; 6370 $77,285.61 GRAND TOTAL: $2,002,324.10 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101-- Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 -- Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 -- Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED— Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Ree- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/10/2018 4:29:37PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 6268 7/5/2018 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES Ben80896 001.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 22,593.11 Total : 2Z593.11 6326 7/5/2018 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben80880 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 107,210.28 Total : 107,210.28 6328 7/5/2018 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben80882 311.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,784.62 Total: 2,784.62 6330 7/5/2018 006345 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING Ben80884 001.231.20.00 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING: 163.33 Total: 163.33 6343 7/5/2018 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben80886 314.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 32,912.36 Total : 32,912.36 6344 7/5/2018 000682 EFTPS Ben80888 311.231.12.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,872.56 Total : 31,872.56 6345 7/5/2018 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS, 457 PLE Ben80890 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 12,080.04 Total : 12,080.04 6347 715/2018 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben80892 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 637.50 Total : 637.50 6359 7/5/2018 000682 EFTPS Ben80898 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 1,026.08 Total: 1,026.08 45012 7/5/2018 000120 AWC Ben80878 101.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 130,226.73 Ben80894 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 10,590.61 Total : 140,817.34 10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 352,097.22 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 352,097.22 Page: 1 vchlist 07/1212018 11:31:46AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: _ Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45013 7/12/2018 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 91339 001.040.041.543 PRINT SERVICE 174.08 Total : 174.08 45014 7/12/2018 001873 ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC PAY APP 1 303.303.142.595 0142 -CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 510,313.42 Total : 510,313.42 45015 7/12/2018 000197 ACRANET 7521 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECK 142.00 Total : 142.00 45016 7/12/2018 001685 AICPA 000022574 001.013.000.513 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: M CALH( 275.00 Total : 275.00 45017 7/12/2018 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 216367 101.042.000.542 MASTIC AND PATCHER RENTAL 8,453.76 218073 101.042.000.542 CRAFCO MASTIC 3,381.50 CM 18686 101.042.000.542 CREDIT FOR CRACK SEAL RE INV -7,768.32 Total : 4,066.94 45018 7/12/2018 000030 AVISTA ESA#22067 303.303.142.595 ELECTRIC SERVICE EXTENSION # 1,529.03 Total : 1,529.03 45019 7/12/2018 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 27.80 Total : 27.80 45020 7/12/2018 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 60619 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 244.80 Total : 244.80 45021 7/12/2018 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC 2328 001.040.042.558 BROWNS PARK MARKET STUDY 256.25 Total: 256.25 45022 7/12/2018 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 54898878 001.040.043.558 JUNE 2018 FLEET FUEL BILL 2,878.46 Total : 2,878.46 45023 7/12/2018 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC JULY 2018 101.042.000.543 COMMON AREA CHARGES FOR M/ 173.64 Total : 17164 45024 7/12/2018 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 603391 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 212.33 vchlist 07/12/2018 11:31:46AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45024 7/12/2018 003255 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 45025 7/12/2018 000044 DELL MARKETING LP 45026 7/12/2018 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 45027 7/12/2018 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 45028 7/12/2018 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 45029 7/12/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 45030 7/12/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 10245692100 10245692206 10246022348 RE-313-ATB80618048 RE-313-AT880618055 EXPENSES 115439 115440 115468 495698 495699 495702 495703 496682 496685 496687 496688 496690 48788 48789 48808 48809 48813 48814 48815 Fund/Dept 001.040.043.558 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 Description/Account Amount Total : DELL 7389 2 -IN -1 FOR COUNCILME DELL 7389 2 -IN -1 TABLET FOR COL DELL TABLET FOR IT Total ; REIMB TRAFFIC SVC REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINT. Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total 212.33 1,135.12 1,135.12 1,375.03 3,645.27 5.235.17 5,610.12 10, 845.29 47.78 47.78 40.00 80.00 105.00 225.00 41.87 70.31 31.60 52.14 66.75 30.00 52.93 76.63 60.83 483.06 47.60 62.05 147.20 68.80 62.05 92.65 68.85 Page: 2 vchlist 07/12/2018 11:31:46AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45030 7/12/2018 001447 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 45031 7/12/2018 000609 GENDRONS CO 45032 7/12/2018 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 45033 7/12/2018 000007 GRAINGER 45034 7112/2018 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 45035 7/12/2018 000410 GRIFFIN PUBLISHING INC. 45036 7/12/2018 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD 45037 7/12/2018 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 45038 7/12/2018 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 45039 7/12/2018 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 45040 7/12/2018 006645 LA CONSULTING INC 45041 7/12/2018 003185 LAMB, ERIK 9744 June 18 1042 9829181982 9831596029 117937 21596 EXPENSES PAY APP 4 0117577 S PO BS2846651-1 0014539 EXPENSES 45042 7/12/2018 000993 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER, OF WA LN( 38700350244 Fund/Dept 001.040.041.543 001.011,000.511 402.402.000.531 101.043.000.542 001.040.042.558 001.018.013.513 001.011.000.511 311.000.226.595 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.013.015.515 001.040.043.558 Description/Account Amount Total : SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEERING Total : GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUPPLIES: STORMWATER SUPPLIES: BRIDGE 549.20 247.41 247.41 4,646.97 Total : 4,646.97 Total : BASE INVESTMENT/PUBLIC INVES HOT TOPICS 2.50 39.04 41.54 3,583.34 Total : 3,583.34 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Total : 16-128: 0226 CONSTRUCTION Total : 2018 TIP MAINTENANCE & UPDATE Total : REMAINDER DUE - SAND BLAST/P) Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 10,840.70 10,840.70 963.47 963.47 341.00 341.00 8,896.50 8,896.50 217.59 217.59 10,242.77 10, 242.77 11.40 11.40 TIRE REPAIR #4-009 - 2014 ESCAP 30.46 Total : 30.46 vchlist 07/1212018 11: 31: 46A M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45043 7/12/2018 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. 45044 7/12/2018 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 45045 7/12/2018 000157 MOAT, BRIAN 45046 7/12/2018 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 45047 7/12/2018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 45048 7/12/2018 000058 OMA 45049 7/12/2018 002193 QSCEND TECHNOLOGES INC 45050 7/12/2018 006730 RASKELL, ROSE 45051 7/12/2018 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC PAY APP 1 462 EXPENSES 0538-843773 146348200001 147774448001 148882119001 148884252001 152017425001 152565948001 152865377001 153976683001 154183669001 154343303001 154718600001 156422044001 156617067001 A500163 9108 FAS -2018-0013 372-3 Fund/Dept 303.303.123.595 001.013.015.515 001.033.000.518 101.000.000.542 001.076.301.571 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.076.000.576 001.040.043.558 001.076.302.576 001.090.000.518 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.018.014.514 001.076.302.576 001.018.016.518 001.018.013.513 001.040.043.345 001.040.042.558 Description/Account Amount 0123 -CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : REISSUE - SUPPLIES FOR SNOWF Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE CAMERA - CPW OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE VEHICLE 1ST AID KITS OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total : EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAM Total : CUSTOM SMART PHONE APP Total : PERMIT REFUND: FAS -2018-0013 Total : 52,238.56 52,238.56 48.75 48.75 53.83 53.83 68.01 68.01 234.83 139.64 11.08 11.08 165.16 18.91 121.83 40.46 63.10 29.37 25.85 21.53 117.90 1,000.74 700.00 700.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 62.52 62.52 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000.00 vchlist 07/12/2018 11:31:46AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45051 7/12/2018 006427 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC (Continued) Total : 10,000.00 45052 7/12/2018 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 31763 101.042.000.542 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - ENGII 840.63 Total : 840.63 45053 7/12/2018 004535 SHRED -IT USA LLC 8125096627 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 156.30 Total : 156.30 45054 7/12/2018 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE JUNE 2018 001.040.043.558 RECORDING FEES 1,107.00 Total : 1,107.00 45055 7/12/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 42000506 001.016.000.554 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES JUL4 21,178.22 51504371 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE MAY 2018 6,089.83 Total : 27, 268.05 45056 7/12/2018 000202 SRCAA 11250 001.090.000.553 3RD QTR 2018 ASSESSMENT 33,623.25 Total : 33,623.25 45057 7/12/2018 006413 THOMPSON, LINDA EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 47.04 Total : 47.04 45058 7/12/2018 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 010514 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 328.86 Total : 328.86 45059 7/12/2018 002960 WICK, BEN EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 348.87 Total : 348.87 45060 7/12/2018 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY PAY APP 2 303.000.264.595 0264- DICKEY TO THIERMAN CONE 227,511.35 Total : 227,511.35 45061 7/12/2018 002651 WOODARD, ARNE EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 89.93 Total : 89.93 4434310 5/31/2018 005314 US BANK 1014902 204.000.000.592 LTBO BONDS 2016 122,175.00 Total : 122,175.00 4434328 5/31/2018 005314 US BANK 1000942 204.204.000.592 LTGO REFUNDING BONDS 2014 106,525.00 Total : 106, 525.00 vchlist 07/12/2018 11:31:46AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: / Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4674228 7/5/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JUNE 2018 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 240,150.74 Total : 240,150.74 52 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,403,496.93 52 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,403,496.93 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify sad claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: �� vchlist 07/12/2018 11:51:17AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Ci —1-- Bank 1' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 45062 7/12/2018 006675 MODERN OFFICE EQUIPMENT INC 126816 001.090.000.518 COPIER SERVICE 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 1 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 712.59 712.59 712.59 712.59 Page: -lam vchlist 07113/2018 12:04:51 PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45063 7/13/2018 006143 ACTION DRAIN AND ROOTER WA LLC 328867 001.076.305.575 SERVICE AT CENTERPLACE 119.68 Total : 119.68 45064 7/13/2018 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 3010214 001.076.305.575 SECURITY MONITORING AT CENTE 117.00 Total : 117.00 45065 7/13/2018 003775 AM HARDWARE 41491 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 70.72 Total : 70.72 45066 7/13/2018 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA Expenses 001.040.041.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 28.34 Expenses 001.040.041.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 36.52 Total : 64.86 45067 7/13/2018 006402 ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER 1990762875 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 588.83 1990773097 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 588.83 Total : 1,177.66 45068 7/13/2018 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV03091 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRI 9,115.45 Total : 9,115.45 45069 7/13/2018 002326 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS 248-P1997494 001.076.305,575 BATTERIES FOR CP 39.15 Total : 39.15 45070 7/13/2018 006749 C&R EXCAVATING & DEMO INC APR -2018-0069 001.040.043.341 PERMIT REFUND: APR -2018-0069 0.20 Total : 0.20 45071 7/13/2018 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 June 2018 402.402.000.531 UTILITIES: JUNE 2018 462.38 June 2018 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: JUNE 2018 CP AND PAR 1,576.23 Total : 2,038.61 45072 7/13/2018 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 358570 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP 27.50 Total : 27.50 45073 7/13/2018 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 May 2018 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES: MAY 2018 4,970.86 Total : 4,970.86 45074 7/13/2018 002308 FINKE, MELISSA July 2018 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 56.25 Page: ;� vchlist 07113/2018 12:04:51 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: �t Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45074 7/13/2018 002308 FINKE, MELISSA (Continued) July 2018 July 2018 July 2018 July 2018 45075 7/13/2018 004813 FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICES 212458 45076 7/13/2018 000007 GRAINGER 45077 7/13/2018 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 45078 7/13/2018 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO 45079 7/13/2018 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 45080 7/13/2018 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 45081 7/13/2018 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION 45082 7/13/2018 004926 LE CATERING CO 9815127528 9819883779 9819883787 9824145776 9824145784 9828995861 June 2018 May 2018 June 2018 1293511 1295236 1298237 1298411 1298412 65 E00868 Fund/Dept 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.033.000.518 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001 076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 Description/Account Amount INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : COFFEE SVCS FOR CENTERPLAC Total : SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE CREDIT MEMO: INVOICE 98112076 Total : SUPPLIES: CITY HALL UTILITIES: MAY 2018 Total : Total : UTILITIES: PARKS AND PRW JUNE Total : EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE JUNE 2018 MONTHLY CLEANING P; EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE Total : MARKETING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 318.75 45.00 48.75 1,635.00 2,103.75 174.86 174.86 39.17 165.05 10.92 3.80 192.04 -62.73 348.25 77.14 77.14 452.62 452.62 1,967.53 1,967.53 21.07 26.34 7,849.60 31.61 84.28 8,012.90 5,000.00 5,000.00 E00868: ACTION COACH 720.79 Page: —2r vchlist 0711312018 12:04:51 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: f "3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45082 7113/2018 004926 004926 LE CATERING CO (Continued) 45083 7/1312018 005457 MADDEN MEDIA 201708910 45084 7/13/2018 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO June 2018 45085 7113/2018 001130 MPLC 504156928 45086 7/13/2018 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION INC. 2316126-2 45087 7/13/2018 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R627537 45088 7/13/2018 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 01-1498378 03-1057584 45089 7/13/2018 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 8428134 8502912 45090 7/13/2018 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 45091 7/13/2018 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 1507-3 499145 45092 7/13/2018 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 57105 57176 57218 45093 7/13/2018 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010809869 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.016.016.521 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount Total : SPOKANE OFFICIAL VISITORS GUI Total : UTILITIES: JUNE 2018 PARKS Total : LICENSE FOR MOTION PICTURE A Total : ANNUAL INSPECTION OF BACKFL( Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS Total : MONTHLY SVCS AT PRECINCT CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS JUNE 2 Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : ADVERTISING ACCT 42801 Total : MAY 2018 MONTHLY MAINT PRECII WORK ORDER #27437 CENTERPLU JUNE 2018 MONTHLY MAINT PREC Total : 720.79 1,687.00 1,687.00 6,492.80 6,492.80 587.21 587.21 331.84 331.84 24.63 24.63 62.01 59.74 121.75 647.16 60,343.90 60,991.06 39.94 39.94 466.98 466.98 642.90 188.33 642.90 1,474.13 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTE 54.88 vchlist 0711312018 12:04:61 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 45093 7/13/2018 003532 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOl (Continued) 45094 7/13/2018 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 45095 7/13/2018 001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC 1303573 RG 2522277 45096 7/13/2018 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MEC 3270 45097 7/13/2018 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 45098 7/1312018 000295 VALLEYFEST 45099 7/13/2018 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 45100 7/13/2018 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 45101 7/13/2018 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 45102 7/13/2018 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 45103 7/13/2018 004961 ZOME INC 59108966 1198 June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 May 2018 358608 358885 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 001.076.301.571 309.000.270.594 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 001.090.000.550 001.090.000.550 101.042.000.542 105.000.000.557 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 June 2018 Wages Only 001.076.302.576 ZDM-38738 ZDM-38873 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount Total : TRANSFER STATION: CPW MAY 20 Total : SUMMER OUTDOOR MOVIE LICEN Total : 0270-ENG/ARCH/PROJ MGMT Total : J8805-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATE Total : ADVERTISING IN VALLEYFEST PUf 2018 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 2018 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 2018 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI Total : UTILITIES: JUNE 2018 54.88 711.63 711.63 666.95 666.95 2,157.12 2,157.12 29.50 29.50 1,515.00 446.25 1,211.98 3,007.50 6,180.73 3,965.75 Total : 3,965.75 2018 LODING TAX GRANT REIMBUI Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : OPERATING EXPENSES - WAGES Total : STAFF SHIRTS AND UNIFORMS FO STAFF SHIRTS AND UNIFORMS FO Total : 5,833.34 5,833.34 152.11 177.56 329.67 36,069.79 36,069.79 460.12 97.10 557.22 41 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 165,373.45 Page: -— vch List 07/17/2018 10:28:11 AM /3 Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7759 7/17/2018 004389 BIPPES, AMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 118.00 Total : 118.00 7760 7/17/2018 006732 BLH MARKETING & PR STUDIO PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY M1SSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7761 7/17/2018 006733 BONDARENKO, VICTORIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 7762 7/17/2018 006148 BROOKS, AMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 354.00 Total : 354.00 7763 7/17/2018 006734 BROSSMAN, SETH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 75.00 Total : 75.00 7764 7/17/2018 006735 COMCAST PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION: BROWNS SHELTE 125.00 Total : 125.00 7765 7/17/2018 006743 CORNERSTONE PENTECOSTAL CHURC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7766 7/17/2018 006744 DASH, PAMELA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 28.50 Total : 28.50 7767 7/17/2018 006745 DEGG, SHARON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSION REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 7768 7/17/2018 006754 DODD, MATAYA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 236.00 Total : 236.00 7769 7/17/2018 006736 HAACK, KAY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7770 7/17/2018 006737 HATTEN, BREEANN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 7771 7/17/2018 006752 JOHNSON, MARIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 35.00 Page: ��. vchlist 07/17/2018 10: 28:11 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: —2 -- Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor 7771 7/17/2018 006752 006752 JOHNSON, MARIA 7772 7/17/2018 006738 KING, LINDA 7773 7/17/2018 006739 KNODEL, TAMI 7774 7/17/2018 006746 KOONTZ, SAMANTHA 7775 7/17/2018 003878 LAYWELL, KARI 7776 7/17/2018 006751 MCGARRY, NICOLE 7777 7/17/2018 006753 MERRIFIELD, MELISSA 7778 7/17/2018 006740 MJELDE, SARAH 7779 7/17/2018 006748 MOORE, REBEKAH 7780 7/17/2018 006747 OSBORN, CELEST 7781 7/17/2018 006741 VADON, KEVIN 7782 7/17/2018 000295 VALLEYFEST 7783 7/17/2018 006750 WEAVER, TERESA Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account (Continued) Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PAR' Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIM LESSION REFUND Amount Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEQ Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Total : 35.00 75.00 75.00 35.00 35.00 75.00 75.00 118.00 118.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 70.80 105.80 75.00 75.00 34.00 141.00 175.00 35.00 35.00 300.00 300.00 40.00 40.00 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 579.00 Page: .—J vchlist 0711712018 10:28:11AM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 7783 7/17/2018 006750 006750 WEAVER, TERESA (Continued) Total : 579.00 7784 7/17/2018 006742 WOLKERSDORFER, MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 7785 7/17/2018 006755 ZEHNDER, MARIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 254.00 Total : 254.00 27 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 3,358.30 27 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that f am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 3,358.30 Page: Page: vchlist Voucher List 07/1812018 10:21:43AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 6346 7/20/2018 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben81191 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 2,070.45 Total: 2,070.45 6362 7/20/2018 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben81193 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 32,713.60 Total : 32,713.60 6363 7/20/2018 000682 EFTPS Ben81195 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,522.66 Total : 31,522.66 6366 7/20/2018 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PI./ Ben81197 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 9,191.40 Total : 9,191.40 6368 7/20/2018 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC Pl Ben81199 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 637.50 Total : 637.50 6370 7/20/2018 000210 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben81201 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 1,150.00 Total : 1,150.00 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 77,285.61 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 77,285.61 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15, 2018 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 287,508.11 $ $ 287,508.11 Benefits: $ 60,072.01 $ $ 60,072.01 Total payroll $ 347,580.12 $ $ 347,580.12 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['information ❑admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed easement — Avista natural gas extension at 14th Avenue. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of Avista natural gas franchise September 17, 2013; administrative report July 17, 2018. BACKGROUND: Avista is the only provider for natural gas in the region. The City granted Avista a franchise to install and maintain its natural gas facilities in the City's rights-of-way. Avista has identified an area where it would like to connect gas lines from 14th Lane to 15th Avenue in Bettman's Addition, near Bettman Road. A map of the area is attached for reference. The parcel where Avista would like to install a buried gas line is parcel number 35243.1080, and is not right-of-way, although it was designated as such many years ago. As such, the franchise does not control this request. The City acquired the parcel in 2010 as part of a stormwater project, and it does not have any structures on it. The gas line would be located in a 10 foot easement along the west side of the property, and beneath several electric lines (installed pursuant to a different easement many years ago). The proposed easement language requires Avista to move its facilities in the event the City needs to do any alteration to the property for a public purpose. The City does not believe the easement would impact the City's use of the property OPTIONS: Approve grant of easement to Avista RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve the natural gas easement to Avista for parcel 35243.1080, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute any documentation necessary to accomplish the same. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: (1) proposed easement. Return Address: Avista Corporation Real Estate Department MSC -25 P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, Washington 99220-3727 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT For Mutual Benefits and Good Consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation ("Grantor"), hereby grants, conveys and warrants to AVISTA CORPORATION, a Washington corporation ("Grantee"), a perpetual non-exclusive easement on, over, under, along and across real property identified as Assessor's Parcel #35243.1080 located in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section 24, Township 25 North , Range 43 East Willamette Meridian, in Spokane County, State of Washington, legally described in EXHIBIT "A" (the "Property"), and by this reference is incorporated into this easement. 1. PURPOSE. Grantee shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, upgrade, repair, remove, relocate and replace a natural gas pipeline together with all related communications and appurtenances ("Facilities") on, over, under, along and across a 10' wide easement strip adjacent to the westerly parcel line, the approximate location of which is shown on the attached map marked EXHIBIT "B" (the "Easement Area"), and by this reference is incorporated into this easement. 2. ACCESS AND DAMAGE. Grantee shall have the right of access over and across the Property and the adjoining property of the Grantor for the purpose of the installation, repair and maintenance of said facilities, provided the Grantee repairs any damage, makes reasonable attempt to restore the affected area to its original or natural state, as close as reasonably possible or compensates the Grantor for any damage to said properties as a result of such access, installation, repair and maintenance. 3. CLEARING AND MAINTENANCE. Grantee shall have the right to cut, trim and remove any brush, branches, landscaping and trees, including danger trees, within the Easement Area, the Property and on Grantor's adjoining property that in the opinion of the Grantee, could interfere with the safe and reliable operation of Grantee's Facilities or that could interfere with the exercise of Grantee's rights as granted herein. 4. GRANTOR'S USE OF THE PROPERTY. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy the Property, to the extent that such use does not conflict or interfere with the Grantee's rights herein. Grantor shall not construct, place or maintain any building, structure or landscaping within the Easement Area that may interfere with Grantee's rights or with the safe operation of the Facilities or that are not in compliance with all safety and building codes, regulations and laws. Page 1 of 5, Avista Corporation Document No. 5. INDEMNITY. Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Grantor, its employees, agents, guests and invitees from damage to property and personal injury to the extent caused by Grantee's negligence or willful misconduct in the exercise of its rights herein, provided that Grantee shall not be liable for property damage or personal injury that is caused by the acts or omissions of Grantor, its employees, agents, guests and invitees or any other person. 6. GRANTOR'S WARRANTY. Grantor warrants and represents that Grantor has the unrestricted right to grant this easement and the rights described here. 7. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The rights granted in this easement run with the Property and shall be binding upon and benefit the parties and their respective successors, heirs and assigns. DATED this day of , 2018. GRANTOR(S): CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Signature of: Mark Calhoun, City Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) On this day of , 2018, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared, Mark Calhoun, to me known to be the City Manager of the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to an official act and deed of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed is the seal of the City of Spokane Valley. Signature Notary Public for the State of Residing at Print Name My Commission Expires Page 2 of 5, Avista Corporation Document No. GRANTEE Avista Corporation By: Its: Page 3 of 5, Avista Corporation Document No. EXHIBIT A Legal Description Of the Property Parcel #35243.1080 Lot 12, Block 9 of Bettman's Addition as per plat thereof recorded in Volume C of Plats, Page 13, records of Spokane County, Washington TOGETHER WITH that portion of Vacated 14th Avenue and that portion of Vacated Dickey Road which attaches by Operation of Law. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 4 of 5, Avista Corporation Document No. EXHIBIT B Easement Area / 352430915 352430986 352430987 352430988 352430989 Not to Scale 352431070 352431071 SW 1/4 Section 24, T25N, R43E. W.M. Subject Property Parce135243.1080 352431078 352431077 Underground natural gas line 10' in width and approximately 165' in length adjacent to westerly parcel line 352431054 Page 5 of 5, Avista Corporation Document No. DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington June 12, 2018 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Mark Werner, Police Chief Bill Helbig, City Engineer Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Admin. Analyst Doug Powell, Building Official Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. WELCOME: Mayor Higgins welcomed everyone to the meeting. WORKSHEET OVERVIEW — Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor City Manager Calhoun explained that the purpose of today's workshop is to discuss the 2019 budget. He explained that this will be the City's seventeenth budget since corporation; that the budget reflects the City's priorities in terms of budget commitment and staff effort, and stresses the priorities of public safety, pavement preservation, transportation and infrastructure (which he said includes parks and recreation and various capital projects), and economic development, and that we will focus on those combined items throughout the meeting. Mr. Calhoun stated that there was an expanded effort on the part of staff today to prepare for this workshop, and he extended thanks to Finance Director Taylor and her staff, as well as the people around the table today and all those who worked on the budget, which he said amounted to hundreds of hours in order to arrive at this point today. Mr. Calhoun noted that the finance department will be buried over the next ten weeks working on twenty-two other funds, and said that today's numbers will be refined when the budget comes before Council August 21, adding that all of today's numbers are first -run numbers and that while he doesn't anticipate substantial changes, he said there will be changes. Mr. Calhoun mentioned that revenue projections are based on four to five months of 2018 data, and that we also look at a series of revenue figures over the last ten years to help project trends. Mr. Calhoun noted that an example of a significant revenue trend concerns the state shared revenues, which are now $1.86 million; he said we will receive some updated revenue sharing figures from MRSC (Municipal Research Services Center) that will be based on population, later in July, and that we hope to include that information in the August 21 Council budget information. Mr. Calhoun said that the budget workshop binder includes twenty-two sections, and that we intend to go through it all by 3:30 p.m. He noted the morning items will be about ten to fifteen minutes per department with the exception of public safety; and this afternoon we will look Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT forward to Council discussion on those topics noted in the agenda; said he realizes this is an aggressive schedule but the plan is have today's meeting last no later than 3:30 p.m. Mr. Calhoun mentioned the various funds included in the budget, and that each year we start the budget cycle with two goals: recurring revenues will exceed recurring expenses, and the ending fund balance will be at least 50% of recurring expenditures; he said the goal for the 2017 budget was to remain at status quo for level of service or no greater than 1%; and we delivered the 2017 budget .87% greater than the previous year; he said the 2018 budget delivered an increase by 1.81% and maintained historic levels of service; for 2019, we want our level of service to remain consistent with the goal of not more than a 1.5% increase. Mr. Calhoun noted some departments are over and some under, but the estimate is the general fund recurring expenditures will be 1.22% over that of 2018. He noted the reality is, we are unsure what the final figures will be as these numbers are preliminary; said we are not anticipating a significant change unless something significant happens and we anticipate being well under 2%, and he noted the CPI (consumer price index) U.S. 2017 average is 3.2%; and he extended kudos to all departments for their work. Mr. Calhoun said that as staff go over the budget, to please feel free to comment and question as this is just the first of eight opportunities before the budget is scheduled to be adopted in early November. Finance Director Taylor then went over some of the information on the pages before Tab #1, which included the expanded calendar showing November 13 as the projected date for adopting the budget; the next two pages showing the summary of the general fund budget, including the figures in blue as recurring activities included in the amended 2018 budget, mentioned the total recurring projected revenues of $45 million, and said this will be presented to Council again in August. She also noted we assume the City will not take the 1% increase in property taxes, and she went over the sales tax projected figures, which when inflation is added to that, gives us what we expect in 2019; said we know there will be a decline in the economy at some point, so we are trying to give very conservative figures. Director Taylor went over the total recurring expenditures and other data contained in the pages under General Fund #001, the sheet showing general fund department changes from 2018 to 2019, the page on street fund #101, and on the Stormwater Fund #402 page, adding that capital nonrecurring expenses will change as some projects are tied up with state funding; and that the data on all these numbers is being refined; she noted in comparing total 2017 revenues with total expenditures, we were over by about $7 million, which likely means there will be a substantial transfer in 2019 out of the general fund. Tab 1— City Council — Mark Calhoun, Council Finance Director Taylor mentioned that these pages include actual activities through 2017, with 2018 amended figures, and 2019 proposed; and also noted that the budget reduction exercise of 3, 6, and 9% is just an exercise to show how the City could respond in the event of an economic decline. City Manager Calhoun stated that this budget reduction exercise at some point in the future will be valuable; that we are currently in the second longest economic expansion in U.S. history, so we know it will come to an end. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned the Business Plan under Tab 22, is an important document and the foundation which drives the budget figures. Before going over the figures under this tab, City Manager Calhoun mentioned that we are actually recording today's meeting so members of the community can go on the City's website to view our meeting. Mr. Calhoun explained that the goal is to make certain that budget requests closely approximate the average of actual expenditures for the previous three years, and then anticipate some future increase; he noted the bottom of the page shows a decrease by 4.52% and noted the difference in budget figures is under payroll taxes and benefits and reflects a reduction in out-of-pocket expenses for health insurance coverage with dependents for this council as opposed to estimates we made for the 2018 budget; said the main items include $62,000 for a state lobbyist, which is the company of Gordon Thomas Honeywell, and includes another $92,400 for a federal lobbyist; $31,000 is for Twisted Pair which is the company that records the Council meetings for broadcasting, and their rate is about $2.00 per minute, plus setup and shut down; there Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 2 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT is also $4,000 for each Councilmember for travel; and the membership line includes memberships fees for AWC (Association of Washington Cities) and NLC (National League of Cities). Mr. Calhoun stated that there have been no expenses for a federal lobbyist in 2016 or 2017, and mentioned it could be advantageous to have an advocate in Washington, D.C. for such things as applications for our grade separation projects; Mr. Calhoun invited Council comments. Councilmember Wick said he feels this is a good idea, especially in connection with any of the railroads, and more relationships in Washington, D.C. would be beneficial. Councilmember Woodard said he agrees that having a relationship in D.C. is important, not just for help with our grade separations, but for bridges and other projects; said he doesn't want to take that out of the budget and perhaps it is a matter of finding the right lobbyist, perhaps one who works with Idaho and Montana as well as Washington. Deputy Mayor Haley said in her work with the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) having a lobbyist was a huge benefit as they completely re -wrote their grant request for them. Mr. Calhoun noted that there is apparently a consensus to keep that in the 2019 budget and that staff will prepare an administrative report for a future Council meeting; he said the City attorney has been working on a request for qualifications relative to that, and will seek consensus to proceed and award a contract which staff would then carry forward; he mentioned that having a Washington, D.C. lobbyist would entail travel to D.C. for him and some Councilmembers, and again mentioned the $4,000 travel allocation per Councilmember. Mr. Calhoun said that historically on the average, Council hasn't come close to spending that kind of money. Councilmember Woodard asked if Councilmembers could allocate their share of travel as they have done in the past, and Mr. Calhoun said that policy has not changed. There was some discussion about state rule making with mention by Mr. Calhoun that 2017 wasn't a banner year for state rule making, nor has it been in 2018 thus far; but we had $10,000 or $15,000 for monitoring rule making The question arose if that was worth our investing, and Mayor Higgins said many things occur in the legislature and he feels we would be missing out by not having someone monitor those; and feels in the next few years they will probably earn their money. City Attorney Driskell said that he feels as Mr. Calhoun previously stated, that there will come a time when we wished we were keeping closer tabs, and that he too recommends keeping that funding in the budget. Tab 2 — City Manager — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun noted this shows an overall increase of 2.9% which reflects potential increases in wages; concerning the benefits, he explained that the largest increase is health insurance which is increasing 10% for medical; he noted the administrative assistant position remains in the budget, which he said has been vacant since Sue Passmore's retirement; he said he doesn't think there is enough work for a full-time position and Ms. Passmore kept busy during her last three years by scanning residential files. Tab 3 — City Attorney — Cary Driskell Mr. Driskell said the function of their office is to advise staff and Council on most legal issues; said they also provide a significant amount of support for Code Compliance, and they are active in purchasing and contracting; he went over his employee count, and said his department's budget is stable. Tab 4 — Public Safety — Morgan Koudelka, and Chief Mark Werner Mr. Koudelka started with the law enforcement services shown on the second page under Intergovernmental Services; said there hasn't been a lot of change from 2018-19, but the estimates are based on the new methodology, which is easier to understand and administer; and the 2019 proposed budget is based on that County estimate along with the other projections; said with that new methodology, we realized some cost savings, and staff continues to track and monitor this closely; he mentioned they added some inflationary increases of $500,000 as the Sheriff's Office implemented a pool of officer candidates, and they have ten positions they will hire and try to get through the academy and training process so there would be people ready to fill open positions; and said we split the cost of those positions with the County this year. Chief Werner mentioned future staffing and the lack of positions which necessitated overtime; said there is a big recruitment effort to get qualified applicants; they have projected to lose twenty-two employees at the Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Sheriff's office, and of course, the Police Department gets its officers from the Sheriff's Office; said to - date they have hired seventeen and anticipate hiring ten more, with an additional three or four laterals by the end of the year. Chief Werner also noted the Criminal Justice Training Commission cancelled the academy projected to be here in Spokane; said by June 30 the Spokane Valley Police Department will have five people retire so this lack of academy needs to be addressed; he mentioned there will be ten graduating June 20 and we just picked up a few laterals, so he is hopeful that by November we will see staffing improvements. Mr. Calhoun said this could be a potential 2019 Legislative Agenda topic tentatively scheduled for future discussion at the August 28 Council meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of a local academy and how it would affect everyone, with Councilmember Thompson suggesting we solicit assistance in that endeavor from GSI, and the Chamber could add this to their legislative agenda as well. Other comments included that a lack of officers leads to increase in crime; traveling to the west side of the state is expensive and we need a program to get people trained and through the program quicker; and of the idea of endorsing a pilot program. It was noted again that a shortage of staff leads to overtime and an expense to the community. Mr. Koudelka said some of the overtime has been factored into this budget, but there will likely be more, that some would be offset by shortages in position, and he said staff will keep Council apprised of the staffing levels and overtime. Mr. Koudelka continued going over the figures shown on the first page; he mentioned the pass-through revenues we get from the courts through fines; that wages are costs associated with maintenance of the precinct building; he mentioned the district court increase and that they are considering adding a commissioner to help offset some of the workload on the remaining judges; said we have seen a reduction in overall cases so we asked them to take all that into consideration. Mr. Koudelka also mentioned there was an error in electronic coding which resulted in a lot of County items coded to Spokane Valley, and that the County has spent the last few months fixing that; they also discovered a long-term effect of miscoding the other way, and some officers that work for us typically were charged at the County, and that we don't know the full extent of that, which could result overall in us having higher numbers. Mr. Koudelka said this will also continue to be monitored and reviewed for this coding error for all the contracts. Councilmember Peetz asked about the Courts not holding sessions on Fridays and Mr. Koudelka explained that our costs are based on a cost per case, which is recalculated every year; said they do a time study every three years to determine how much time is spent on each case which helps us more accurately project our costs; said the only impact of not holding court on Friday would be if they charged us for something that we were not receiving. Mr. Koudelka went over the figures for the other contracts, and Councilmember Woodard mentioned we want to make sure we are not subsidizing the City of Spokane on the animal control costs. Mr. Calhoun said that he and Ms. Taylor and Mr. Koudelka have talked about this; this is the sixth contract year, and the licensing figures and service figures by the City of Spokane were flawed in the beginning of the agreement and now; but going forward Mr. Koudelka and Ms. Taylor are helping SCRAPS review that; and said we will come to Council in the future for an update. Mr. Koudelka also stated that as a result of our continued insistence, the City of Spokane has committed to write a check to bring them equal on revenues with everyone else, as estimates were originally based on faulty numbers and they (City of Spokane) had not been paying their true cost. There was also brief mention of the number of officers we have and Chief Werner said we have 89 dedicated but we also have shared officers. The meeting took a break at 9:53 a.m., and reconvened at 10:10 a.m. Tab 5 — Deputy City Manager — John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman said his is an easy budget with the evolution occurring this past year, the Public Information Officer and intern have now shifted to Economic Development so his department has just one FTE (full-time equivalent), which is his position. Mr. Hohman noted in the past there were two office assistants, and since we now have one single front counter, those positions were consolidated to Doug Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Powell's Building Division; he noted this allows us to look at all aspects of the front counter and make those positions more efficient; he said one position was moved to full time filing to keep us caught up which helps us respond to public record requests; he also mentioned the new software of Q -Alert which will help us track things that come into the City, such things as complaints and concerns. Tab 6 — Finance and Information Technology — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor briefly went over the figures under Tab 6; mentioned the 11.75 FTE's and said the overall increase is about 4%; with a nonpayroll increase of zero, so except for salary projected increases, they are keeping with the status quo; she also mentioned the cost of training is increasing, especially in the field of Information Technology. Tab 7 — General Government — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor explained that this total budget shows about a 59% decrease and is related entirely to those non-recurring transfers out. There was some brief discussion about employee recognition and Ms. Taylor explained that the figure was cut by $500 based on actual expenditures over the last there years. City Manager Calhoun also noted that this year we had an employee recognition week, which was a series of events as compared with previous years' function held at Bumpers; he also noted the cost of the employee barbeque held in July is borne entirely by the directors. Ms. Taylor noted the figures in the box on the top of page 2 are the economic development and social services expenditures. Councilmember Woodard asked if we pay Spokane Health and Ms. Taylor said she does not recall. Councilmember Wick asked about election costs and if that includes postage; and Councilmember Woodard also noted he thought the pre- paid postage just passed as a pilot for one year. Ms. Taylor said she will research that. Ms. Taylor also noted that the capital outlays include replacing some outdated servers. Tab 8 — Human Resources — John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead said that the most significant change under his department concerns the ID badges made by an outside company; and that as our ID badges are also our keys, that is now done in-house, which lowered the professional services expense. In response to Councilmember Woodard's question about HR doing a comparative analysis to see if we can get the same or better benefits, for the same or less expensive costs, Mr. Whitehead said he doesn't have a comparison planned, but the analysis he puts together shows it would be very difficult to beat the prices we are paying through our benefit trust; that we are a fairly small group but because we are part of the trust, the trust can bargain many thousand people through health care plans, and keep those benefits costs down as it is AWC (Association of Washington Cities) that administers the benefits for us. Councilmember Wood asked where do we advertise for employees, and Mr. Whitehead replied that it depends on the type of position; if for an engineer, we would go to a professional engineer association; while others would be advertised in the Spokesman Review. Once an employee is hired, Mr. Whitehead said they track where they reviewed notice of the opening; and said he is seeing fewer applicants using newspapers, and most applicants go on-line to find employment; which he said has been favorable in helping reduce the advertising budget over the years, although he added, at times it is still most effective to use the newspaper; he said we also use AWC's website and Craigs List although they are now charging a nominal fee. Mayor Higgins asked about historical rate increases for benefits, and Mr. Whitehead said historically we see about a 10% increase annually, but the good news is in the last few years that is coming in less; but for budgeting purposes, it is better to plan for the trend and if we come in below our projections, all the better. Finance Director Taylor also noted that we get preliminary estimates from AWC and so far, estimates are coming in under the projection; she said that there will not be any adjustments at this point as that can occur later as needed. Mr. Whitehead also mentioned that AWC gives us the projections, and comes back later in the fall with actual rates so we can adjust our budget figures. Ms. Taylor also noted that there have been times when those figures come in too late to adjust the budget. Councilmember Wood asked about the mobile app maintenance, and Mr. Whitehead explained that is for tourism; that we have two app markets; i.e. Apple and Android and they charge us $99.00 each per year to keep those on the markets. Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9. City Hall Operations and Maintenance — Dou2 Powell Building Official Powell briefly went over some of the figures on this spreadsheet, and mentioned that the maintenance position will also necessitate vehicle expenses; he noted the janitorial services are actual costs; and that these figures show a 5.21% overall reduction. Mr. Calhoun said the maintenance position is a new position/program, so there is no history upon which to build, so these costs were based on costs incurred at CenterPlace; he noted we will continue to refine these over the next few years, adding that we will likely need to purchase some equipment in the future, such as a snow blower. 10. Community & Public works — Building & Planning — Doug Powell Mr. Powell briefly went over some of the information on this sheet, and mentioned the merging of the front desk; he also noted an overall increase of 1.63%. There was some discussion about credit card fees, and Mr. Powell said as a result of us colleting those fees, many people now pay with a check. Parks & Recreation Director Stone said he is seeing a similar trend at Parks and Recreation. 11. Community & Public Works — Engineering — Bill Helbig City Engineer Helbig explained that this chart shows figures as part of the re -organization; it takes care of all capital improvement programs, traffic management and operations, and utilities; he explained that positions were re -allocated more appropriately to where they spend their time; he noted that as part of the amended budget, the senior plans engineer position was brought into engineering to oversee computer drafting standards; he shared that the shaded portion on the sheet is general engineering, and the unshaded portion is development. Mr. Helbig also explained that previously planning had borne the cost completely for the Spokane County GIS, but that Mr. Koudelka has worked on that and costs are now allocated for different departments, including planning, engineering, stormwater, etc.; he said it is an adjustment of about $60,000. Mr. Helbig also noted that the increases of 43% is for non -payroll increases. 12. Community & Public Works — Economic Development — Mike Basinger Mr. Basinger said that this since this is a new division, there isn't a lot of history upon which to rely; he explained the purpose of economic development; mentioned the 6.375 FTEs, of which he is one; briefly mentioned the City's Hot Topics newsletter and said while he realizes people are accustomed to seeing that in their homes, it might be electronic in the future. Councilmember Wood asked why not have various departments share the expense of Hot Topics, and Mr. Calhoun said they are leveraging a variety of talents in the economic development department, including the public information officer, and marketing programs, and that this seems like a good place to have it, and it is convenient having it in one place as it makes it easier to determine cost, adding that it does relate to all City operations. 13. Parks & Recreation — Mike Stone Director Stone stated that his budget is primarily status quo; he mentioned that CenterPlace is open seven days a week, sometimes for more than eighteen hours a day, which he said poses challenges regarding staff. Mr. Stone noted that under professional services, there are problems with the pump in the Mirabeau Pond, also the liner is eroding and there is erosion off the banks; said they will hire a consultant next year to take a look at that and develop a plan. Concerning Appleway Trail, Mr. Stone said they have not had funding for "theming" the trail, but have hired a consultant to put together a plan. Mr. Calhoun mentioned the trail and upcoming work to add some amenities; said that in 2019 we will be designing the trail from Evergreen to Sullivan, and in 2020 that will be constructed giving us a contiguous trail; there is also the idea of not only developing a theme for each section, but perhaps a connection to the Centennial Trail. Mr. Hohman stated that staff have also discussed the need to update the pedestrian master plan which was completed in 2011, and they will also examine some aspects of the Centennial trail and other connections, and perhaps even some new trails. Mr. Stone mentioned that among other things, his department processes special events; said they are close to acquiring full sponsorships for all the outdoor movies; that the aquatics division operates under the auspices of the Y, which handles operation and maintenance of all three outdoor Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT pools for a small fee plus actual costs; adding that the minimum wage change has had a big impact on that budget. Mr. Stone noted that the admission charge to the pool is $1.00, and that the City of Spokane has reversed itself and gone back to not charging and that city will track that impact. Mr. Stone also reminded everyone that there is a new grant which will provide some free swims. Lastly, Mr. Stone mentioned the Senior Center and the CenterPlace division, which also depends on seasonal workers, and that too has been affected by the change to the minimum wage. Tab 14 — Supplemental Budget Requests — Chelsie Taylor and Mark Calhoun Finance and Public Safety: City Manager Calhoun said that some departments are considering expanding, some of which would be recurring expenses and some of which would be a one-time request. After Finance Director Taylor went over the summary sheet showing the recurring, and nonrecurring expenses, Mr. Koudelka explained the request for carpet in our precinct building; said they have managed with scraps and leftovers for workstations, and we are attempting to get them caught up with adequate workstations and carpet replacement. Finance Director Taylor then went over the request for increases in travel and registrations in conjunction with staff training for IT to keep updated on the newest technologies, and for finance staff to keep current on accounting standards, without which she said could impact auditing. Community & Public Works/Street Fund/Capital Projects/Engineering: Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that although this is difficult to bring forward, there are a lot of good reasons to do so. Mr. Hohman said that we have tried to keep the employee count as low as possible, but feel the time has come to examine our staff numbers. He stated that as we went through the consolidation last year, they tried to make it as efficient as possible, adding that staff is working extremely well together and are sharing resources; but he said there is one glaring thing which is a lack of the ability to produce plans internally and externally with consultants in engineering; he said this is not as a result of any inefficiencies gained in the consolidation, but rather that they have matured to a point where the workload has increased on the number of projects as well as grants; and that the requirements on staff to make sure all the documents are completed correctly increases dramatically annually; he noted that the Washington State Depaitnient of Transportation puts out a manual update twice a year, and each time that is updated it contains new requirements; he said we can't keep up with those new requirements for all these grants, especially given the number of multi- million projects. Mr. Hohman said this minimal staff increase will put the assistance in the right place to have production teams that move the projects through the process. He said we just don't contract things out, as we currently have staff that designs and then inspects the projects in the field, adding that there is a lot of coordination that the consultants don't do as well as a lot of oversight on every project. Mr. Hohman noted that on the Barker Road Grade Separation Project, our staff takes the brunt of the workload trying to make this project move forward and flow safely, smoothly and efficiently in order to hit the timing marks set; said they have looked at the efficiency of the existing group and we have outgrown the previous staff model to have a designer design, and then go inspect; he said that is not working for us and we should be designing projects for 2019, but staff members are out inspecting; said we can't have staff putting in 14-16 hours to make sure the bids get out timely. City Engineer Helbig said this decision to request positions is based on how production works; that for five FTEs, over three of them would go directly to projects and not the general fund; there would be 1.5 FTE associated with the street fund as construction inspectors in the summer and part of the snow removal crew street maintenance workers in the winter; adding that of course we can't quantify figures as we don't know how much snow we will get next winter. Finance Director Taylor said the 2018 adopted budget includes 89.25 FTEs, and this proposal for 2019 will put people where they are actually spending their time. Mr. Calhoun added that if this proposal goes forward as planned, the general fund would actually drop by one FTE; he noted the positions are needed because of the number of capital projects we have; that we have the grant money and can afford it, but if the work and/or grant money goes away, so would the positions. Engineering Manager Mantz then went over the information contained in the PowerPoint paper copies, which included a breakdown of the capital program operations and the necessary staff, the additional duties for project managers and engineering technicians, Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT other increased workload including an increase in federal documentation, a graph showing the 2018/2019 project manager workload and another showing the 2018 construction inspectors workload, as well as unassigned workload; historical supplemental staffing; and staffing requirements for current and anticipated workload. Mr. Hohman mentioned that people who do designs and actual CAD drawings have a special skill. As noted on slide 7, Ms. Mantz pointed out that we issued an RFQ for inspection services but we cannot predict exactly when a project will start, which means we could not get a company to commit resources to us; she said we are looking for consultants far in advance, as it is difficult to find people to commit to our projects; she said that we can do production year round with these additional staff and therefore would not have to wait until the last minute to get the help we need. Mr. Calhoun stated that these five additional FTEs represent about a 6% increase in the City's workforce; that Mr. Hohman, Mr. Helbig and Ms. Mantz offer compelling arguments and this is something to seriously consider as we work in the 2019 budget development. At 12:04 p.m. the group recessed for a thirty -minute lunch. At 12:40 p.m. the meeting resumed and Mr. Calhoun asked Council if there were any questions or comments. Councilmember Peetz stated that while she appreciates the work of staff, she is not comfortable with adding five positions. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned we currently have a variety of vacancies, including the unfilled administrative position on the third floor as he stated he feels there isn't enough work for that position to be full time. He noted that from his perspective, along with the staff's position for adding the positions, we have received comments from WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) about our ability to properly manage specific projects, such as the Sullivan Road Bridge replacement as well as future workload; that several projects are held for the future as we don't have enough staff to cover them all. Mr. Helbig mentioned the past Sullivan Bridge project and that one of the problems was we needed more staff he said we are working with the corrective action plan and said that WSDOT had to take two existing staff and put them working just on documentation for federal and state funded projects. Mr. Calhoun noted he is not interested in loading additional expenses in the general fund; that this will not have an impact on the general fund; that we are currently experiencing a strong economy; we need to assign staff directly to capital projects where the need exists, and if we run out of work or City money or grant money, then those positions would be removed. He added that these positions do not compete for existing levels of service. There was discussion about the evolution of staff, including the current reorganization; that we need to be able to get projects out to bid in January and February in order get good bids as issuing calls to bids late leads to expensive bids received. Mr. Hohman stated that public works is the same as before except we call it the engineering division with the addition of development engineering, and he noted that these production problems are a product of our growth and maturity as well as the types of projects we are working on; he noted that Adam Jackson is finding money and that we have different funding sources not traditionally available in the past; there are increased workload documentation requirements that has evolved over the years and WSDOT has their own personnel for the Disadvantaged Program that they never had before, which makes sure we are doing our jobs appropriately; he said the manual guidelines continue to change and that City staff have been putting this off for a long time or supplementing those needs with limited term employees that Council never saw as they weren't classified as an FTE or included in the organizational chart; said he realizes that five positions is a lot but there is also an unprecedented amount of development work going on now, and the residential side on permitting takes much more time than commercial permitting; he said they are all working hard and tasked with a lot of work. Mr. Hohman noted that at some point the permits will drop off as it fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year; but this is something we are projecting for at least five years of solid work, and said he feels this is a better structure. Mr. Hohman said we want to keep the employee count low but we also want to make sure we produce and do it in a way to minimize errors and allow us to get the projects though with minimal change orders, and it takes staff to get it done. Mr. Helbig noted that adding five is a lot and that the market place is tight, and said they have been unsuccessful so far in filling an assistant engineer position, but hope it can be filled in Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT the near future; he also added that Craig Aldworth will be retiring soon so we are recruiting for that position, but so far only two people across the country have applied. Councilmember Thompson asked if there has ever been a grant administrator or someone in charge of tracking every grant and what needs to be done. Mr. Helbig said that typically making sure reimbursements are correct would fall under a grant administrator, but not making sure each piece of paper required is documented; that grant administrators deal with dollars. Mr. Hohman noted that in the slides, two positions are proposed to be re -purposed to do just that, i.e. track down all documents and put files together and make sure nothing is missed; that by taking two positions and putting them on the documentation trail, that is two less positions we have available for production; and having drafting inspecting during the summer is not efficient; he noted that Engineer Chad Phillips is stretched as far as he can and has no backup, and so the production is what we need these positions to address. Mr. Hohman said he feels very confident that for the next five years, we will have solid work for these positions; but beyond that, it is difficult to project, adding that if there is a decline in the economy, we can make adjustments when necessary. Councilmember Woodard said that staff has been asked for a long time to do a lot of work with next to nothing; that five years ago our City's population was 10,000 fewer and we didn't have these large projects. Mr. Hohman asked what are Council's expectations or desired policy; he said we don't have to pursue every project or grant and if Council is uncomfortable, maybe we could be more realistic of what we can and can't handle; said he has high expectations about the quality of the product we turn out, and maybe a middle ground somewhere is better, or not pursue or avail ourselves of grant opportunities if we can't follow through. Mr. Calhoun noted we continue to drive hard on grants and get as many projects we can while grants are available, and Deputy Mayor Haley said she feels there is more grant money out there now so we should take advantage of that as it might not be available in the future. Mr. Hohman stressed that he is not intending to come off too strong, but rather bringing this up for discussion; that it is not staff's intention to be defensive or aggressive, but that it is very hard work to work at this level for so long and still be able to produce the excellent results Council and Citizens want, as we are passionate for what we do. Councilmember Wood suggested maybe go out and get more grants and hire ten people; he rhetorically asked why we are only asking for five if ten can get us more, and what is enough; said the question is, how much do you want to do and stated that this sounds urgent to him. Mr. Calhoun said he feels five positions will take care of the work into the foreseeable future. Community & Public Works/Economic Development: Economic Development Manager Basinger explained that this request is for $18,000 to establish a contractual arrangement with Greater Spokane Valley Chamber similar to what we have done in the past with Greater Spokane, Inc. He noted we have developed a great rapport with the Chamber and we would like to give them some consistency. There was some discussion about the average past outside funding that was awarded to the Chamber, and Mr. Basinger said this figure is indicative of that past funding. Mr. Calhoun said he likes the idea of a separate contract so we could work with them to develop a scope of service meaningful to Spokane Valley. Councilmember Wick suggested perhaps even rounding that number up to $20,000, but that at the same time, we do not want everyone who applies for outside funding to go through this process as well. Mr. Calhoun said he will look at this relative to the $200,000 for outside agencies, and there were no objections from Council. Parks & Recreation: Director Stone went over his requests for supplemental funding, including the introduction of a new teen summer camp program which can be priced so there is a full cost recovery; a new free walking program for 2019 to walk on the trails around Mirabeau Park and CenterPlace; $160,000 to design and construct a new restroom at Browns Park; $25,000 for a swing set complex at Edgecliff Park; and $40,000 to recoat and repair the `poured -in-place' surfacing at Discovery Playground. Councilmember Thompson asked if there would be swing sets to accommodate kids in wheelchairs, and Mr. Stone said he would research that. Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 9 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Calhoun noted the last page under Tab 14 concerns a perimeter path and lighting at Browns Park and that $200,000 has been approved and is in the 2018 budget for that purpose. He noted what we have spent for design services and the remaining budget is about $177,000; he said this was put out for bids and we received two proposals, both of which were substantially greater than the $177,000 budgeted. He noted the question is now, do we ask for another $125,000 to get it bid out or shelf it and determine what we can do with $177,000. Mr. Calhoun noted that the Plan calls for eight additional volleyball courts. He said that we propose to use our own staff; that our Public Works Maintenance Superintendent Shane Arlt and his crew could do a lot of the work, and therefore, Mr. Calhoun said he is inclined to move ahead with this and get it done some time after the busy summer season, but before the winter snow, and he asked for Council input. Mayor Higgins said it appears to be a great way to move ahead, and Mr. Stone noted we can get it done for a tremendous savings instead of trying to bid it out. Deputy City Manager Hohman noted that Council indicated they have always wanted to see this move forward; we need to get the courts built, but that it has been difficult to get any funding through the LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee) process. Councilmember Woodard said he feels this is a good project to get completed, and once completed, it would be the largest sand volleyball court outside of Oregon; said he thinks we should do this and maybe take some funds from the upcoming budget surplus, perhaps another $1 million and get that park done. Councilmember Wick expressed his agreement. There was no strong Council opposition so Mr. Calhoun said it is his intention to set aside this project for this calendar year, and forge ahead for the volleyball courts. Tab 15 — Street Operations & Maintenance Fund — John Hohman Mr. Calhoun said that this issue will come again at the July 10 Council meeting to follow up today's conversation, and that he wanted to give Council some information concerning what is included in the proposed $4.783 million and how to address that future deficit. Mr. Hohman then went through the various spreadsheets highlighting some of the changes, including the increased fuel costs; the additional $70,000 for street scanning, adding that we are still evaluating options but we do want the streets scanned next year; the small increase in some contracts for dead animal removal, which is those animals that SCRAPS does not pick up. Mr. Hohman noted the boxed figures on page 2 of 3 are associated with bridge maintenance; he explained that Spokane County formerly performed that service, but they do not have staff to do that anymore so we contract with a private company. Mr. Helbig mentioned signal detection and that our aging infrastructure has never been included in the budget; he noted some of our signals are more than thirty years old and need replacing and/or upgrading, and we will start allocating funds every year for that operation. Mr. Hohman said that we have an aging snowplow fleet and noted the associated costs to keep those trucks running. Councilmember Woodard mentioned he would like to see more discussion at a future meeting concerning snow plowing and associated issues such as slowing down the plows, and Mr. Calhoun said we will put that on the pending agenda prior to the start of the next season; and that some of what we have learned is that slowing down the plows takes longer, cost more money, is less fuel efficient, and results in bigger berms. Moving to Street Fund 101 Strategies, as per the paper slides, Mr. Hohman noted some of the discussion points for this topic include revenue needs, challenges, and shortfalls; said the immediate need for fund 101 is to make sure we have necessary revenues to handle expenditures; said staff issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) and received five responses from firms specific to handling street preservation programs; said out of those five, two are renowned experts, and said he will be working to verify the numbers. Mr. Hohman went over the options shown on slide 9, then moved back to slide 4 to discuss those expenditures; said if we had to reduce expenditures, it would come from the street maintenance which includes among other things, pothole patching, asphalt repairs, concrete and sidewalk repairs, landscaping litter and weed control. Mr. Hohman said we do not need an in-depth discussion today as we will talk more about these issues in detail over the next months. Mr. Calhoun noted a question to consider is, how far will the existing phone tax decline; said we have a good handle on operations and related costs but the pavement preservation problem is about $800,000 and growing; and he noted the IMS (Infrastructure Services, LLC) Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 10 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT study suggests there is perhaps an even greater need than their study suggests; said perhaps we should select someone else to review the numbers to give us a figure we are more comfortable with; said cutting $800,000 in expenses from the street fund 101 is not a good idea, but we either cut services or come up with $800,000. Mr. Calhoun said we are asking Council to solve a financial problem in two different funds at two different times; that we are just warming up to the idea of a one-time stop gap out of the general fund, fund balance in excess of 50%, and move forward until we can come up with total deficit numbers; said he does not want this conversation at two different points in time as it is more fair to Council and the community to address this all at once in 2019 once we have better figures to come forward. Some members of Council nodded in agreement, and Councilmember Wick stated he agrees with Mr. Calhoun's suggestions. Councilmember Thompson indicated she also likes that direction as it gives the added benefit of slowing down the education process for citizens. Mr. Calhoun suggested that if we go with the contract with the Chamber, perhaps we could reach out to them to help us communicate this issue. Mayor Higgins agreed and said this will buy us some time and then once we have the figures, we can proceed. There was apparent consensus to move forward as Mr. Calhoun suggested. Mr. Calhoun noted this will come before Council again at the July 10 meeting, and Mr. Hohman noted that Mr. Lorick of LA Consultants will return in the next few months with some recommendations to Council. Tab 16 — Stormwater Fund — John Hohman City Engineer Helbig went over some of the figures, particularly those showing change; he mentioned the staffing allocations where there was originally one person spread across different funding sources; he said the main increase is the Spokane County GIS, which is purported to be better and more accurate. Mr. Helbig stated there will be some increases in costs over the next few years; that the Department of Ecology has selected us for some grant funds which had been put on hold in 2015, and said the legislature released those funds this year; he said our match is about 25% which means one to two million coming out of next year's budget; and Ms. Taylor mentioned that some of those capital projects would fall under the aquifer protection fund 403. Tab 17 — General Fund — Fund Balance — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun briefly remarked on the general fund, fund balance; said the simplest explanation is it matches six months of expenditures and is based upon cash flow; he brought attention to page 5 of the memo which shows how much the general fund has transferred out into the capital reserve fund, and where all those fund have been applied. Tab 18 — Potential & Pending Capital Projects — Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor gave an overview of how this spreadsheet was put together; she mentioned the boxed area and the yellow highlighted areas; said the project allocations for Pines Road Underpass, Barker Road corridor improvements, and Balfour Park development are highlighted in an effort to promote discussion. City Manager Calhoun noted that plugging $800,000 into fund 101 as a one-time remedy, would leave about $2 million; said Council had settled on spreading the surplus on these three projects, adding that when a project makes this sheet we find a way to get it done and we don't want to spread those funds too thin; said the key is to focus on specific projects and said he would recommend having no more than three or four projects. Mr. Calhoun invited Council comments. Councilmember Peetz suggested not including Balfour Park since are not currently working on that project. Councilmember Wick suggested putting $1 million toward getting Browns Park completed this year. Concerning the $3.9 million surplus, Councilmember Woodard suggested to instead put that in the budget, then decide next year on the 2017 surplus; said we might want to finish the CenterPlace West Lawn; also mentioned there will likely be a bond issue on the library in the future, and he'd like to get the West Lawn completed before we get to Balfour. Mr. Calhoun asked if there was Council consensus to take $1 million and apply it to Browns Park, adding that he is not certain $1 million would take care of it; and he would like to bring to Council as a future admin report, what has been done on the Master Plan and what $1 million Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT would cover. Deputy Mayor Haley said she would like to see the lighting put in as a priority. Councilmember Wick mentioned the LTAC larger amount of set-aside funds and that perhaps we should buy some property, or use it as a match for land acquisition. Mr. Calhoun noted that the July 10 Council meeting will have an admin report in that regard and then a motion later to narrow the Tourism Venues and Events list down from ten to perhaps two or three, and then maybe tie that into the budget; he asked what does Council want to carry forward to apply for LTAC funds, and what kind of match money would the City put in from the general fund. Councilmember Woodard asked how we might go about tying in Appleway Trail to Mission Hills and how to connect the trail to Centennial trail across Flora; said we should also think about what events we could have that would draw in people from outside the community, and also perhaps as a `thank -you' to the citizens, maybe have the symphony perform; said he has talked to Valleyfest about that as well; said the symphony used to draw in between 5,000 and 6,000 people to Terrace View and that was just a partial symphony; said he sees that kind of event as a `thank -you' to the citizens and that it brings culture to the valley. Mr. Calhoun said tying Mission Hills and/or Centennial Trail into Appleway trail will be discussed more as we present a future update to Council on the MasterPlan for trails, and asked if Council would like to include that in the 2019 budget. Councilmember Wick said he would like to have more discussion. Mayor Higgins suggested a summer event of not just a single event but a three-day event culminating with the symphony, or blues, jazz, etc., and sponsor it with our funds and have an organization run it. Councilmember Wick remarked that Liberty Lake has "Friends of the Park" so perhaps that would be a good model to examine. Mr. Calhoun said we will look at the idea of taking $1 million from the general fund to Browns Park, and an overlay of the park masterplan will be brought to Council for discussion at the July 10 Council meeting. Tab 19 — Fiscal Policies — Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun noted that this information is included in the 2018 budget, and he gave a brief overview. Tab 20 — Council Goals — Mark Calhoun, Council Mr. Calhoun noted the 2018 Council goals, and asked if Council has any edits for 2019. The result of those discussions is as follows: 1. Continue to work with state and federal legislators towards obtaining financial assistance for the Barker and Pines Grade Separation Projects. Suggestions: omit Barker and add in Park Road and include `Bridging the Valley' 2. Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program to include sustained financing in Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. Suggestions: remain as stated 3. Pursue a strategic plan for financing and completing all grade separation projects. Suggestions: this is a repeat of goal 1; omit this goal. 4. Pursue state and federal financial assistance to address transportation concerns along the entire Barker Corridor. Suggestions: remain as stated 5. Pursue financing for Browns Park, Balfour Park, and Appleway Trail amenities, and continue the acquisition of park land. Suggestions: Council agreed to continue with the trail amenities such as lighting and benches. Councilmember Wood suggested adding completing the loop and develop a plan to do that, and Mr. Calhoun said that can be addressed under the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Councilmember Woodard suggested adding pursuing financing for the CenterPlace west lawn, and Councilmember Wick said he Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT would prefer not having a goal too diluted with too many items, but perhaps a few things. Mr. Calhoun stated that could be a separate goal, and Mayor Higgins said we are already pursuing that, and Mr. Calhoun noted those ten projects will be discussed July 10, and Councilmember Woodard agreed not to include CenterPlace park for this goal. 6. Continue and expand where possible economic development efforts. Complete the development of implementation strategies for the retail and tourism studies that were completed in 2016. Mr. Basinger said that more recently staff has been working with a retail recruitment firm to determine what gaps we have in retail, and to try to bring in the appropriate retailers. Mr. Hohman noted that this was scheduled for a previous Council meeting but the individual left the company, so that will be rescheduled and a future discussion. Councilmember Wood suggested maybe include having a sports facility; said the TPA would support that and we could put money aside, and have discussion about identifying a location. Mr. Calhoun said this will be carried forward at the July 10 meeting 7. Foster relationships with federal, state and local legislators including the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Suggestions: remain as stated Mr. Calhoun said we will drop goal #3, and he will edit the other goals and will e-mail those to Council for response back to him. Councilmember Peetz said she would like to add a goal of more community outreach; said there are people who have Century Link and they have a problem viewing our meetings; said we also have a lack of social media, and she suggested holding a town hall or an event to get the community involved, and she asked if there is software to help in that regard. Mr. Calhoun said there are such things as "page freezer" that we use to capture our tweets that go out, and could be used to capture activity in a Facebook account; he said we are looking forward to those issues, adding that we have a vacancy in our Public Information Officer position, so we are in the process of re -writing that job description. Councilmember Thompson said perhaps we could increase the use of all means of communication for more community outreach, and Mr. Calhoun said that perhaps we could make that a group project. Tab 21— Advance Agenda — Mark Calhoun There were no comments or suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Special Meeting Workshop: 06-12-2018 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington July 3,2018 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Helbig, City Engineer Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Doug Powell, Building Official Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. PROCLAMATION: Parks & Recreation Month After Mayor Higgins read the proclamation, it was accepted with thanks from Parks & Recreation Director Mike Stone. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA: consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on July 3, 2018 Request for Council Action Form Total: $2,030,375.27 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15, 2018: $338,880.71 c. Approval of June 19, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-013 Repealing SVMC 2.45 — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 18-013 repealing chapter 2.45 relating to creation of the Department of Public Safety, on first reading. City Attorney Driskell again explained that the reasons for the ordinance to repeal SVMC 2.45, is that those public safety services are separate municipal entities with their own elected or appointed leadership, and there is no need for a "Department of Public Safety" as noted in the code, because the City has no legal control over those entities. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Preferred Alternative, Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize staff to move forward with the design of a traffic signal for the Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project. Via her PowerPoint, Ms. Amsden explained that the purpose of this agenda item is for Council to make a selection for the control of the intersection, either a roundabout or traffic signal; she mentioned the existing level of service is at failure Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT level, and there have been 17 accidents in eight years; that with the County's Bigelow project, traffic at Sullivan and Wellesley grows significantly; she went over the project background budget, mentioned the County contributed almost $100,000, that we are coordinating with the County to match schedules, and there is the potential for the County to become the lead agency and construct the intersection improvements. Ms. Amsden explained the pros and cons of the two options of either a traffic signal or a roundabout, and based on staff's evaluation, the conclusion was that the signal would have lower right-of-way impacts and therefore lower project costs, a higher public acceptance since this is near the schools, a signal would have less public impact during construction, and therefore staff recommends the intersection be improved with a traffic signal. Councilmember Peetz stated that she attended a roundabout symposium where she heard a lot of public comment; that many there were concerned about roundabouts next to a school, but the speakers showed examples of why a roundabout might be a good thing; and she asked for confirmation that it is better to have a signal from a congestion standpoint. Ms. Amsden explained that the performance of this issue was also shown during the June 5th Council meeting; and that during that meeting staff showed models of how this would function with a roundabout, with the full connection and estimated 2040 traffic volume, that there is a B level of service for both options, with the roundabout operating slightly higher within the B; but they are both close to the same level. Councilmember Wick said that at the last conversation, staff showed the Sullivan Corridor Study, where this intersection was reviewed as well as the intersection where Sullivan has the ramps down to Trent; and he asked if we use a signal here, that does mean we should also use a signal for that area as well. Ms. Amsden explained that is what the Corridor study suggested, but it doesn't mean we can't engineer a different solution. Councilmember Wick mentioned that he was looking at the amount of asphalt needed for expanding that width of the bridge, and that it appears to be significantly larger if there was a signalized intersection on those two intersections. Ms. Amsden confirmed it was a larger expansion and is a possibility for expanding any of the overpasses, but we are not sure that those roundabouts were accurately designed; she said it is about a 5% schematic and she isn't sure if they have taken into account all the truck traffic; that those could get a lot bigger and the expansion and the overpasses also could get a lot bigger; she said we don't have enough information to put costs behind the project at this time; and there is a lot of expansion with either option. Councilmember Wick said he is sure we didn't take into account too much the cost difference on that project, so if we were to go for a signal here that forces a signal there, then that would be more of an expense there, and said it might be a tradeoff. Again, Ms. Amsden said it could be, but it was just too preliminary to put together costs until this is fully designed; and for roundabouts especially with the right kind of modeling, and looking at auto turns, she said that isn't something we have budgeted for currently; concerning the widening of Sullivan between Trent and Wellesley, that was needed for a signal but not the roundabout, but the roundabout also included banning all left turns on that stretch, which is something we might or might not want to do, and she again stressed that until this is designed and staff goes through all process and talks to the residents to determine what is appropriate for them, that we can't just take what was in the corridor study and run with that. Councilmember Wick said he just didn't want this decision to impair any future decision for the other area. Councilmember Wick asked how much of a percentage of the design is on the one showing today. Ms. Amsden said that the geometry is fairly locked down and staff feels pretty confident in estimates at this time, and there is a contingency; she said they are about 35-40% but staff has not done the full horizontal, but is confident on the geometry and the footprint. In response to a question from Councilmember Thompson about how the design and the project would be affected if the County takes the lead on this project, Ms. Amsden said we would need discussions for the County to take the lead on this which would probably not happen during the design stage; that we'd turn to them for construction, and if they are willing to take on that responsibility, we would transfer the grant to them, and they would then put our plans into their grant packet. Deputy City Manager Hohman stated that we have had several coordination meetings with the County and their recommendation is for a traffic signal Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT as well. Councilmember Wick expressed his surprise that the County endorsed their preference for a traffic signal, and Mr. Hohman said that the County Engineer in several meetings has said that's his preferred option. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Woodard said he too went to the symposium on the roundabouts, and there was a lot of consternation about the roundabouts; said his greatest concern and that was shared with the parents and schools, and public is in this case; that he has seen roundabouts next to schools but they weren't coming in with 6400 vehicles or trucks; said this creates a unique problem because of the entrances and exits of the high school's parking lot; said he assumes there will have to be an island so the kids can't come out of the main parking lot and cross traffic lanes going north and then try to get onto the southbound lane; he said the pedestrian part is of great concern as many pedestrians will try to walk the quickest path to get to their destination; said this will be splitting a campus and therefore the signal here is a good solution while the public is getting more used to roundabouts. Deputy Mayor Haley said she agrees with the signal, and that the County even recognizes that while a signal and a roundabout both perform close to the same level, this is a much less expensive concept. Councilmember Wick said he also attended the symposium and one of the presenters, Rachel Price from Roundabotix, used a school model where they were splitting the campus with a highway, which he said is very similar to this and said he brought this project to her attention, and said that she found that roundabouts are easier for students because they are just fresh out of driver's education; and that they have a newer way of doing smaller rights-of-way as one approaches the roundabout; he said a lot of the cost between the roundabout and the signal is because the additional right- of-way coming up to it; in looking at those green shaded areas and all the extra land that has to go with that, that is a good portion of the extra cost. Ms. Amsden said that is not due to the approach lanes; that the reason we are shifting the roundabout north is so we won't have to purchase the properties on the south; that it would actually take out those structures for us to place it right in the middle of the intersection; so it's not the speed and the approach lanes that you see on some highways that is causing this, it is actually just a less expensive use of right-of-way so we don't have to do relocations. Councilmember Wick said he would like to have someone like Rachel Price look at this and come back with another view on this; he said there is a bigger piece on this in how the County will connect Bigelow Gulch into this; he said this discussion has been going on for a long time and there was some discussion about going over or under the Bigelow Gulch Road to provide access to the school across to their campus; said he doesn't know where that idea might be now but the last he heard, there was an for a HAWK signal; he said if you do a HAWK signal it would make sense to move toward a traffic signal as the intersection signal and HAWK signal work together in their timing, which you can't do with a roundabout; said he thinks there are other options; that he is leaning more toward the roundabout; that as we discuss place making and identity, there are some roundabouts with art in the center, and he said he feels this would be a good opportunity to help identify that community area; so there are lots of possibilities with the roundabout option; and said he was hoping we could engage someone else who has done these around the country. Councilmember Wood asked if we are anticipating a lot of truck traffic off of Bigelow Gulch; and Ms. Amsden replied we are. Councilmember Wood said having a centerpiece in the middle of a roundabout could create problems with truckers, and said he favors the signal. Mayor Higgins asked Council if they were ready for the question; then asked for those in favor to say "aye." It was unclear who voted aye. Councilmember Peetz said that Councilmember Wick had mentioned there are many pieces to this project, and if we decided this option tonight, is this something that can be changed later if something more comes up, or is this permanent. Deputy City Manager Hohman said he wants to assure Council that staff has looked at this in a lot of different ways, this has been coordinated with many different people including our contracted consultant Welch Comer who did the evaluation; said they have had discussions with the County and they see this as a continuation of Bigelow Gulch and they are looking at crossings for students as it does split the campus; said part of our recommendation is we are not so concerned with students driving through as students trying to walk across the street; he said roundabouts have split two schools, but there are no examples of this in this region; that perhaps it is a bit early to introduce the pedestrian crossing at Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT this location, which is one of the reasons staff recommended going a different direction; said he feels costs and right-of-way issues are secondary issues, but we want to look at safety; said we know that the operations of a roundabout from a traffic standpoint is safer than a signal, but as you do the entire analysis and we use our engineering judgment to provide Council a recommendation, that pedestrian crossing doesn't feel like we are at the right time or the right place for that with the right acceptance from the community and the students; said it is up to Council if Council wants to study this more, or continue with the design selection. Mr. Hohman also mentioned staff had talked about keeping in the design phase and moving this forward. Ms. Amsden said the original schedule was to construct this in 2019 although we are most likely looking at 2020 now, and we have to get right-of-way from several properties, which takes time; that it would probably be the most advantageous to make a decision tonight if possible, in order for us to meet our funding obligation deadlines and to move forward with the project in a timely manner to coordinate with the County. Mr. Hohman noted that this has been coordinated with the County, and as Councilmember Wick mentioned, the County is anticipating putting in a HAWK signal at this location, which could then be easily coordinated with the signal at Wellesley, and that is the direction the County would like to head. Councilmember Wick asked if we have had a public meeting with the students at East Valley. Ms. Amsden said we held a public meeting at East Valley High School, and parents and students, and people from the neighborhood attended; she said they also had several meetings with the trucking industry representatives, and had separate meetings with the School District. Councilmember Wick asked if they were leaning more toward the signal rather than the roundabout, and Ms. Amsden said there were mixed reactions; that initially East Valley School District said they wanted a signal; said they attended the public meeting, and that she placed two calls to Superintendent Mr. Kelly Shea to try to get a consensus from him on his current views, but has not received a return call; and said she does not know if he has a strong opinion one way or the other; she said that the trucking industry indicated both options would work well for them; and that it was the parents and students of East Valley High School who expressed the most concerns, especially of pedestrians not using the crosswalks appropriately, or drivers trying to take the roundabout too fast. Going back to the motion to authorize staff to move forward with the design of a traffic signal for the Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project: Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Haley, and Councilmembers Woodard, Thompson, Peetz, and Wood. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins explained the process, he invited public comments. Mr. Lynn Plaggemeier, Spokane Valley: said he has been travelling around and saw many nice looking well-managed cities; said it is important that Council adopt a program to get young people into city government; to train them to know what city government is. There were no other public comments. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Mission Avenue Street Preservation Project, McDonald to Evergreen — Gloria Mantz, Erica Amsden Ms. Amsden explained that the Mission Avenue Preservation Project, McDonald to Evergreen is a priority project as the road segment shows numerous areas of pavement stress such as cracking, as well as potholes. She said the project is part of the 2018 Street Preservation Projects and is funded by City Fund 311; she explained the project design of the grind and inlay drive lanes, replacing failing drywells and providing sediment control, and that the McDonald intersection also requires signal modifications. Ms. Amsden went over the temporary traffic control plan and said that bus stops will be temporarily relocated; she noted that the bid has been advertised with a scheduled bid opening of July 13, after which this will come to Council July 24 for a bid award. In response to a question from Councilmember Thompson, Ms. Amsden said any buses will be treated as "through traffic." 5. Street Addressing Standard — Doug Powell Building Official Powell explained that since our City's incorporation, the protocol of assigning street addresses for parcels and buildings has been consistent with that historically applied in Spokane County, Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT where street numbers begin at the intersection of Division Street and Sprague Avenue in Spokane. Mr. Powell went through his PowerPoint explaining what initiated the need for a regional system, that our current policy generally mirrors the adopted regional standard, and he went over the basics of our current policy. Mr. Powell noted that the Standard has been adopted by the cities of Spokane, Liberty Lake, Deer Park, and by Spokane county, and for regional consistency, that staff recommends the drafting and adoption of an ordinance consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards; and said staff seeks Council consensus to move forward with the adoption process. Ensuing discussion included comment from Councilmember Woodard that if we change things, Google maps and other maps would have to be changed; said he doesn't want an ordinance that decrees things must be reassigned, adding that we have an easy layout. Councilmember Peetz mentioned that the Police and Fire Chiefs have asked us to participate; and that it makes sense to be a part of this. Deputy City Manager Hohman said that we had a coordination meeting with Police and Fire and discussed the topic and agreed there are no known problems; said the Fire Marshall suggested we move forward with adoption of the policy and that forms the basis of our recommendation, and said we are looking for Council consensus to move forward with it, or to let staff know not to move forward. In response to Councilmember Wick's question about whether we already have approved standards, Mr. Hohman said we have some items included in our street standards that loosely describe addressing; that we have followed the County's process with little or no conflicts or changes; said with a regional group there might be minor changes in each jurisdiction's process, such as the County allows four or more parcels because their definition of a driveway is different from ours; he said we'd work on a policy and a framework that would fit our circumstances and it would be a new code section. Mayor Higgins asked Council for their preference, and at least four Councilmembers nodded their agreement to have staff bring in an ordinance to outline the formal process. 6. Association of Washington Cities Benefits Trust Sponsorship for Spokane Regional Transportation Council — John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained the purpose of this resolution, as noted in his July 3, 2018 Request for Council Action form; and in response to Councilmember Thompson's inquiry, said we did this once previously where we sponsored the County Library District. There was Council consensus to place this on next week's Consent Agenda. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wick mentioned that last week's AWC Conference and of the many workshops many of the Councilmembers attended; and he asked about having a special meeting where Council could share and discuss those topics. Three Councilmembers were not opposed to having a special meeting, and City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned as per the Governance Manual, Councilmembers can add these types of issues as a report on an upcoming agenda item. Councilmember Woodard said he will be gone July 24th, but he likes the idea of having this as an agenda topic, or a memorandum or information to share with the public. Councilmember Thompson said she was thinking more along the lines of an action item, making some planning ideas for events; said she would love to see a programming workshop, or a type of vision meeting, and said she is amiable to other suggestions as well. 8. Department Monthly Reports These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 9. Council Check-in — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson mentioned again that as a first time attendee, she was very impressed with the AWC conference and the opportunities to be involved with that organization, and that it was a great conference and she appreciated the opportunity to attend. Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Higgins said that in the beginning when we made committee assignments, he was attempting to set up a system whereby we would work more smoothly and it would be more cooperative, but said that hasn't worked out that way; said he is now proposing to make some amendments to those committee assignments: to have Mr. Woodard move from the Health Board and on to SRTC; for Mr. Wood to move to the Finance Committee, for Mr. Wick to move from SRTC and the Finance to Visit Spokane and the Health Board, and Ms. Haley to move from Visit Spokane. It was then moved by Councilmember Woodard to approve that; and in addressing the City Clerk said he suspects you are going to want exact motion language. City Clerk Bainbridge replied that she would like to defer this to Mr. Hohman and Mr. Driskell, because usually Council doesn't make a motion unless it's been on the agenda so people know what's coming up; she said we can certainly add it to the agenda that is coming out the day after tomorrow if you'd like. Mayor Higgins said we have in the past made motions from the floor, and City Clerk Bainbridge said they have, and they can, but usually you don't, and she asked Mr. Driskell or Hohman for their input. In response to Mayor Higgin's question if they are the parliamentarian, City Clerk Bainbridge said they are not, and said it is up to you, Mayor Higgins, but reiterated that usually you don't. Mayor Higgins said that he believes what is being proposed is permitted, and City Clerk Bainbridge said absolutely he can; she said she is a little conflicted on this as there isn't a motion on tonight's agenda, that she is struggling with this and asked for assistance from City Attorney Driskell. City Attorney Driskell said he thinks there are two questions: one relates to parliamentarian issues and that he isn't sure there is an issue there; typically we do give advance notice of this for anyone who would care to comment; the second issue is the Governance Manual, and said he isn't able to immediately remember on committee assignments, whether there is any particular protocol that Council has adopted pursuant to that resolution. City Clerk Bainbridge said she doesn't remember anything that sets out the protocol, except that it is usually done once a year, but that doesn't mean it can't happen otherwise, because it does happen otherwise because things come up. Mr. Driskell said this is something that the Mayor makes a motion or proposes, and it is confirmed or not by a majority of the Council. Councilmember Wick asked if there is a more restrictive requirement for committee removal. City Clerk Bainbridge said the Governance Manual Committee is working on that, but there is nothing in that manual that addresses removal from a committee, although the committee is working on some suggested verbiage for the next rendition of that manual. Councilmember Wick said if there is nothing in the Governance Manual, then isn't there a reference in the end that said that in the absence of something in the Governance Manual, that Roberts Rules presides; and said he is pretty sure you have to have a super majority vote for removal from an appointment. City Clerk Bainbridge said she would have to look that up about committees. Mayor Higgins said he believes the super majority for removal is for something other than an appointed office, and City Clerk Bainbridge agreed. Councilmember Peetz asked if she could make a motion to table this until the next meeting. City Clerk Bainbridge said tabling something is different because you can't discuss it until the next meeting and before discussion, would have to make a motion to take it off the table. City Clerk Bainbridge asked for confirmation if Mr. Woodard had made a motion, and he replied he was about to but was interrupted. City Clerk Bainbridge explained that Ms. Peetz could either ask or make a motion that this be postponed to a specific time; she explained that you usually don't table something that's not already on the agenda. It was then moved by Councilmember Peetz and seconded by Councilmember Thompson to put this on the agenda so we can have public comment. Deputy Mayor Haley, speaking to City Clerk Bainbridge, said we have never had public comment on a committee appointment before, but Ms. Bainbridge said she believes we have, although she isn't sure anyone ever commented on an appointment before; and Mayor Higgins said he would surmise since it would have been on an agenda as an action item, there probably would have been opportunity for public comment. Councilmember Wick said he was hoping for some discussion since this is new to him, and as the one being removed from the two committees, that he wished he had more understanding of what was happening to cause for his removal from the committees he sits on. Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. Bob West, Spokane Valley: said he generally looks at the agenda which drives his coming to the meeting; that this is a spur of the moment thing, and said it is his understanding that there was a lot of thought put into those committee assignments, and it would be interesting to know the reasons why; said he feels those people on those committees now are doing an admirable job and the City is moving forward on those, and if someone is being removed for just cause, that would be information that he believes the public would like to know, and the reasoning behind it; said he doesn't want to call it "blindsiding" but it would be interesting; this is part of the transparency that we have been talking about and said this doesn't feel transparent to him. There were no other public comments. Councilmember Peetz said she would also like to know some of the reasons behind why Mayor Higgins would want to switch things around; that Mr. Woodard and Mrs. Haley already have quite a few things on their plate; and that Mr. Wick has the most experience with SRTC, has great relationships with SRTC, and has actually moved a lot of our projects forward and works well with our staff; and said she doesn't understand why the removal. Councilmember Woodard said the Governance Manual makes it clear that the committee appointments are at the discretion of the Mayor so he really doesn't have to give reasons and it doesn't really matter what the reasons are; if he feels that the shuffling of the current Council is such that maybe something different or more can be accomplished then he has the right to do that; and Council gets to affirm or not affirm, and not the appointment part of it. Mayor Higgins reminded everyone that the issue is not putting this on the agenda and not the actual movement as there isn't a motion for that change right now. Deputy Mayor Haley clarified that Councilmember Peetz talked about Ms. Haley having a lot on her plate, but this would be a removal from a committee and not being put on another committee. Mayor Higgins asked if Council is ready for the question of postponing this and putting it on the agenda. Vote by Acclamation [and later confirmed by a show of hands opposed to putting this on the agenda]: In Favor: Councilmembers Thompson, Wick and Peetz. Opposed: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Haley, and Councilmembers Wood and Woodard. The motion failed. It was then moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded by Deputy Mayor Haley to make the proposed committee changes: Mr. Woodard moved from Health Board to the SRTC, Mr. Wood moved to the finance committee, Mr. Wick moved from SRTC and finance committee to Visit Spokane and the Health Board, and Ms. Haley moved to Visit Spokane. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council discussion ensued with Councilmember Wick stating that he feels he has served well on the SRTC Board, said he was elected vice chair and chair -elect for next year to represent the community; said that this month and in less than a week the committee will be taking action on a multi-year allocation of funds for the next five years for all the major roadway projects, for which, he said he is slated to lead the discussion of a whole new process of how they will be doing that and better align our projects as a region; said he thinks we will get stalled out a lot on this if a change is made at this last second; he said the SRTC Chair will not be there next week for that meeting, and we will miss out on a whole rotation; thinking of this from a City perspective and not trying to be personal, said he's also up and was nominated for the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board and was selected from the entire cities across the State of Washington to represent all cities on freight and transportation mobility and pending the Governor's Office, which he said he was just in communication with and expects an appointment within the next week to that board as well, so not only representing our community and our region but also all the cities across the state; and said he did get a nomination and full support from the Association of Washington Cities Board as well for that appointment. Councilmember Wick said he has a lot of background and passion for transportation and experience that he feels would benefit and help our City from him being on that committee position, and that he is sorry if he did something that made it seem he was not a team player; said he feels that we have been trying to get together; that all six Councilmembers were at the AWC Conference, we saw each other and tried to dialogue as much as possible; and said he is not sure where he isn't being a team player. Concerning the Finance Committee, Mr. Wick said he'll give that up as he doesn't see that as a huge risk Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT to our City, but the Regional Transportation Board, there are so many large decisions coming up in such a short time, and our position there would be greatly lost if we make a change at this short notice. Councilmember Thompson said she is very taken aback by this happening; that she thought Council was trying to move forward and make sure Council is focused on Spokane Valley being successful in our region and having the right people in the right place; said she definitely having Councilmember Woodard on the Board of Health was bringing a City perspective, with him having been here a long time on our Council; and that we have talked about Visit Spokane and she realizes that Deputy Mayor Haley knows a lot of people; and as a new Councilmember, said she has been trying to work on the Board of Health and be part of the what's happening in the community; said she would like to see Council be more communicative and more open about plans rather than being surprised on the dais of something that is totally unexpected; said she saw how respected our City Councilmembers were, even the new ones, that many people wanted to engage with Councilmembers; she said this is embarrassing for leaders on our Council to be taken out of a committee publicly like this with no conversation; said she understands that the Mayor has that the ability to appoint someone; said she is thinking that there should be something egregious that has happened, or not participating in the committee or not showing up or just not doing something, and said that doesn't appear to be happening with the committee assignments we have; she said she thinks everyone is trying hard to represent us well, so she is disappointed in this move. City Attorney Driskell asked for a point of clarification, in that the City has one seat on Visit Spokane, but that the way he thought he heard Mr. Woodard's motion, was that Mr. Wick would be on Visit Spokane, but thought he heard one other person as well. Mayor Higgins clarified that we are removing Ms. Haley. Councilmember Woodard apologized if he read that wrong. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Haley, and Councilmembers Wood and Woodard. Opposed: Councilmembers Wick, Thompson and Peetz. Motion carried. 10. Deputy City Manager Comments — John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman, said in Mr. Calhoun's absence, that Mr. Calhoun requested that Mr. Hohman address an e-mail that Mr. Calhoun sent to Council last Sunday evening regarding the Mullan Monument, and to give background and provide some clarification. Mr. Hohman explained that the monument designates the location of the John Mullan Trail throughout the region; the monument in question is located at the intersection of Sprague and Vista on the southwest corner; it was constructed in 1922 and has been there ever since, so it is coming up on its 100 -year anniversary. Mr. Hohman explained that the monument has been in different stages of repair or disrepair throughout the 100 years, and it has seen some changes in different land uses associated with that area. He said that one of the concerns several years ago when the Plantation Building was razed was what would happen to the monument, is this a secure location, and what will future development do with the community icon; during that time we were also planning on this City Hall building and the site and through that process, the idea came up to have a number of different sculptures here; we went through a planning process, and as part of that process there was public discussion on moving the Mullan Monument to the City Hall site; predominately it would be an amenity here but it would also be for protection from unknown effects of future development in its current location. Mr. Hohman said that was discussed with Council input on the site plan; there were several iterations of that site plan that showed the monument being part of this site plan, to be located just outside the corner of the Council Chambers. Mr. Hohman said that as staff was working toward this, we found that one of the difficult things is no one has ever moved a monument of that nature before; we researched several options, and did some testing with drilling to see if we could discern what it was made of and said that we did attempt to move the monument, and that as he has been publicly saying for a long time, the monument did not want to be moved. Mr. Hohman explained that through the process staff worked with Jayne Singleton of the Museum prior to the move, and had consulted with her on the site plan generation itself and said that she understood the concerns and she wasn't in full support of the idea to move it, but she understood the wisdom of that at the time; and once the move was abandoned staff consulted again with Ms. Singleton, who he said has been a great partner with us, as noticed by the historical photos throughout City Hall; and Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT we put a plan together to remediate the issue out there. Further, Mr. Hohman stated, the one thing that City administration is feeling, is the inaccuracy of the text box on page 19 of the July issue of the Current, where it states that the City's official position is that vandalism caused the issues out there on the monument. Mr. Hohman said that statement is not true. He said that over the years there have been rocks that have come loose due to weathering and vandalism. Mr. Hohman said that at no point in his recollection of the development of the article, did the paper ask if the monument had been moved, and it was several months ago when the article was being put together, and all along we had the approach that we were going to fix the damage we did there; and said we had been working through that; he said it is not easy to find some company with skills to fix that 100 -year old structure; and it took some time for us to locate a company that had the particular skills to fix that and again coordinated that with Ms. Singleton to make sure she was comfortable with the plan for repairs. Mr. Hohman said that repair occurred a couple of weeks ago and the monument is now restored and has a protective collar around it; that it is a little different than it was before but it wasn't stable before so that repair had to be done as well. Mr. Hohman added that Ms. Singleton is working on an interpretative sign for the area, and we will also look for other amenities such as bollards, or chains or something to not only designate this, but protect it. Mr. Hohman said we would like to have that public discussion, and clarify that the City's official position was never that vandalism caused this; this was something that we did cause as part of our efforts to look at the site plan, and said we have done the appropriate work to remediate the damage, and the work was done in an appropriate fashion. Councilmember Woodard asked if that is on private land or public right-of-way, and Mr. Hohman replied that it is right on the edge of right-of-way for Sprague, but also right up against private property. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 07-03-2018 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, July 10, 2018 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Staff. Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Mark Werner, Police Chief Bill Helbig, City Engineer Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Adam Jackson, Planning/Grants Engineer Colin Quinn -Hurst, Sr. Transportation Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef of the United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge 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. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wood: said that he attended the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting where they noted sales tax revenue was up 9% over 2017 actuals; van pool ridership was down 11.5%, and the year-to-date figures are down 13%; said there is more revenue and less ridership so some work needs to be done to increase ridership; said he also attended a ribbon cutting of a new restaurant in Liberty Lake. Councilmember Peetz: said she attended the Ponderosa Dedication and it was great to see some of her former teachers; went to a Chamber of Commerce business connection breakfast; also went to the Altitude Trampoline ribbon cutting which she said was probably changed because no one else was there so she got a tour; attended the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Conference in Yakima and learned a lot and hopes some of that information will be included in an upcoming meeting; said as she was attending the AWC Conference she missed the 911 board meeting, but there are a lot of things going on now as they work to reconfigure their board and discuss interoperability with regional partners. Councilmember Woodard: said he also attended the AWC conference; went to several Chamber events; attended a government affairs meeting with Mr. Furman from the US Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and that it was explained that they "take on the government" to try to show the reason why it doesn't function as intended, and said perhaps we could bring Mr. Furman to a Council meeting at some Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT time; attended the 40th Anniversary for Life Flight at Felts Field; and went to the Hutton settlement achievement dinner. Councilmember Thompson: reported that she also attended the 40th Anniversary of Heart Flights and that she spoke with the CEO who has been doing those flight for almost 40 years and as they continue working with public safety they will be changing their language in their documents to not include the word "accident" when it involves impaired drivers and traffic collisions; went to the Methadone Clinic where Representative McMorris Rodgers was doing a tour; she mentioned an upcoming meeting July 24 at the Ruckelshaus Center to look at the Growth Management Act, but since that is a Council meeting night she will not be able to attend, but hopes someone from staff or someone else could go to represent us. Councilmember Wick: said he had the opportunity to present a flag flown over the Capital Building in Washington, D.C. wherein Representative McMorris Rodgers presented a flag for former Spokane Valley resident Dick Behm; said Mr. Behm's grandson achieved his eagle scout award and will be the third generation to receive such with a ceremony at CenterPlace, and that he was able to extend congratulations on behalf of our community; said he attended numerous SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meetings and was involved with an RFQ (request for qualifications) for IT (internet technology) services as they went out for a bid to private companies to manage their IT infrastructure; said they are also preparing for their call for projects, which this time is being done once every five years, and this time instead of trying to get jurisdictions to match which projects fix the grant categories, they want to know what the best projects are within the region and will make the grant monies match the projects; said they have also launched an education series, the first of which was about roundabouts, which was hosted at CenterPlace; said he also attended the AWC Conference in Yakima and as part of that toured some sports complexes; and one of his favorite conference dealt with a group called "Save your Communities" which is about empty buildings and how they were able to put a tour together to tour those buildings; that there was certain criteria the building owner had to comply with to clean up their buildings, and that there were eleven buildings on the tour, 30 people went on the tour, and within a year they had ten of those eleven empty buildings filled. Deputy Mayor Haley: said she also attended the STA Board meeting and that it is interesting that while ridership is down, income is up so people are obviously still buying the monthly passes, just not riding as much; said she also attended the AW Conference which she too found very interesting. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he attended a ribbon cutting for a new business "Just Right CPR" which is a new concept for our area as they are a mobile unit which goes around teaching CPR, and suggested we might want to take a look at that. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins explained the process for giving public comments, and said that based on tonight's long agenda and in the interest of keeping the agenda manageable, each of the two public comment segments on tonight's agenda will be limited to thirty minutes. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. 1. Rev. Genavieve Heywood, Spokane Valley: she read her comments about her previously offering Council a draft mission statement; mentioned her disagreement with the action taken at the July 3 meeting where Councilmember Wick was removed from two committees. 2. Mr. Jeff Brodhead, Spokane Valley: he read his statement regarding the purchase by Hydro One Limited of Avista Utilities, and said he hopes that this Council will take a stand in opposition to the sale. 3. Ms. Lelani Delong, Spokane Valley: said she wanted to give a history lesson, and said that Councilmember Woodard has a track record of being questionable and of not serving the best interest of Spokane Valley, at which point Mayor Higgins asked if this is a political statement. She replied it is not. She said that Mr. Woodard has a history of losing $280,000 to the County that could have been used for a sidewalk. Mayor Higgins stopped the speaker as he said this is a political statement, but she denied it was political and said it was just a fact and is on the record. Mayor Higgins replied that he does not believe it is on the record, and again she replied that it is. Ms. DeLong said she wouldn't say that part; and she continued her statement by stating that Sam Wood has been on the Board of Health and he never attended the meetings, Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT and she said that neither of these two are showing a lot of competency in these areas yet they are the ones replacing Mr. Wick on his committees; she said Mr. Wick is respected within our state on transportation, he received a certificate from the Association of Washington Cities, and a nomination to the FMSIB Board; and said she doesn't understand why someone so respected isn't being maintained on those committees; and why individual feelings are being valued over the best interests of our City. 4. Mr. Tim Lape, Spokane Valley: said he was approached by numerous people embarrassed for the City of Spokane Valley because of the manner in which a motion to remove Mr. Wick from his two committees, took place; said it was a similar situation with Mike Jackson where there wasn't notice and full disclosure to all the Councilmembers which he said got the City in some trouble; said transparency is Council's striveable hallmark; and the actions that took place on July 3 just prior to the 4th of July holiday weren't transparent; it wasn't on the agenda, all councilmembers were not notified in advance of the upcoming motion, and said there wasn't sufficient notice to Spokane Valley citizens to comment; said he doesn't believe that is a right way to conduct Spokane Valley business. 5. Ms. Sally Jackson, Spokane Valley: said she was born here and has always opposed this City as an extra layer of government and the expense of it; just like this building, that every time she goes by it she said it makes her scream at the size of it for a city of this size; said when she was working against the City a member from the Spokesman Review asked her why she was so opposed; and she said that she was happy with the County and we will get the same thing in the valley, we won't get intelligent, fair-minded reasonable people as councilmembers — some maybe, but not all; she questioned if this is a representative form of government; said a lot of older people will come in and not understand the art of compromise; and this is an example; we have Mr. Wick, who is intelligent and who cares about the area, and he's here because he wants to make a difference, and instead of some of you welcoming you, you cut him out; she said that's not a representative form of government, and it's like dumping Mike Jackson that cost us so much money or running out Mr. Hafner and Mr. Grafos, which is because you cut them out of decisions and that's not right, and if members of Council don't understand that this is a representative form of government, they shouldn't be in their position of city councilmember. 6. Ms. Jennifer, Calvert, Spokane Valley: she read her prepared statement about her concern in the process where Mr. Wick was removed from this committee positions. 7. Mr. Ed Pace, Spokane Valley: spoke in favor of the action Council took last week making the reassignment of committees; said all seven were elected by residents and the job is to represent them, not the state or the county or the STA or Health Board of SRTC; just to be a regular person and not someone who is brilliant or who has technical expertise; said that's why we have staff; and said any Councilmember is fine on any board; said he trusts Councilmembers to do their jobs and thinks they are doing their jobs; said Council serves at the Mayor's pleasure and he can appoint you and remove you and it's no big deal; said an item can be brought up and voted on with no previous announcement; said everything Council did was good and he thanked Council and encouraged them to keep up the good work. 8. Ms. Donna O'Leary, Spokane Valley: said it was unsettling to watch last week's video when Mr. Wick was moved from two committee appointments; said she looks to leadership to be respectful even when opinions differ; said the Mayor was quoted as saying the move had nothing to do with SRTC; she said Mr. Wick is an upstanding community member and deserves respect; and she is embarrassed and appalled. 9. Mr. Tim Hattenburg Spokane Valley: said a lot of people are wondering what happened to the trust and transparency as there appears to be a lack of transparency; said Mr. Wick was a very important person in helping getting funding for projects and his experience means a lot. 10. Ms. Jan Young, Spokane Valley: said she was appalled and outraged that Council created a situation that didn't give concerned citizens an opportunity to comment as no advance notice was given; by removing Mr. Wick she said we have lost a valuable member on the SRTC; said lack of transparency has become clearly self-evident and citizens deserve better; said those actions were by design but the motives remain a mystery. 11. Mr. Dary VanDusen, Liberty Lake: said he has spoken at previous meetings about his concern on Baker and Trent and that he is pleased to have a man of Mr. Wick's integrity; and said he was surprised, disappointed and baffled by Mr. Wick's removal and hopes he will be reinstated. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT 12. Mr. Tom Towey, Spokane Valley: read his statement questioning the procedure in which Mr. Wick's committee assignments were changed. 13. Mr. Chuck Hafner, Spokane Valley: said as a former Councilmember he realizes the difficulties there are in making decisions, especially making the right decisions, and that today's decisions have future impacts; in listening to last week's meeting, he said shades of the past came back to him as this current action was taking place, and because of actions of this particular majority of this Council, we lost many qualified staff who were influential in making present and future goals of our city; said these extreme actions on Council's part have resulted in a toxic atmosphere and working environment for those who work for the city; said we were once envied as a city of the future, but the present thinking is we are not the model city we were when we established the city and other municipalities looked at us for our leadership and direction, but he said that is no longer happening; and said that no matter what people say tonight, he knows Council will not reverse the decision made about Mr. Wick's removal from the committees. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on April 21, July 10, 2018 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $1,959,725.72 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30, 2018: $477,455.88 c. Approval of Resolution 18-005, in Support of SRTC to join AWC Trust After City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that la above contained a typo and should have read July 10, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 2. CenterPlace West Lawn Update — Mike Stone As Parks and Recreation Director Stone prepared to go through his PowerPoint on this topic, Mayor Higgins mentioned that this item is in preparation for the next agenda item concerning the economic analysis of tourism venues and events. Mr. Stone explained about the goals, objectives, and key issues for the CenterPlace West Lawn and North Meadow Master Plan; and he showed the maps, legends, and before and after photos during several phases of the project. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Motion Consideration: Economic Analysis of Tourism Venues & Events — Chelsie Taylor Mayor Higgins announced that prior to making a motion, he would like to discuss these ten project options as shown on the spreadsheet as Council may want to narrow these ten down to two or three; and suggested getting consensus from Council on whether or not to pursue each item as it is discussed. The Fairgrounds site was discussed, and Mr. Hohman stated that when Community Attributes did this study for us, the Fairgrounds was identified as a building that they would like to re -build for different trade shows and fill up some time slots for seasons when hotels are more looking for room nights. Councilmember Wick said he is aware of ongoing needs for the site as he has served on that Board for several years; there were other ideas such as perhaps having a separate entrance, or even to split up the fairgrounds. City Manager Calhoun also noted that the Fairgrounds requires no land acquisition, is already owned by the County, and of all ten projects, this would be the only one that would address activities during the off hotel months. It appeared that several Councilmembers were in favor of this project. The HUB Complex was also discussed with Councilmember Wick commenting that perhaps we could title it something other than the HUB Complex. Councilmember Peetz agreed with this project; said she visited some sports complexes in Yakima and likes the idea of a sports complex, but feels our city dollars should stay in the valley; said she too would like to focus on this but not necessarily call it the HUB. Councilmember Woodard mentioned that the HUB is outside the city limits and a sports complex is Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT predicated on three agencies coming together; i.e. our city, the County, and maybe Central Valley; said Spokane Valley would be the one to spend the money to build it and that is of great concern to him; said it doesn't make a lot of sense to put our money on something in someone else's jurisdiction. Deputy Mayor Haley agreed and in summary, said the idea of having something like the HUB is a priority, but have something in our city limits. Browns Park was also mentioned with Councilmember Woodard stating that he is in favor of working toward the park's completion, but would not be in favor of a bond for the balance of the work. Mr. Calhoun remarked that having recently come up through the budget workshop, Council adopted a Master Plan for that park and we are slowly working to implement that; and that city crews will be installing another eight courts this fall. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve that Council limit future discussions of this topic to the following venues or events: the Fairgrounds, the HUB, and the CenterPlace expansion. Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Ms. Peggy Doering, Spokane Valley: said she was present in February when this proposal came forward and that she is excited to see some of the changes Council is viewing; said she saw today in the paper that Central Valley School District is not going to build where they were going to at the Saltese Flats, but they are going to buy the gun club; said she doesn't know if that original property is in Spokane Valley but it is near a conservation area and where Council has acquired land for a park; said she knows it is not on the bullet list, and asked if this was started with the hotel/motel tax funds, the $2.8 million to invest and set aside to develop into a sports complex, and asked if that tax money is involved or if this is just for a bond issue. Finance Director Taylor said the intention is that money would be involved in this process, and any money awarded would have to go through the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee application process. Ms. Doering said she would like Council to have them view this as being in the Spokane Valley city limits, and going back to look more at what the hotel/motel fund set aside; said she was on the committee at the time and she would recommend looking at that tighter; said she thinks these are all good concepts and she supports the investment back into the City of Spokane Valley; said one of her ideas is the Spokane River and said there are some opportunities that maybe should be re-evaluated along with some other organizations that are working on river development. Mr. Ed Pace, Spokane Valley: said he would like to reemphasize the point made by Councilmember Woodard and perhaps Ms. Doering to keep Spokane Valley tax dollars in the city limits; said he realizes this is lodging tax money which many Spokane Valley residents don't pay, but it is still our tax money and he would like to keep in within the City limits. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Woodard added that the category "special events" can mean a lot of different things, and anything we can draw that uses the assets of the City that are part of our trademark — like the River and open areas; said we need to look at those when they come forward. Councilmember Thompson said that this is an exciting process and the potential with CenterPlace is incredible; that she would be open to things like a farmer's market and completing the master plan to bring in more tourism; likes the idea of keeping Balfour Park and is open to the potential to look at things for the river through partnerships. Mayor Higgins noted that this is not the end of this discussion and none of these venues are totally excluded from moving forward, we are just working to narrow down the list. Vote by acclamation on the motion to approve that Council limit future discussions of this topic to the following venues or events: the Fairgrounds, the HUB, and the CenterPlace expansion: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mr. Calhoun said staff will examine these more closely and bring these items back for future discussion. 4. Proposed Resolution 18-004, Master Truck Schedule — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Resolution 18-004 repealing and replacing Resolution 12-013, the Master 'No trucks' and `local delivery only" schedule. City Engineer Helbig explained that this resolution modifies the master `no trucks' schedule and comes on the heels of the presentation given last month concerning the 22nd Avenue traffic; said he and Senior Traffic Engineer Wright as well as maintenance crews looked at the roads and they can't handle the truck traffic. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Peetz said she appreciates Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT the work on this as there was an overwhelming concern with the area; Councilmember Wick expressed appreciation for expanding the no truck zone beyond 22nd and including the entire neighborhood; and Councilmember Thompson said it is frustrating that we can't do something about a neighborhood built under the County that affects traffic in our City, and said perhaps when a subdivision goes in next to us, that there could be some kind of discussion or agreement that addresses traffic in our community. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:30 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited general public comments. 1. Ms. Kerry Potter, Spokane Valley: she commended citizen Bob West for giving his comments at last week's Council meeting concerning the committee removal issue; mentioned last week's carefully coordinated coup staged last week to remove Mr. Wick from the SRTC and the City's Finance Committee; she said Mayor Higgins did this in an embarrassing manner by not discussing it with Mr. Wick prior to the meeting; she said that former City Manager Mike Jackson was fired without reason in early 2016, and the City paid him a settlement to avoid being sued and Councilmembers Hafner and Grafos resigned in protest; she said Mr. Wick has gained recognition for his work on the SRTC and was looking forward to representing our City as the chairman -elect next year; said he has been nominated to participate on the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board; said on July 12, SRTC will award grants to allocate all their funds for the next five years, and Mr. Wick was to have led that meeting; and she questioned the reasoning of removing our most qualified person just when funding decisions are being made; she asked if Mr. Higgins thinks Mr. Woodard is more knowledgeable on transportation issues, or if something happened that is more personal; or if this is working to get the three newest Councilmembers to resign. 2. Ms. Sylvia Passe, Spokane Valley: she spoke about Councilmember Wick's removal from the committee; said in reference to comments that offering that SRTC appointment was an olive branch is ludicrous; and to take it away without warning or discussion doesn't scream of transparency; said Councilmembers are acting like children. 3. Ms. Donita Mason, Spokane Valley: regarding the removal of Mr. Wick from the committees, that if there is a legitimate reason for that action, to document it; or if there is no legitimate reason, that it would be proper to put him back on those committees; said it should be about getting things done right and not about personalities. 4. Ms. Carol Allen, Spokane Valley: spoke regarding the removal of Mr. Wick from the committees; said the rationale given by Mr. Higgins amounted to `I think it would be better;' she said the Spokane Valley citizens are not children and the mayor is not our parent; said she expects substantive reasons for such a removal with examples of why; said she knows the City's Governance Manual doesn't require reasons, but said as a citizen, she requires reasons; that he was well recognized by his peers for his expertise; and said even the most knowledgeable person assigned to that position will take a minimum of three months to get up to speed as a functioning member, and said this doesn't serve the City well; said she wants to know Council's rationale for removing someone who is competent, and replacing him with someone who may not even know what's going on. 5. Ms. Hollie Ann Kayukuk, Spokane Valley: said she is relatively new to the city; said she and her husband researched an ideal place to live, and after looking around the area, they decided on Spokane Valley even though their first decision was Spokane; said they have not been sorry they moved here; she said in learning the dynamics of this community, several of the city residents have told her Council can't be trusted; and said she hopes and she asked Council to reconsider reinstating Mr. Wick to the two committees he was removed from. 6. Mr. Jeff Beaulac, Spokane Valley: said he was on a board of trustees for the Evergreen State College, and as part of their training for being on that board, they examined the Open Public Meetings Act, and he mentioned violations of that Act can result in being fined a large amount of money; said he mentions this because Spokane Valley might have some problems with that Act; said this isn't the first time something like this has come up and has appeared as if a majority of the Council previously made a decision before Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT that decision came up for the entire Council; he said he has heard that at one point, Spokane Valley was the envy of the State of Washington, but no one says that anymore; he said people usually hear about a controversy that has happened and we are the joke of the state; said he thinks that is what is happening here as the articles written about Mr. Wick's removal seem that decision was made in secret, because he said, that is how it looks; said he will be excited to see that manner changed and hopes that in 2019 and after will change the way it is for open meetings, and we will see a Council that respects that Act. 7. Mr. Matthew Saltsman, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning what he termed `illegal littering' with the `Pinch Paper' newspaper ads/flyers that are delivered from the Spokesman Review; said he called the Spokesman over 50 times on this issue and sometimes it would quit for a week, but then it would begin again; said he questions why this is legal; said he has to pay by the ton to get rid of them; he questioned why there is no ordinance for this; said he called the Sheriff's Office who told him the only way anything can be done about this is to catch the person in the act; said if there is no ordinance, there should be. 8. Mr. Tony Lazanis, Spokane Valley: said he had a lot to do with us becoming a city; and he did a lot of door belling; said Councilmembers are wonderful people and people shouldn't admonish the Mayor; that he has a lot of authority and sometimes he just uses it; said the Mayor is a good man and does a good job for the little money he gets; and said he appreciates Council. 9. Ms. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said he likes Mr. Wick and the Council; said the concern is that not everyone here speaks for the valley; said the people voted in the Council; that when you stand with people who hold that sign, it sends a message that you stand with them, so apparently Mr. Wick found a way to work with Council and continue although removed from two positions; and said it would be nice to hear Mr. Wick's perception on what has happened and to hear how he feels about this. 10. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: said he is sure this is a big deal to many, but this isn't to him; that there are a lot bigger fish to fly and he feels Mr. Wick will live through this; concerning Hydro One, said he doesn't think people understand the depth of the issue about asking another country to have control over our power grid; that if you talk to people in Canada you won't find anyone happy with what Hydro One has done; said they are billions of dollars in the red and said how they can merge with U.S. company is beyond him; that there were 200 customers who were 90 days in arrears; sounds like a problem; said we don't know who owns 50% of that corporation as Hydro owns 49%; that they won't tell us who owns the 50%. There were no further public comments offered. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that she received several e-mails, but the following e-mails asked to be made part of tonight's record: (1) from Lani DeLong voicing disappointment in the actions of Council at the July 3 meeting; (2) from Carmen Pacheo-Jones expressing concern with the removal of Councilmember Wick from the SRTC, and hope that Council will review that decision; (3) from Frank Coyle commenting about the action being taken without explanation and asking for the reinstatement of Ben Wick; (4) from Rebekah Mason asking for reconsideration of the appointment change of Mr. Wick; and (5) from Joan Berkowitz, opposing the change in committee appointment for Mr. Wick. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Telephone Utility Tax — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor briefly went over the background of the City's telephone utility tax which was initiated in 2008, of the decline in revenues over the years, and of the results of the utility tax audit; that we contracted with Tax Recovery Services (TRS) in 2016 to conduct an audit of providers that engage in telephone business and pay the telephone tax to the City. Ms. Taylor said the audit was intended to assess if providers are accurately remitting all taxes owed to the City and whether any underpayment was a reason for the decline in tax revenues. Ms. Taylor said the fees paid to TRS was on a contingent basis out of the amount recovered, at a rate of 25% of revenues and penalties collected; that the City paid $99,716 of the amount recovered to TRS, leaving the City with $299,149. Finance Director Taylor also noted that corrections have been made by the companies included in the audit and future tax payments are expected to be based on the revised tax calculations; and that the amount recovered, especially when allocated over Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT the period of the audits, does not appear to be a driving factor in the revenue declines. Councilmember Woodard mentioned that there are some pre -paid phones out there, such as TracFone, and he asked if that company was audited like the City of Spokane; and said that one company could have been $250,000 to $300,000 itself. Director Taylor said because of confidentiality issues with the Department of Revenue, she'd like to decline to state names. Councilmember Woodard asked if TracFone was one of those in the past that we received taxes from, and Ms. Taylor said she didn't know and would have to verify. Councilmember Woodard suggested that would be something to look into. 6. TIB Grant Applications — Adam Jackson, Colin Quinn -Hurst Planning/Grants Engineer Jackson went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining some of the history of the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board), including how they are funded; he mentioned grant applications for a TIB grant are due by August 17, 2018; he went over the Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and the Sidewalk Program, and of the recommended projects, which include University Road preservation, Sprague & Barker Intersection Improvement, and the Adams Road Sidewalk. Mr. Jackson explained the funding request for the University Road Preservation Project, and of our suggested 40% match, or $1,250,000, and said that matching at 40% maximizes the TIB scoring potential, lowers the TIB -funded amount to TIB's typical award range, and reduces the direct cost impact to the City when compared to self - funding the project. To clarify, Councilmember Wick said that Mr. Jackson stated that last the time we submitted a project for TIB funding, we were very close but we were beat out by one of our other projects; and last time we did a 20% match. Mr. Jackson confirmed that the last time we did a 20% match, last time our engineering phase wasn't complete; he said this is for the construction -only phase funding; so we are applying this round with that complete, and also the project was less expensive a year ago and we have updated the pricing to reflect current bids and the demand; so yes, he said it was a 20% match last year compared with 40% this year. Mr. Wick asked if the idea was that the 40% match would be taken from Fund 311, and Mr. Jackson concurred that is correct. Further, Mr. Jackson said if looking at the Fund 311 balance of $2.2 million a year for preservation projects, by doing it this way we can take just over half of that of or a 1.2 match and still have $1 million for other projects without touching REET. Councilmember Thompson asked about signaling on 32nd going west; said the new left turn is a little confusing because it doesn't have its own lane, and she asked if there was any change when talking about traffic signal upgrades. Mr. Jackson said he isn't sure which signals will be touched, but that he thinks there will be line item of signal improvements; and in terms of lane configuration, said he can't speak to the changes. Mr. Calhoun said staff is planning to come back to Council July 24th and we can bring that information at that point. Mr. Jackson continued going through the basics of the proposed projects. In discussing the Sprague & Barker Corridor Project, Mr. Jackson said staff feels this would be a safe project to submit to TIB and not jeopardize being double funded, adding that SRTC likely has projects prioritized above this, and if it is selected, that selection process would occur before the SRTC window; it is a $1.6 million project with a 20% match; said we do not know if this will be a signal or a roundabout and the design, if awarded, would evaluate the considerations of those options. Councilmember Peetz said that she received an e-mail from a citizen who lives on the southeast corner who is concerned if this will be a signal or a roundabout; and she asked if there has been public input on this project. Mr. Jackson said he can't speak to this specific project concerning public outreach, and thinks it has not yet occurred; he said this is a part of our process with projects but has not occurred on this project yet; said staff is working with a consultant studying the south Barker corridor and this intersection is part of that and with that study they will be evaluating what types of improvements would be warranted. Mr. Jackson stated that the Adams Road sidewalk project is a $508,000 project, that it would start at 16th Avenue and would fill in the sidewalk gaps from 16th to about 22nd or 23rd but not to 24th because the need isn't there, and there are right-of-way conflicts and some full growth trees at one property which the owner Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT does not want to remove; said the project doesn't need to extend to be successful as there are crosswalks at mid -block and at 24th to accommodate pedestrians; said this is also on the Safe Routes to School. Councilmember Wick said he's not sure about the full 40% match, and suggested trying to preserve those funds. Mr. Jackson stated that with a $3.1 million project cost, that each year since 2014 or 2015, TIB funded maybe one project over $2 million; so as we reduce our match, we start to push the limits of what has historically been an awarded amount from TIB, and that helped direct the decision of 40%; and if this isn't funded, he said we would be preparing to spend those dollars, so this helps reduce the cost to the City. Councilmember Wick stated that we were on the edge of being awarded in the past and we were within that range of 20% match; and he asked if the costs have increased by more than 20% for this project. Mr. Jackson said he would have to look back at last year's request for those exact figures, but estimated it went from about $2.2 million to $3.2 million, and said part of that is increased costs and the other part is the severity of the road condition as it has deteriorated. There was apparent consensus from Council to proceed. Mr. Jackson asked for clarification on which direction to proceed concerning the 40% match when this comes back to Council in two weeks. City Manager Calhoun said staff will go back and look at that and at the 24th meeting, will give Council an assessment on a percentage match. 7. SVMC 2.75 (public records) Update — Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that several changes have been made to the state's Public Records Act, which has necessitated some of the proposed changes shown in the red -line version of the draft ordinance; he noted that the legislature has allowed cities to charge for electronic copies, and we adopted those charges in our fee schedule, but now need to incorporate them in SVMC 2.75 to allow us to collect those fees; said we have always complied with the Public Record Act and modify procedures when necessary. There was Council consensus to move this forward for a first reading of the ordinance. 8. Euclid Ave Preservation (Sullivan to Flora) — Gloria Mantz, Robert Lochmiller Engineering Manager Mantz went through her PowerPoint explaining this project, including the project location, existing conditions, project design, temporary traffic control, budget and funding, and that the bid opening is scheduled for July 13 with a bid award for Council consideration at the July 24 Council meeting. There was Council consensus to move forward as scheduled. 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Peetz said given the amount of overwhelming testimony, she moved to reinstate Ben Wick to the SRTC committee. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Thompson. Councilmember Wick said he appreciates the sentiment, but doesn't know if Council can have that discussion. City Attorney Driskell said that according to the Governance Manual, the recommendation for committee appointment is made by the Mayor with concurrence from Council, so the motion would be out of order to have Council tell the Mayor to make the appointment. It was determined the motion was out of order. Although not an advance agenda item, Councilmember Peetz said she received some e-mails about the Appleway Trail and weeds and cleanliness, and that members of her church will be getting together tomorrow at 6 pm to work on that trail as part of their service to the community. Councilmember Wick mentioned that it is his understanding that STA passes are no longer available for purchase at places such as Rosauer's Grocery store, and that perhaps a Councilmember on the STA Committee could look into that. Councilmember Thompson mentioned legislative preparation and policies that might be coming up, and that it would be good to be prepared prior to those policies rather than be reactive. City Manager Calhoun said that he and Mr. Driskell will be meeting with Ms. Briahna Murray from Gordon Thomas Honeywell to start the process moving for development of our 2019 Legislative Agenda and that staff will get a sense from Ms. Murray of what she thinks will be emergency issues; and he said this will item be brought to Council on the August 28 agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Calhoun said it is his understanding that come members of Council would like to discuss during a study session, some of the aspects of the recently attended AWC Conference; he said we could draft a one-page Request for Council Action form and set aside thirty minutes for discussion. Mr. Wick said he will forward some slides he has from some of the different presentations. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned the Ruckelshaus Center workshop at the AWC Conference, and of a related upcoming meeting July 24t11, which is of course, a Council meeting night, and that he will ask someone from staff to attend that meeting. And lastly, Mr. Calhoun reminded staff, and said that Council is invited, to attend next Wednesday's annual employee appreciation BBQ, which beings at 11:30 a.m. 10. Executive Session: Review the Performance of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately one hour and twenty minutes for two purposes, the first being to review the performance of a public employee and the second, which is completely unrelated, is to discuss pending litigation; and that no decisions will be made upon our return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:51 p.m. At approximately 9:52 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. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-10-2018 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-014; 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin. Report — July 17, 2018 BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1 st to October 31' of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications during the following spring, with a decision by City Council generally occurring in late spring/early summer. The Community and Public Works Department received four privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City proposed two site specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 2018. The public hearing was closed at that time. On February 16, 2018 an appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued for CPA - 2018 -0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC appeals related to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to a public hearing. Due to the SEPA appeal it was determined that the public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018 in front of the Planning Commission would be conducted, but that deliberations or further action would be deferred until such time as the HEX ruled on the SEPA appeal. On March 27, 2018 the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. On April 17, 2018 the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. At the May 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. The following recommendations to the City Council were voted on: CPA -2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0001. CPA -2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2018-0003. CPA -2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0004. 1 of 2 CPA -2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0005. Note: Commissioner Phillips recused himself due to a conflict of interest. CPA -2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0006. An Administrative Report was presented to City Council on July 17th. No public comment was taken at that time. The Council agreed by consensus to accept the Planning Commission Recommendation on each of the proposed amendments. OPTIONS: Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 18-014, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, to a second reading.. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Power Point Presentation 1) Draft Ordinance 18-014 2) Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 3) Staff Report CPA -2018-0003 4) Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 5) Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 6) Staff Report CPA -2018-0006 7) PC Meeting Minutes 2-08-18 8) PC Meeting Minutes 2-22-18 9) PC Meeting Minutes 5-10-18 10) PC Meeting Minutes 5-24-18 2 of 2 Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Spokane j\7alley 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments City Council Meeting July 24, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process IN ■ a 1-7 Environmental Determination 1-7 Notice of Public 0) a) 1 1-7 Planning Commission VI VI VI VI Study Session 2-2-18 Public Hearing 2-22-18 Deliberations 5-10-18 Findings of Fact 5-24-18 Administrative Report 7-17-18 V o Ordinance 1 S U Reading 7-24-18 0 Ordinance 2nd Reading 7-31-18 Today Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0001 Micki Harnois, Planner CPA -2018-0001 Project Number: Applicant: Owners: Proposal: i CPA -2018-0001 Robin Petrie Robin R & Lori A Petrie Audrey N Green Change the land use designation from SFR to MFR and the zoning from R-3 to MFR 3 1� 2: ; E Sprap a Ave Opp artur5iiy j _, Aye E :2: Project Site CPA -2018-0001 a a 2 Displaying aSurrounding uses wE = Commercial W _ 'CC L = Multifamily L ' = CPA -2018-0001 Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0003 Marty Palaniuk, Planner CPA -2018 0003 0 Project Number CPA -2018-0003 Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers Owners: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Proposal: Change the Land Use Designation from SFR to CMU and the zoning from R-2 to : . I .14 .r. 1.. 4:!Th . : - r. Project Site CPA -2018-0003 Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0004 Marty Palaniuk, Planner CPA -2018-0004 il 0 Project Number CPA -2018-0004 Applicant: Owners: Proposal: Heather Bryant Steve & Tresa Schmautz Change Land Use Designation SFR to NC and the zoning from R-3 to NC City Hall I . U !E , Project Site X t r 3 a: E 7 S3 7 .t. ir Zli pr .7.1 :1: vi :EE ti .0 _. ._ r 03 Y. ..: ., •R f : CPA -2018-0004 City Initiated Map Amendment CPA -2018-0005 Karen Kendall, Planner 13 CPA -2018-0005 0 Project Number Project Site CPA -2018-0005 Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Owners: Five Fifty, LLC Proposal: Expand the NC designation & zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated SFR and NC and zoned R-3 and NC. A.OwentAve -5 Hgh Sc hool ir 4 „LjupVy nlicarMr5,+!!.. SiOarj, .1_1r1Anri lirentwood , E CPA -201 8-OOC. Q J Q ctW Q City Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0006 Karen Kendall, Planner CPA -2018-0006 16 Project Number CPA -2018-0006 Applicant: Owner: Proposal: City of Spokane Valley MPR Spokane, LLC Expand the IMU designation & zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated SFR and IMU and zoned R-3 and IMU. East Valley High S:hool E_60,sIWalksh-Sa$ . Trentwood IZ rn _F] KI Pr 11 ' H' Wsh aoh. -E-FTnort' E -u? fail R a "r Frith ?war_ z EE Industrial ParkA""-St;t v, i-ut..L. irai «ai i4 E:Itdus$i8I Park B St r15en n] x0 a C N r' .Ea Project Site E ri. cl t f4; p J`nixn Paclfi�: CPA -2018-0006 Trent Avenue (SR 290) DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 16-019, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley (the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, comprehensive plans may be amended annually pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Public Works Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of all properties in the City that are consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner, or by City staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for each of the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018 notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on all the subject properties; and Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 12 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to chapter 17.90 SVMC, appeals related to SEPA decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to an appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial with written findings of fact setting forth the bases for such recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, CPA -2018-0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the Council concurred to place CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA - 2018 -0005, and CPA -2018-0006 in an ordinance for consideration of approval and to place CPA -2018- 0003 in the ordinance for consideration of denial; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Council considered a first ordinance reading to approve CPA -2018- 0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2018, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments for CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and text, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, which is denied. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. Council's findings specific to each proposed amendment are contained in Section 4 below. The Council hereby makes the following general findings applicable to all proposed amendments: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 12 DRAFT General Findings: 1. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 2. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On February 2, 2018, Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. On February 2, 2018, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, pursuant to chapter 21.20 SVMC. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On February 7, 2018, individual notices of public hearing for the proposed site-specific map amendments were, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of each affected site. 7. On February 7, 2018 each site subject to a proposed site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 8. On February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald 9. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 11. On February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2108-0003 was received by the City. 12. On February 22, 2018, the Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony the public hearing was closed. 13. On March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. 14. On April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. 15. On May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA - 2018 -0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval, and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial. CPA -2018- 0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by staff. No action was taken on either item and no recommendation was forwarded to the Council from the Commission. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 12 DRAFT 16. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2018-0001 and CPA -2018-0003 through CPA - 2018 -0006. Such findings were presented to Council. Specific findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment request are contained in Section 4, below. 17. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 18. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, are consistent with GMA and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). The Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally described as follows: Mau Amendments: File No. CPA -2018-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single -Family Residential (SFR) with a Single -Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. Applicant: Robin R & Lori R Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- 0928. Amendment Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Valleyway Avenue and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities. b. Creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The properties on Pines Road were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU, which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would allow for a range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, and would allow office uses consistent with the existing uses. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. 8. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. 9. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The City addressed adequacy of community facilities through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum level of service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. At the time of development, a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required, and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. Currently, the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 11. The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential, and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. A higher density of residential housing near retail areas will support retail uses. 12. The subject property would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SF and MFR and/or the potential population increase. 13. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone, a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed, with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the proposed amendment area. Considering the existing development of two single family residences, and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. 14. The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan since the property will remain residential is use. 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel numbers 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836 to Multifamily Residential (MFR). File No. CPA -2018-0003: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Amendment Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located west of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 12 DRAFT Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is generally not served by the proposed amendment. Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City is required by the GMA to identify and protect Critical Areas. The majority of the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the railroad right-of-way and would require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from water flow. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The request generally does not conflict with the goals. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property. With regard to the portion of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the amendment, the request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The amendment does not respond to any substantial changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the area, with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way serving as a dividing line between residential and commercial land use designations. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in this area that addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to accommodate future growth. 6. The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations, allowing uses ranging from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If commercial development occurs, the site could transition from open field of grasses, trees and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas, and buildings with commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of the surrounding residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the CMU zone and multi -family development would be limited by the physical factors imposed by the site. 7. The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater associated with Sundown Drive. Any development that would occur on the site would require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the floodplain may be undertaken through a floodplain map revision process with FEMA. Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream would require the necessary buffers and protection. 8. The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and 40,000 square feet. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along Dishman-Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The change would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that exists adjacent to the site. 9. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a city-wide basis through capital facilities planning The City determined that there is adequate transportation Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 12 DRAFT infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency in this area. The site is located within the service area for Spokane County Water District #3 and is currently served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer. 10. The City of Spokane Valley updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman-Mica corridor, and the City in general were considered at that time. Appropriate changes in land use designations and zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the update process. 11. The Comprehensive Plan underwent a legislative update in 2016. As part of the 2016 update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman-Mica corridor in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. In the south Dishman-Mica area, near the proposed amendment site, there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property. 12. Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. It is assumed that the site characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density. Light manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the population density. 13. Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed amendment is not consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Council Decision: Deny the request to change the designation for parcel number 45333.1807 to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). File No. CPA -2018-0004: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201. Amendment Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the 2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the amendment site. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone. 6. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. 7. The site does not contain any streams, rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on the open space areas. 8. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. 9. Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. No impacts are anticipated. 10. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. 11. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. 12. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. 13. The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel number 45212.1348 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). File No. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 12 DRAFT Amendment Location: As modified by City Council, parcels 46353.9035 and 46355.9038; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049, and parcels are located within a 100 -year floodplain. FEMA has accepted the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood -scale commercial development is Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 12 DRAFT limited in the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. 14. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the owner sought and received a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for the five parcels affected by the amendment. The BLA changes the impact of the amendment from affecting five parcels to affecting two parcels, although the total area affected remains the same: parcel no. 46353.9035 and 46355.9038. The two parcels reflect the same area previously affected. The Council hereby finds that modifying the proposed amendment to accurately reflect the new parcel numbers is appropriate. Further, the Council finds that the modification is not a substantial modification since the amendment remains the same except for the change in parcel numbers and no further action is required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1)(3). 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning on Parcel numbers 46353.9035 and 46355.9038 to eliminate the split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). The Council approves modifying the proposed amendment from parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, and 46354.9127 to parcels 46353.9035 46355.9038 due to a BLA that occurred during the Comprehensive Amendment process. File No. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 12 DRAFT a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA - 2018 -0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 12 DRAFT Council Decision: Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation on parcel number 45015.1409. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Public Works. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2018. ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 12 Comprehensive Plan Map [illy pokane CPA -2018-0001 Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Green, Audrey Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Citizen initiated proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to MFR; subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �.•s Valley CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately iuNirrtori silo -specific ('unrprehrrn'irn Plan Map and %nirilg A fop rrnrerr(hnerit reyuexling fn c/rang& rlre C wnyre1mi%ive Pfinr Lem( (Ire Lrecignalionfr•onr Lurr Ui'r+v'ir1 Idesirlerrnal (11)10 with a Snrw/o fool h, Residential Suburban District (i ) ncr� chis iluralon to Cori ulor rico' (r Ali 1)dec. ihnationwith a Cori olor k dfJ (1)classification 40 (IStudy Area d 11 Wmu1V 4's„�,y im1 uu1„,1plyr.,,,r. pIsuli uuuuuuuum 1 E 8th Ave Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �,,.•� Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Pareel##: See Map Address: See Map Request: Prlxaael! ruhirxrd Site-specific Cumprehensme Phar 1.1 q aari /rmrng"dap amendment rcqrrrs[iag 10 change the f rn,o,ehitastrr' 1'liut land lls.• Designation/rani Siht.:Iti ramify hecideiriial(51R) with a Single jianilt Ncrideirrial Urban JJistricl (R-3) znnmg chcitsrJit alir,a rn \J/bol (anr0Iercial drs ienaiirrrr with a Nrrg{hhnrhood (arnarercial (NC') ar nig;e clrr.a,a!icrrtinn Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane Valley (_1'A-2018-0005 Owner: Parcels: Address: Five Fifty, LLC 46353.9035, 46355.9038, Unknown Request:, City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �• Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parce!#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IME9 designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel ATTACHMENT 2 sproluiied.re\ftft, ...„0•0Valley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING Co1V I'IESSION CPA -2018-0001 S•rnlef" REPOR`r DATE: February 15, 2018. 1-M.nRING 11.-Vn AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 600 p.m_, Spokane Valley City Hall { 01.!11, 3,' 1, IIbI ;, 10214 East. Sprague Avenue, Spot:Amu V.:11Icy, 99206. 111.11r{•1 Number: .11}lrlic�ilitlli lit' uripition �..4:.co l ii r.11 Applicant/Ow Iii Owner: Date of _'i plic5itinii: 1).irc' 1}c't{ I'nrini:ll Complete S1;I11 Contact: CPA -201X rli►:) N.e..f.ine!-1 IL' l.aitid 1Jse. 1)_;;i:irralion 1'r: lii tiiii: ; 1 ;7ini1t' l L'= iilt 1 11;11 (SLR) wi1I tiint.lc l'arliil� Itt:;itlullii:ll . i.:117: 1 )I`•II IL:; \'lilliithini[ 1tt.�wl4'.i:l!.1;}11 1:1,11..10 1'':IrcuI Nv(;;), t1(11i'ti7:-,; d 12107 i':I:.:1 li 1 "5ti';1 k'( I11tL: 11t1.1 12,1 I ( I \' ILL.'vway Akt, Ill:t. Lillk,'c IiIiii Fr�:tl ('d111) Icct eaSt Of [IIL II!lt`r L'.L l: )i1 of \':III.. %vity AVL 111 L' ;ilii) Pini Road ? �� 1 Iwv 27), fun li7t.i:iw"41 in tlll• ScL--I.iol': '5,'1 Iasi, lit iIlaiii.:ttc .Vlc l i;liaii, (,'tsilliL'}`. �'ElSLlll6l:',i . .t1 f1'ctrq'i.e,, 121 I. ;4 1:I1>;I '.'ills:r ��::r, .1t -:1112, Npolflr'' ';I [c1, \'k" rti i 97..1 t! -4)97g 7 k5; �: 4'4'.I '�i 1 i.� .5.1 and -15 '..}S36 `lily v N (imen: 1'''Il)2 1`.m1 Avcnut:., :tislli4 Valley, WA 991:..16 1)1)6 i (k}iEri:cl 4515128€ 1) 2.:..117 i. ILli11,4.:r 1 �.. .IE'..1111;'.ly 11, 2018 C "1i .1c1 l.! ll'IY(}iti Plann :r, (5:19) 770-5S32 mharnoisJJs. A1'1'1{[)t :tl" f:l{1T1CRrA: S1ii)katllc a1L } (.'01111}I: ilcrisivc Plan, Title 17 Spok ino Vali. y' Municipal Code W.) General ProviSians, Talc 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and 'title 21 SVNIC Errv'ironmcntal ( t*Illr,,'ii . 1':xliibit 1: Application F.xiiil)ii 2: V ciuity Flap 1`"xhibit 3: Aerial INlap 1?xhibit 4: Coiupircllcnsive PInt r 111) I;xpiibit 5; Zoning 'Map 1i;xhibit 6: CoijYlelcic 1)ctcrl11ill:}1,itlil 7: SI,P.1 ('11L'Hditii I':hili llil. 8: 1',!l''irtuilllVn:2SI 1 );`1.:rll l ETi itls?17 I".. 1111 i1 Ek. 1.Ji 1i t 411 I'lIl llc' 1 ii.'.Ell II' I:•:Ilillil Hi: r' ,a11i v{'intik :5iis. A. BACI(G1tOU 1) 1I 141.)I .AT1014 The :L (nl)rclicrisiVS, 1'11`.ti Map and Zi.lninl , Map ililli'.i1LitliC`.EY1. i5 al privately liii:Yt-3il I LIIIi:si_ Ii E;II YII 'l liie Coniprcliciitiive Ilan Land U.sc l)4>itn iliclrl :iurn .41 1'. with an It-"; s.[7tiill c.la5 ilii::illir1 a M1.'1 designation with ii M1', zoning.i.i:t'tilI :111[117_ l.S.Thi ;and 1.()1'1 Petrie e alri Ill{C11.13-1V111.C11.13-1V111.p7ril}i, l!f. tiw-1 of Ie Parcel No(s). 45153.2S35 and .-.151.S3.2836, and Audrey" (:;r.cii iN the cryvM.ar of l':ii 'I No. 1ti ; .53.2:-.1'01. On Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 August 4, 2015 the site was subject to short plat File# SHP-2015-0007 which received preliminary approval for four lots large enough for duplexes. This occurred prior to the adoption of the revised 2016 development standards. Currently the property is zoned to allow single-family residences including duplexes. The change of zoning from R-3 to MFR would allow for multifamily dwellings and commercial uses such as professional offices and self-service storage facilities. The application meets the procedural criteria. 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The combined, area of all parcels is 2.1 acres. The site is relatively flat with residential landscaping. There are no critical areas in the amendment area or vicinity. Comprehensive Plan: SFR Zoning: R-3 Existing Land Use: Two single-family residences with outbuildings exist on the site. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan —MFR Zoning —MFR Existing Land Uses — Single -Family residences, Apartments South Comprehensive Plan —SFR and MFR Zoning — R-3 and MFR Existing Land Uses — Single-family residences, Apartments. East ' Comprehensive Plan — SFR Zoning — R-3 Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residences West Comprehensive Plan — Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning — Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Uses —Professional offices, auto repair, personal services, retail sales, church. 3. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: 10-10-17 Application Submitted: 10-18-17 Date of Complete Determination: 1-11-18 SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date 2-2-18 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed 2-16-18 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing 2-7-18 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2-2-18 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: 2-6-18 Implications: A rezone of the parcels to MFR would allow a broader range of uses, including multifamily residential, (up to 22 dwelling units per acre), professional offices and self -storage facilities. The land use designation and zoning west of the site on Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) is Corridor Mixed Use which attracts higher intensity commercial uses, the closest which is abutting the site on the west. Additionally a parcel abutting the project site on the south is zoned MFR and is developed Page 2 of 8 SI Li Rcport CPA -2018-0001 IV1.LICIL11 1Lise. A change in designati(m would allow for development similar to 1/SL'5 abutimg both south and north,. allows rot- siitglo-family residential development at an urban density that provides hc.ip,k1H)rhoods. The rvIlT Aming ror H11111 11(}!.1tiilir, 1at.011 Heal: NI.1:-.:-.:1.'L;!•,.7; arid commercial cc:liters, the v.nerinl ..;.trect systcir .:ind roll it, bud ,LLS are conforming uniclur tho MJI zoning as they are outriOn pu1111ii1L.d. Future dcvelcImionl- under the [v zone would aiiov, the construction of multifamily buildings at limxiintm! noi.1.11.1 IS I [inns L1K huildingher9.111 1o35 fuct_ 'Ike density ill27 ;ET 1it i 11:ywyd Lfl ilie v1I R zone and the Iii IiIv die R-3 zone is 6 clm.:11iwc, wills per acre. All same. in 2.;cicil Y.IIiI1L iiiiii IIIc following I ii1114.7 isrc viLick icompArnh nI iIiccicwelopmeni retinkenicnts ioi- R-3 and MFR Development Standard Comparison Lot Maximums Lot Minimums Minimum Setbacks Lone Building Height Coverage Width Depth Front/Flanklig Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage R-3 35 ft 5 0% NJA N/A development 1\i/A 15 ft. 10 ft. s ft. 201 MFR 1 Where !Oft, MFR abuts R-1, R-2, 60% or R-3 zones, NiA shall comply 15 ft. with Transitional 10 ft. Regulations 5ft. 201 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Fursui.int to Tii (1!nvironi1ental Ccifirc1W.„1'-:\., I'd 1 _ .cm. zr2(.^.111,..v lifl eierinilft1 prop:ysal Int IL.1 have a probable mlyurse Jfl1Ik tn! kiivirontneniikl impact Statement under 1‘.."'( tc.). The ktrilding ;.)ilkPlanning llYiori isiied I)ciiiiriaticr af Non-Signiri...7.,Hiee Cor thy OLL Fcbruary 2, 2018. The (letulnination was made after revii.,v 0l. uotrplciA envirohiAcntaL checklist, ilia il 1'). 21, and 72 SVMC..., a site assilk:u% and agency comments, and ()diet- liic wiili 1IK. leod agency. 2. 1.:0nclusion(s): rhc proe,,:claral requirements of the State Filv.wiline:m!I Volicy and Fide. 2" have been IN1)11N-GS AND CONC LUSIONS SPTC11.11.7 '1'1) 111 Ii C0M1I1K1111:ASI L Ii ,AN 1NIEN1)541KNT AND:REZONE,: 1. Compliance with Title 17 ((eneral 'Provisions) of the Spokane 'Valley NIunicipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria Page 3 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 The City inay approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed MFR designation allows for multifamily development. Generally this designation is located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system and public transit. The Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation is located along Pines and is intended to serve light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and office uses along major transportation corridors. These uses presently exist in the vicinity of the amendment area to the west, north and south. The MFR would allow high density residential and office uses consistent with those in the immediate area. Adjacent residential zones would be protected through transitional standards. The amendment area is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services Department and Modern Electric Water Company. Other utilities such as gas, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. Spokane Valley Fire Department provides fire protection services; Police services are provided by the City of Spokane Valley. All services are available at the time of development. The site has no critical. areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. MFR allows for a broader range of allowed uses. MFR is generally located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system and public transit. The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that residential neighborhoods be protected from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Transitional regulations protect single family uses where residential zones abut more intensive zones to mitigate the impacts of higher intensity uses. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with any portion of the City's adopted Plan not affected by the amendment. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: One significant change has occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. The properties on Pines Road located 300 feet west of the site were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would Page 4 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 allow for a range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, office uses consistent with the existing uses. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (4) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The height standards in single-family residential and multifamily zoned property vary by fifteen feet from a maximum of 35 feet in single family residential and a maximum of 50 feet in multifamily residential. The table in Section 3 provides a comparison of the development standards for each zone. SVMC Chapter 19.75 Transitional Regulations addresses setbacks where properties of more intensive zoning abut less intensively zoned properties. This would apply to the side yards on the east property line of the two eastern parcels as they would be abutting the R-3 zone (upon approval of the MFR designation of the parcels). These regulations will also apply to uses in the established setbacks in the MFR zone that are associated with multifamily dwelling development. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CF -P6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum Level of Service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC Concurrency. Page 5 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 (5) The City's Senior Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and generally found that future development at the maximum density allowed under the R-3 zone would generate 13 pin peak hour trips and 120 daily trips. Future development at the maximum density allowed under the proposed MFR zone would generate, 29 pm peak hour trips and 307 daily trips. Both Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue have adequate capacity to absorb the increase in traffic. However, south bound turn movements onto Pines during the p. m. peak hour traffic may be impacted. At the time of development a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. No trip generation letter is required at this time. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. The MFR will allow the maximum development of the property compatible with the uses allowed and create greater opportunity for infill development.. Maximizing the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. A higher density of residential housing proximal to retail areas will support retail uses. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 15 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 5.6 percent of the land in the City is designated as Multifamily which is 10 percent of all residential zoned land. Figure 18 shows the residential land capacity for all land uses in 2016. It reflects that there is a net 717 acres for potential multifamily development with a city wide population increase of 6124 persons. The 2.1 acres would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SFR and MFR and/or the potential population increase. (7) (8) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The current density within the single family residential urban district (R-3) is six dwelling units per acre. Based on 2.4 persons per household, the projected population density would be 15 persons per acre. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the amendment area. Currently two single family residences are located on the site. Considering the existing development and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the plan since the property will remain residential in use. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). Page 6 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Multifamily Residential designation provides for multifamily development. The amendment does not introduce a new designation, nor introduce new uses, into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the corridor mixed use and low density residential uses. Transitional regulations will mitigate impacts between residential zones. The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Policy LU -P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Policy LU -P14 Enable a variety of housing types. Policy LU -P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. Goal H -G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan require that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with public water and sewer. Valleyway Avenue will provide transportation access. As previously stated this road is classified as a local access street according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane Valley Fire Department will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: The following agencies were notified and commented as indicated. Comments are attached. Staff has not received any agency comments of concern to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes 1-10-18 City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Page 7 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 Spokane Valley Building and Planning No Spokane County Environmental Services Department Yes 1-26-18 Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane County Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Yes 2-6-18 Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) No Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes 1-8-18 Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) No Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) No Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No Washington State Department of Transportation Yes 2-12-18 WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation No Avista Utilities No Central Valley School District #356 No Century Link No Comcast No Modern Electric Water Company No Spokane Tribe of Indians No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to MFR, and the associated zoning from R-3, to MFR is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 pokane .0001°Val1ey. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted. -----.1 PLUS #: Received by: Fee: 1 1660 File #: 0:PP — 7,-0 17- 0001 PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION P Map Amendment; or 0 Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: [263 1,1.... ..,.4... , paisce. I 11:2-- Ats-ts-a, 2,636 NA MAILING ADDRESS: ) .2- Li 1 ,C,., g Va 11.02:y Li...)ay i 2, /4- (52__ g CITY: iski/.%„,a_. \GS1 ILO STATE:U.) ZIP: Cig STATE: 4 ZIP: rt.2-1 Z i PHONE:551.cici 1 -717: 71 Lt-02--r,Q. p m-914.f.AGL. CELL: EMAIL: q /Ikea 1'4A) PROPERTY OWNER : Al 5' 15-3 'ZIA% PARCEL NO.: .4-61453 - libtarc.Q__t *I-- le 6- N.Q..0111/4.— I '45-163 -21301 MAILING ADDRESS: i 2, /4- (52__ g irct_11,Q_LLuci)f Crrv: 5 ZONING DESIGNATION: 1 3 STATE: 4 ZIP: rt.2-1 Z PuouE: R_ Fax: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 1 2-(f1 C g \/(34-1142yi..9.-41 Al 5' 15-3 'ZIA% PARCEL NO.: .4-61453 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: A-151T3---ItZttit.) GM/ Develoornent Enda PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OCT 1 9 2017 ZONING DESIGNATION: 1 3 Prr-..!r•ci -4.:' In R_ Name PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paperfl: 0 k 40 -413 6r."" VM1/11.4..‘ i-eS ering PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane Valley 1, re\, made truthfully aro th ✓cQ ..fl COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 111- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) p c �� , (print name) swear that the above res oases best of my knowledge. pm I Q.' —Fro 5 /53 , 3 4' 515 M 7-23 S naure) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE NOTARY 16 Ga (Dat-) >1, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / day of deAte-1 , 202.7 NOTARY SEAL CHRISTINE M. BAINBRIDGE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 2019 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at:�i��� "�, 3( My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, ALLAINQ y G-Ne._211,, owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Pizbisk\_, to re resent me and my interests in all matters r 115.153 LE3 1 regarding this application. PL -06 V1.0 1D -10-'17 Page 5 of Spokane r Valley . COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION •�"'" e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted. ---'4 PLUS #: 1r�c' Received by:_____ ' Fee: 1 p (bO f Cb File #: ('.,P/c- (1 PART 0 — APPLICATION INFORMATION 0 Map Amendment; or 0 Text Amendment C APPLICANT NAME: li .i P RA 1.'44.r N:..e 1 ,4 L- `a 15- ', Zoe% .45153 i.55- MAILING ADDRESS: 1 2A 1k, F Y t lky way CITY:'1 :0 EMAIL: STATE' ZIP: 99. (:) �� PHONE: 551 " CR 1 ' `j + : I�QP�rp CELL: EMAIL: q m -9t. t t I.,CA/ Pati �Q--.1.._ PROPERTY OWNER : ft �. 6- � .145-753 ,2Eot { MAILING ADDRESS: ! 2, 1462-- E \c. t LQ -tit -u CITY: 5 , - STATE: ilekif ZIP: 1 IZ I ✓ PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 1 2_'"i C', g(&t v PARCEL NO.: /451 ,, 7....t:35— COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: `USV [Jeve1oorne;ii Ermine PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OCT 19 201? ZONING DESIGNATION: R 3 ,-,,,J..,,.;,,,, Nam PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: in J UUe�11(tai=fr=___ BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper : 0 l , C : g e— 7,.-f0 t's.L.\ t -e5 ering PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART Ill — AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) , (print name) swear affirm that the above res o ses are made truthfully anis to thf best t�C,.2 5' j 36 If %t5(63 w z. � ` t of my knowledge. Fez 1 /6 7 1. J S na ure) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this NOTARY SEAL CHRISTINE M. BAINBRIDGE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 2019 NOTARY (Dat-) 41 74 deAr-Je< day of , 20Z7 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington r,- Residing at: ,� ��j 4/%41 ,;(/-'� 1:/// My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the' applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, ffuA 6"2 y t�i°`�-� �, owner of the above described property do hereby authorize 146 tom, to re resent me and my interests in all matters � ( 115153 :7-801 regarding this application. 1i% -Dcx. 10 -0-1147 x-{14 PL -06 V1.0 Page 5 of *Wane lley. SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter aspokanevallev.ore STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: File #: PLUS #: PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL *"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED'* ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee 04 Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/s" by 11" or 11" by 17" size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHFCKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of S"" okane A Eley, SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. • A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of roposed project, if applicable 2. Name of applicant: 12.-013 3. Address and phone n mp r of applicant and conta t person• 2_-{ 16 E Vck.l y a. ; $po 1�,t1 5-6 g l '`7�" b " 4. Date checklist prepared: /0116.,/n 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): lV� )1 6161 7-1C 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connec ed with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be preparedirectly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. iu6 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. it) f 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) ft PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane Valley, SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. VC11 WCty (X44- 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? 06 The general Sewer Service Area? y Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. PL -22 V1.0 a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). N R- 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? too 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NR Page 3 of cmu4. _. Spokane Valley b. Stormwater SEPA CHECKLIST 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? D011+ KI\OLJJ 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. 100 B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): D( .flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest sloe on the site (approximate percentslope)? �Q c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 9...Nckve.1 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? 3 If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. (UR f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? +0 bQ.. dQ+ rvt.i, 2 C u„ j,or ' PL -22 V1.0 bcL l` - p QiN4' + 1 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 4 of Spokane fey• h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 0 A- 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ru /4- 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. n �, 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N)6 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of Spokane Valley, 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? location on the site plan. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY if so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. oo 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. P c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. �- \Q. ca �,` �>r���-�tti�.c� (A,poi) 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. it* d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N-& d2P1441i1 PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of rnrur _. Spokane Va11ey� 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: aldermap , aspen, aspen, Ger l evergreen tree:j, - : - , pine, other 0 shrubs [SO -grass 0 pasture 0 crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 0 water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other D other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance ve etatioq on the site,;if any: ��� b 2..�1�ULfeit, 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 129. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 7 of S�"'"kane Valley 6). Energy and natural resources SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heatin , manufacturing, qtc. bd2_ .r\ 4 , u ori bc..1 a� fivy b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. luo c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control bcck energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1t� 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. A) 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: tu b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? vv 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: lam'` PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of *Wane Valley 8). Land and shoreline use a. What i the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. A rt d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? rCC e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-3 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 116D9- A) ft If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? R g. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? n If so, specify. 1 �O i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 1• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PL -22 V1.0 (t) f ' Page 9 of Spokane a1lery 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-inc me housing. 46 be, . c Ctec 1 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 10 !t c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b� c4C1-"e. upeeL b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? tl c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 1V� SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b ��tf -ci b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? kng c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ik d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Spokane Malley' SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate viciniiv? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunpities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Yu ti 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: v 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. tPtit‘ \ QS 11.0 b. Is site currently served by public transit? approximate distance to the nearest transit �stgp? M Q `ZOO -42.-- -t If not, what is the c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the proj cteli mate? i7 e..- er r~ I --Q6\ 40e0 PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of Spokane d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indiQate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b,Q._ a Q.7 -F -g VNI,W1 iVaa up b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. f 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, IX natural gas, [water, (- refuse service, [ telephone, IN sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. fk SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: 10 6 ( I 7 PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of *name Valley SEPA CHECKLIST Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? N !� a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Iv a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for govemmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? IVA a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? fun PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of Spokane ...00Va11ey' are SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: IO I16 (7 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: P4,13 Address: 1244 i 6 E. V?Lli.axtuay,Wko.G'iQ,V& RQ((W�14- Phone: 50q Ctq (" 2-G L 5 CrCZIC, Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of Spokane vti Valley. Planning Division COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SCHEDULE DISCLAIMER: This schedule is informational only. Actual decision-making timeframes may vary for each application. Pre -Application Meeting (Required) 1 Formal Application Submittal 1 Completeness Determination w r COMPLETE INCOMPLETE 1 Applicant notified of an incomplete application. Review resubmittal and deem complete. i Comp ete Incomplete c_\41 c)c( Application and SEPA Checklist is routed to staff and agencies for review. SEPA Decision (Post and Publish with a 14 calendar day comment & appeal period) Notice of Public Hearing publishes in the Valley Herald, City's website and sent to staff, agencies and parties of record. If a map amendment is proposed the site is posted with a sign and property owners within 400 feet are notified by mail. (15 day comment period) i Study Session (informational item) with Planning Commission 1 Public Hearing with Planning Commissionk) -Study-Session (informational it m) with City Council u�;rtil"roe;\ 1st reading of Ordinance with City Council 2"d reading and decision of Ordinance with City Council Ordinance signed and published in newspaper. Ordinance is effective 5 calendar days after publication. FL -04 V1.0 Page 1 of 1 Spokane 'alley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 10210 E Sprague Avenue 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenterespokanevallev.org Year ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 1st of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow(cr�spokanevallev.orc) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(a�spokanevallev.orq), 509- 921-1000. PL -06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A.} Submit the following forMkP AMENDMENTS: PI - re -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) $$, Completed Application Form .1011,11/Application and SEPA Fee I(/ SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) ❑One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by strikethrough and additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyondthe property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of SOlane'� jValley� APPLICANT ADVISORY WATER CONCURRENCY Public water in Spokane Valley is provided by water districts or irrigation districts.. These entities are not related to the City. Any statement by the City of Spokane Valley relating to water concurrency will be based exclusively on information provided by the water purveyor for a given area as the .. owner/operator of the water facility. Spokane Valley has not performed any independent analysis as to the existence or non-existence of water capacity, and specifically makes no representations as to the accuracy of the water capacity information provided by any water purveyor. Therefore, applicants for development approvals' should carefully consider the adequacy of water availability at an early stage of planning developments in the City of Spokane Valley. Please read, sign and date on the bottom of this page. If you have any questions, call John Hohman, Community Development Director, at (509) 720-5300. Please return one (1) signed copy to the City Planning Department. The City of Spokane Valley November 21, 2005 Distribution: applicants, public, news media By siznink this document, you are only acknowledging that you received a copy of this document. fatt:.41 Signature that document was received Date Project File Number/Name "Development approvals" include subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, manufactured home park site development plans, planned unit developments, zoning reclassifications, and conditional use permits that would permit an increased amount of water to be used on the site. PL -26 V1.0 Page 1 of 1 The property, currently zoned R3, is bordered on the south by MFR zoning, across the street on the north is MFR zoning, west is commercial and east is zoned R3. The property is on Valley Way just east of Pines road, so it has great access to the freeway and other main roads, (Sprague, McDonald). There is a local gas station/ convenience store across Pines. A car wash, restaurants (Denney's, Little Euro, Taco Time, Ron's, etc.) within walking distance. There are other drive to restaurants in the area and grocery stores. Gyms, hair salons, nail places also. Auto repair/tire shops on Pines. There isa chiropractor and dentist within walking distance. The valley hospital is in a short driving distance up Pines. A school is just up the road on Broadway for families with children. There is shopping on Sprague and Pines (Walgreens). The city bus stop is at the corner of Pines and Valley Way. There are banking building in the area, also. The property has easy access to a lot of business and transportation, which should bring in tax revenue to the city. The increase in traffic will be minimal, as your traffic person has told me. The change will buffer the property to the east from the commercial property on the west corner. EXHIBIT 2 UF' -2U-1 -UUU"I vicinity iviap E111cnigUlletY:Ar: 6 ▪ E KR% Ave c. ,.f ll,J•� Ass E Awe ▪ E iSw11+7 Arc tr A47 r' =7 w 7 V a 2 z at cc i4 z E Nixao Ln l i s itun a i N Walnut Rd E-1 Flwry�r:^ L+11,1,II E M Raymrnd Rd '_IhfCl dVirsit/:Rd E3iditvt; N FFi#rc#Rd r , d, LL -a c+ E Sth et 0 6. = SP x CC L ti. VI Cl. Y49 CC L:LIS.C� 1 .45 —CC.ham_. PT Er e E a- EllthLn m. xi r. oa tia m s. Int 2 t. llif E,i.iON 9 '-FI'UFwy ;E'NrraAva E Vissiort.zner A.:- E. :E. h11]cred Are $p4Iia11e Vali4y E Glr Are J- € 1erlhA-2d 7 ur ' I. .I it it 7 :v E Br&tdri.ay'Ai,e E Oli t A04 e-KE;1A4in"Are ESpaaliuAra E 1st Are C Hack RN E2nd• Lri 4th Ave cc o E71ILA'4• S 4. �.•. r. .HHCI1I.Rd CIL iE th Ave E:.1141 AYE% El ZthAi a NDIaka Rid N MarnarRd Ck ni r Rd a N Bonn -an Rd 1 Writ 44t Flit ▪ E 2nd Are m Lei z ta z m L Lith. Le E � rn W fh IJ,) E 411 Int 3ulli4aicRd February 14, 2018 1:36,112 _® 1.2 L1 2 _ __ __ :CL,'-rr,e, Ircerrln.p. ircrerEntP Com..EE c -tiyzti Us#I , �v'rr, Hems.a, NL, O 1rrart. . 7JETI, Fsrr China {Hong Kc lgj. S.VISSESIpc. Map fs-- ^Sr1eaMaptnrtrittitots, and tie GIS User G4rr7r.-ryy 1tF_b AppBUid EXHIBIT 3 Cokane ..„00 Valley ( TA -2018-11111)1 C er: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Greon, Audrey Parcel#: See Map Address: See Mep Requel: subvi-rfnch Rezonefrom R-3 1(.., 141,•R EXHIBIT 4 Comprehensive Plan Map 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2801 12452 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2835 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE Spokane ...,00* Valley A-2018-0001 Owner: Pe I' ?. et31?. ocroy Parcel#; See fLot) Address: See Map 14.el nes 1."'VO.Vrii she hiwp/Pa.:n AfFR; sub.copesit EXHIBIT 5 Zon ng Map "%In El w Ave 45153_2801 12402 E VALLEYWAY AVE Study Area 1 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2B35 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0001 Owner: Potrie, Robin & Lori Green, Audrey Parcel# See Map Address: See. Map MEMO& 11E‘l Requtl 1:ac.E1 (E) E CHE•drpri'.1Ern.vivE7 mop SEL1i r 1E4P'n sr.fh.verponi Rezone fr.( ?Pi /Li 11P Ilk EXH Spokane Valley - COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING .& PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF ;COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ♦ Fax: 509.720:5375 4.planning@spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and the zoning from Single-family Residential Urban (R-3) to Multifamily Residential (MFR). Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835 and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue; located approximately three hundred (300) feet east of the intersection of Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue, further located in the SW '/ of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Property Owner(s): Robin R & Lori A Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Audrey N Green, P 0 Box 14063, Spokane Valley, WA 99214-0063 Applicant: Robin Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 18, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Micki Harnois, Planner (509) 720-5332 mharnois@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: n j c : (a4M .64.) YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. EXHIBIT 7 Spokane Valley, SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter@spokanevalley.ora STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #: Received by: /% File#: (-,1 a6I/Z--000f PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 11 2. Name of `applicant: • Rc f P±N'- 3. Address and phone n m r of pplicant and conta t person' 22.4 1 E ¥a t Y i 5po 'La I t 5oi - ` P 4. Date checklist prepared: 16/r) 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 4 6)6 41qz-14 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. N 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. IVO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. i 1t 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Vq.W6L1. c - (31/19-S 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? (06 The general Sewer Service Area? '.(25 Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. PL -22 V1.0 a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NR 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? to() 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Nft 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? N f� Page 3 of Spokane Valley b. Stormwater SEPA CHECKLIST 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? pc�t�i * Rj\ocj 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. 100 B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): '(,.flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, [1 mountainous, other 0 b. What is the steepest slope n the site (approximate percentslope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 9,..NsAive.1 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. to f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? g. If so, generally describe. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? b.Q— dQ+N4&&Qc LpOr b PL-22 V1.0 ti Page 4 of EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley- . Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: p. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. tar b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ru it 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. to 0 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. I ,Pc 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ro SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of Spokane Valley° 5) Does the proposal He within a 100 -year floodplain? location on the site plan. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY If so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. vuo 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. tofPt c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Ut. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. fi 0 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of Spokane Valley 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder map , aspen, Ger f:A. evergreen tree:6, eda , pine, other ❑ shrubs -grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other n other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? ft c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance ve etatio!rk on the site,,if any: 40 b ' .1v+ b C( 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: `[cis birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 1\20 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 7 of Spokane Valley' 6). Energy and natural resources SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heatin , manufacturing, qtc. ev\ vt/Ltiwo, ut.pon-- beg' to\ Ili b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 0 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: b dr— tv-u&x.10 ON-- oek.k 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1V h 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: rq b. Noise r 1 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? tv 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. to 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: t i PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of Spokane Valley 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? act Jaceitri` H E i4 QzS' b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. roiac c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g - If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?IA " h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? n �� If so, specify. I i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5M 0 i -.0 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PL -22V1.0 Afft— Page9 of pokane Valley. SEPA CHECKLIST 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-inc me housing. cA.e, er-IAA-11' ber&A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 1) 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? � °► -t Vaa U1/4 -P c' b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: iv -A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? -1-0 el-ev• vv1/4.--trA.Q.& Fed b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? tv d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: INA 1 PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Spokane Valley. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. P c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. ( 6 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. P c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 1T h SEPA CHECKLIST 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? approximate distance to the nearest transit st p? i\ 0 O 4 - If not, what is the EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the proj cteli inate? e— Q._ ,Q1,p,,ilL 40k 096c“. PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of arra Spokane Valley. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indi ate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: to F`1 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, Renerally describe.) aet-Qt•-•fAA-IN0A 1 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.iv j 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: (.electricity, CA, natural gas, [water, refuse service, [1, telephone, X sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: PL -22 V1.0 /01 16 (f Page 12 of Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? iPt a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Iv F a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? ru PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of Spokane, Valley are SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? � y a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: 1 ff 6 (7 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent:P-66 Address: 1 G V\aLliz2.-\/(soayVrct it 6. DJ a Phone: 50 CI ' C?(:( Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of EXHIBIT 8 Spokane Valley. ,'-OMMUNITY Pj RMINAT �YUBLIC' ANNtING 'ORKS. DEPARTMENT IVISON ., 10210'E Sprague Ave •Spokane Valley WA 99206 i9 720 5240. •Fax 509,720,5075 planning@spokaneva11ey4 FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Multifamily Residential (MFR). PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel No(S). 45153.2801, 45153.2835 and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue; located approximately three hundred (300) feet east of the intersection of Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue, further located in the SW '/a of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Robin Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Robin R & Lori A Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Audrey N Green, P 0 Box 14063, Spokane Valley, WA 99214-0063 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner, (509) 720-5332, mharnois@spokanevaIley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0001 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 stiolcane"" 4000%lky. COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORICS DEPARTM ,NT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DATE: February 2, 2018 Prepared By: Ivli °1:J C l ii'�t.5ir•- I'1..1 tip LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW 10210 F Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.52A° Fax: 509.'720,5075 • planning@spokancvallcy.org A. li.ACKGROITND I'r"ai jec:l i u rt4lal r •, CPA -2.01 I)cstrilltiiFli: 1Ir :.111;1i�a1 111 ilia In'i‘ :On Jlcl;,,i'.'.° I'{:ill Nlrip :inc: .c1l.11I '.1:11 vinic`-ftlllncni reci u:•aingtoChan:....: Ilii t'c�LYrpreI1 11.i�. I'1:1I1 I.aritl Il;.1 I)e.ii°,ri i1.ir�ri It'c}t11itt{k I :Itlii ft::,i 1�1�1:;11 ISI 1� 1 '. ilir :iingle- I:!ni i l . I.�:,icfcr:ri it 1)11):01 I )is11 i :i I: ') n,n:rl; c l . i l i._:ri is:rl I.; ,`,' 1111. air'rily lac= :;I;. li:il (till l :1 tic-,i��1.,11_s,ri ti/i11: ,I �vlII [if,l;tlily lit islwnti;. 1 I'll i ) / ):IiI �',IS: ilii :iii�.•1; l H l 1' ' ' - I S.i „?t;U J , I;i l 5"...5 :11Ic1 ,' . .. r :r c �.,[}�i4t4{FII: :��:,, lh ti i`1 � � a � i �: sl ll' -,tic•.`! 12,102 i\ k cnriu and 124 1 c, 1 ".r.,i \ aill.'.vway i\..': r1.Le•; IL1_.1iLLI ,y' I,r:} cin�tttely Ilie 11,.k11.11 ..:(1 (.0:)0) i _. _: i 1St. Of the inie.r,', as ion and :iv A't't,`I!: c, lwriiicr lfoc:heel 111 the SW I `,. IIS\air,llils : c;rl , I':..i4•,1. 44 Last,'4Villanlettu Meridian., S17.-ikane ;117 [ic.trll: 12 hir I'a,[ri._ w : if 1 WA 91./2.16 1'i-cai .rt ' (1►w°ner( I: lac:lain I t Lori r1 V:lit, y:�:1w Valley, WA ')1)2. I fr Aucl""c.y lel (() ;:., 1..1(142.z.„ :1:'Iti;iii �' rllc '_ 4r','1 L)9.,.I.I 06 2. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OP PART A. (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) d AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) `1 i re. City o'' SIu1'.c,Iiie Valley lies in the CIitical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- S1r t:i:1 tt111i1 r_11iri;ak.L plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns l5. 1'.N \' I I3[ 1N MENTAL : ELEMENTS MENTS 1. i ,`ii: ISI' t .it c.I, li:,l : I.,it.::; lli 4i Lc `,� I17i7clrwrtl}ylrt i flat 1-Vitl1 approximately ane: Tureen'. .S101-10._ S(1{15 111.C11.1& I !Ic)l'the sire N\Ilio:li Will hi.: covcred villi impar -oils :-:iit'liiees will bc; determined during the building permit process alley future construction. No coiic'crns notal. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review CPA -2018-0001 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 3 3. WATER Surface The SEPA Checklist states that the site is not located near a surface water body nor will there be any discharge to a surface water body. The property is not located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0590D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). No concerns noted. Ground The Checklist states no groundwater will be withdrawn or discharged. No concerns noted. Water Runoff The Checklist states that stormwater will be addressed at the time of building permit review. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The Checklist states current vegetation consists of deciduous trees including maple, evergreen trees including fir and cedar and grass. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The Checklist states birds have been observed on the site. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are identified. No concerns noted. 713. NOISE Staff notes traffic noise in the vicinity is from surrounding commercial and residential uses and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) located approximately three hundred (300) feet west of the proposed amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES Staff notes that the two single family structures and outbuildings on the properties will remain. Uses adjacent to the properties include single family residential use to the east, professional offices, auto repair, personal and retail services and a church exist west of the site between the property and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), single family use and apartments are located north and south of the subject property. The proposed amendment would change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. No concerns noted. 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. The two existing housing units will remain. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS The proposal does not affect any existing structures or views. Building height limits would be increased from 35' up to 50'. No concerns noted. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review February 2, 2018 CPA -2018-0001 Page 2 of 3 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION There are no recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. The site fronts Valleyway Avenue to the north. No parking, access to the frontage street, vehicular trips or transportation impacts are being reviewed at this time. Future project(s) proposed on the site will be analyzed by the City of Spokane Valley traffic engineer and Washington State Department of Transportation and transportation concurrency will be required prior to issuance of future building permits. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane Valley Fire Department is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. The subject's property is located within the boundaries of the Central Valley School District #356. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services Department (sewer) and Modern Electric Water Company. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review February 2, 2018 CPA -2018-0001 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 SilokaneVaHey COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 . Ex: 509.720.5075 . planning@spokanevalleyorg I)ine of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Skine Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Fearing, the Building & Pianaing Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22., 2018, beginning at 6.10 111,111. Hearing i_oc.ltion: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Pro•ert Number: Applixation Description: Location: Applicant: Propuriy /tel(s): k 1 privALuly 11.;in in)ir (Si 1;)1Y1v11.11tilmni:, qvIt'10 :Hui the zoning rtvin l'muttv 1..1-1Ktil l'ar-L-A21 1515:1,2801_ 151.5:1 53.21-06:. 12.102 .F.a...;1 Avoi1ic::.,111;1 17.116, Valkty,........Lry Avenue; loctut.clopproxinuitely tly:ec taunt' ri..(1 (..10+..))L1 Uj tlic iOcrsec.t ion or Koial 11w). 7.7) further located in 11te YOI ./1 L;cdion:1 1own:•41up 25 :\Thrilt. Nast, VvillanitAto 1ciiNpolole ()unity, W:..isitilocdi Petrio, 12116 1:;.1!-..1 Aycrinc, Spol;nia• WA ':+9..?..1 1:01.i A l'etrie, 1211(1 .A.\-c_Aine,Spokano WA ,.),.)7'.1) \iidi...' N 1, 0 1.10(.3,pi>L1icV:Llley, WA 1P)2! '1-11063 ()d...:.11,..1. 1 N, 2C. I 7 I hitv nE Application: Pak' Oeicrinined Staff Contact: 1V1icki I ( :O)) ilIiiit f-IcAring Val1L-y Loild.121 the Itulriri pm -sum -if 16 tho CcurIn1s!tion laturostc:1 JL..i1 1i1' :11 1.1(41riat. and (1.0k_Tilil!ILL- 17C rote or 111:L.114,. 1):;11,11114.t. the tinic givon to speakers. '111c Planr.ir, oiturb...sion iI1lorwaa. rcL:cniu)ieini.:iiiklr Hitt the Spokane Valley (H.y itHl. NL 11( Hauls planning to att..2rici the who special ttssistance tO •Or oilier irTmairrrwmk. (.the (121.k at (509) 921-1000 as wi aspol7.-thIc 1 I m-rangeini_ntmay be made. is, staff report vil1 he a.vtii1:11)11, 161 iri.mccC on seven (7) calendar clay!-; trerorc hearing at the Com 'orI S'poltarte Valley C.i.ty 'kill, 10:3_10 SpruLnle 8100 pm, Monday holidar-L Scud. 1.-N,:inen cotrimc,1118, to V;illeyC2(1;1111...111ily \.Vorks EXHIBIT 10 Siniokane' .0001FVa11eyx Community & Public Wijrk. IDoimr-iiiient .02:0 9920..6 Phone: (509) 77(..---1)00 • Fax: (ici))'/.11.2-c075, Memorandum To: Prom Micld Harnois, Planner Chad Rigs. Senior Engineer Date: January 10, 201 k3 Re; CPA -2017-0001 Viilleyway Comprehensive. Plan Amendment SEPA Checklist Review Comments Doveloymc:it 1 Iiii Fi1.has rcvic),:vvid llie SITA Cliockl i1 ii (.1'A-20 7-000. to cham},c the conipiehcimiv 1 i1ion lrui' nIi Family 1(k:tliia1 (SFR) to Multi Family RcEdcrilial (1v11:1,1). We [Lave: no time. All conclitiont; cleFerrcd of huikliiigi);.:rriiit appl BF -DEPT SPO # NE VALLEY Y FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone (509) 9284700 FAX (509) 892-4125 www.spokanevalleyfire.com January 8, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CPA -2017-0001 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the SEPA checklist. Sincerely, :., ://Tfy Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Prevention Unshared\Plats\Shorties\2017\Comp Plan Amendments\CPA-2017-0001 Harnis.docx Mary Moore From: Figg, Greg <FiggGcwsdot.wa.gov> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2.36 PM To; Lori Barlow Cc: Ray Wright Subject: RE: CPA -2018-0001 Draft Staff Report To PC (004) ejI comments Lori, The Washington State Department of Transportation also requests that a trip generation and distribution letter be provided for this project. It is our understanding that the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department has requested this letter as well. This letter will give us a better idea of the level of traffic that will be generated and the intersections that it will utilize. Based on this letter we will be able to determine if further analysis is needed or not. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project, Sincerely, Greg Fig Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region (5C9) 324-5199 figgg@wsdot,wa.gov From: Lou I?ilIIwA, Semi: I i'ir1Q:'r lirrrry9, 20155;34 PM To: hi ry N( l.r,r:,on<jnickersori@spokarievallev.org>; Chaz Bates <cbates(spokanevalley.arg>; Mike Basinger cnibasirrger@ spokar evalley.ors>; John Hohrnan <ihohrnan c spokanevailev.arg> Cc: Gloria Mantz < mentzC sgokaxie +alley,ors>, Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevallev.org>; Martin Pa&aniuk ‹mpaIaniuk spokanevallev.org>; Doug Powell <dpowell ►spokanevalley.orr>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spakanevalley.or >; Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org>; Cary Driskell <CDriskell spakanevalley.org> Subject: CPA -2018-0001 Draft Staff Report To PC (004) ejI comments All, Attached) is Micki's staff report ;r Fr (-)A 701.8-0001. The request is to change the land use designation from SFR to MFR. Let Micki or I know if you would like to discuss anything, otherwise, please provide comments by Feb. 13 (Tuesday]. Thanks— Lori x To: Micki Harnois (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0001 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Address: SSO9 As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, a wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected. SEJohdneTrdnI February 6, 2018 M.S. Micki Harnois, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Arniendment 201S-0001 Dear Ms, Harnais, Spokane Transit is in receipt of the SI -PA chec:lcikl. ind associated docuiii.:rlts for the above referenced project. The proposed land use designation change (Single Family Residential{SE,Iij vdith a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning rlassihical.iort to Residenti.il (MFR) designation vdith a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification) will ikeiy result in an increased demand for transit and a supportive pedestrian environment at this location_ SIA currrmtly+ has stops at the intersection of E. Valleyway Ave. and N. Pines Pd., less than 350' from the identified .sites. Should this proposed land use plan designation change be adopted, STA requests that the following be considered at the time of development: • Safe arzd :oPVeninnI. pe:ie Irian crossings of N. Pines Road • Completing , network on the south side of E. Valleyway from thrs site to the existing sidewalk • Improved AiDA bus sto.s it erseclirirn of E. Valleyway Ave and N. dines Rd. STA's most recent bus stop design s-t7r,e:l,7rsis; i l.ze: fo;Ird at httris:llvirwwr.spoltarnetransrt.cornJprajects- plans,/bus-stop-design-standards Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments or requests, It is important to STA to continue to coordinate on changes to our respective plans. We value your efforts to include us in this process. Karl Otterstrorn, AICP Director of Planning r Dcvclnpment 328 -RIDE s )alcsn etrinsic.cam TTY 154;-•i327 1 73CAV ilnrJn0 Avpr,Ur, 509,325.4004 Si961s:inn,tiY,itking[cri 797.; -?6.9 509,32.5.4038 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF '1""e\a'a jUalley. COMMUNITY & PLBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0003 STAFF RI. PoR'[• I)A'I'1?: February 15, 201S 11EAR iN'( rl'.AND I.o(•A I tO'4: Fohrilnry 22. 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council C;hambr;rs, [0210 J ast Spt'ri,l.u;: Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: Applic.ii awl 1) c^Nel it liicril: Location: Applicant: Owner 1 Dalt' 111':Allllli�:IIIr11): Date lic'l4'riuiiii i1, 4:IIII111It;1e: Staff Contact: +-1,A 2.0 14 4.1.1 1 l,0 the Lallfl I `0111 I;,csicicntial (SFR) [;+ ['4.rri41,1: ti.Nc..cl I .tic il'`i411 t:l'��III�.t• Il°c: 4}Eiill �, 17i Irki I1'01)1'in ,1e 1'aumily 1 c:;;Cel Iirll :';ulrrl,.Hui Mixo l l::,i• CIVIL:) I't°i&..I 111111ll i. '7.;"7 i_1, SCI : 1~);::.{Iecl tic.•;+ Ortho, Y iiiI.tj- ccl.iun i f 1•1. S':1 11'; I.,oad loo lied in the SW V. of Sc:cic:[t 33, Tor' 111 il):?` ti1,5r.1), litll;;c I' l.;i;i, W111;I1I'e1ic iwl�ridian, 1,'):.5 ti;111r�' 4'41111.t4�, 14' ir-dling[r5:1.. 1 '11ii11s1 i'{>1).-}41I[iIi i I.n::tic 5rti, 21 ` I'in ; 1<c!, ~1::51<;inti; Valley, WA 1 3c: r1+iti z , Iclissei Crrpo, 2602 N IIc:y, 9'12Ir, 4)c 7..017 lariirti 2,r: l s 1i1s1ri I';11niA, 1'lillutci' ('r))) 7-.7'..(1,-5031 m alatliilk(a spnkanevnlley.org APPROVAL CR1'1`ERIA: Spokane Va11uy C,IInip:'oIi i sive Plan, Tit.lo 17 Spokane Vi 11ct 'I+II1;E.;;,;11 Cok (SVIVIC) Genera] Provisions, Titic 19 SVM Zoning RcL},llizilliors, and Title 21 ,S ''MC [•.!iL'ir(rini;`11[:I1 Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Ccs: llllrcll::itsive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zon hip Ma Exhibit 5: Comp:Q.1e 1)cterlitiita:iii tt Exhibit 6: SETA C lilrck�Is1 1:xhibif 7: E71: .r;11iiciil 1 ),;f.crrninatioti E''xIiiI tt 8: (>1 I'1a151i. 1 Ieuri]ig Exhibit 9: A2,.'1;c'y {!11`.111! rtt 1`xhihit 10: Public Comments Exhibit 11: Critical Areas Map A. lkt'kciz11)1 1) INw[)u1ti1A-I The sits: til)eCi[ ic'. { ,i,11 1nl:lll l til'. r t`Iri i\1,1') ;1':1,{i 1,4-alilrlr 1411) iii:iciidmcnt i8 a privulciy initiated request to 41+41+l. til4 1 .;ii1<l 1! c: 1 h_`Si ptltii..:.1ti :.,1c1 iD C.liange the Zoning District from R [c) Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 The site is a vacant parcel located southwest of Chester Creek and Dishman Mica Road in the Forest Meadows neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad runs adjacent to the parcel along the northeast boundary. The railroad right-of-way is approximately 150 feet wide with the railroad tracks situated in the center and Chester Creek along the south side of the tracks and adjacent to the site. A commercial use consisting of a self-service storage facility is located on the northeast side of the railroad right of way. The self-service storage facility is situated between the railroad right-of-way and Dishman Mica Road. Bowdish/Sands Road crosses over Dishman Mica Road into the site area and provides access to the site along the east boundary. Single-family homes in the Forest Meadows 1st Addition subdivision are located along the west boundary of the parcel. Single-family homes in the short plat SHP-09-10 have been recently constructed along the south boundary of the site. The subject parcel is Lot 7 of this short plat. Short plat SHP-09-10 was approved in April, 2011. The plat divided 7.66 acres into six single family residential lots and a single drainage easement. At the time of the plat an environmental review was undertaken due to the presence of critical areas on the site. A mitigated determination of non -significance was made on March 16, 2011 and noticed as required. The determination was not appealed. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the project site included Freshwater Emergent (PEM1F) and Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PSS1C) wetlands. Biology, Soil & Water, Inc (BSW), 3102 N Girard Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99212, conducted a comprehensive Critical Areas study and submitted a report, dated August 12, 2010. The BSW study conducted numerous test holes to determine soil type and hydrologic characteristics of the site. The study concluded that the wetland area mapped in the NWI as a PEM1F wetland was not a wetland. It also concluded the area mapped as a PSS1C wetland on the NWI map as somewhat excessively drained soils was not a wetland. The study further concluded hydrologic conditions on the site do not meet the wetland criteria. A "Type F" stream is located along the north boundary of the property within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The actual location of the south Bankfull Width of Chester Creek was surveyed in the field and plotted on the subject site plan map included as a part of the BSW report. (see Exhibit 11) According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, dated July 6, 2010 a significant portion of the site lies within the 100 -year floodplain. A narrow strip of land running along the north boundary of the property is located within the floodway and would preclude development. (see Exhibit 11) The final plat of SHP-09-10 includes a drainage easement across the west 15 feet of Lot 4 of the plat to allow the flow of drainage from Sundown Drive onto the subject parcel. As part of the plat, the entirety of Lot 7, the subject parcel, was designated as a blanket drainage easement to be used for storing and treating stormwater. The plat dedication language states that no modifications can be made to the boundaries of the drainage easements without the approval of the City and that engineering calculations would be required for any modifications to the blanket drainage easement consisting of Lot 7, the subject parcel. (see Exhibit 11) Implications: The rezone of the site to CMU would allow a broader range of uses to include light manufacturing, retail, office and multi -family uses. Any change in the land use designation to the parcel would have implications for existing uses. Impacts to the property and surrounding properties are likely to occur whenever the current undeveloped use transitions to a use other than a vacant undeveloped lot. Impacts associated with commercial or light manufacturing are generally more intense than impacts caused by single family residential development. If redevelopment to a commercial or light manufacturing use were to occur, the adjacent residential uses could experience impacts. Impacts may include greater lot building coverage, greater building heights, and increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic into and out of the site. Transitional building height and setbacks, screening, and landscaping would reduce the impacts to adjacent residential properties. Page 2 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 Tile (?AIT is n.tonded to allow for light minitilaeauing, arid oEliccs along lo.lior ornirN),Iritqiodt the hisiorical attW-(1p-z_11(.1L2111. ucTir patternS. h iinariEy ti;:1slng SpraF,,,Lie Avunue. north -S011111 cli-Nc1opirical ir. z, adiacui. in a resiclontiAl ie is subject to transitional ut,..(lift:u JR.!: impsel to IhC residential iusus and Ike rieiphilorliooc.1. A inaximitin Li 1ciLIi H not hot is lin-lite:I Jy titc... transitional requireic.erGs. For arty 1.tivitli)11i1uili iii 11.1,2 it:N111zoile R-1, R-2, (IT R-3 zone, a minimum ground lover of 10 feet is LeILHIed L11Liii, 1 1 EricNiiildiug mu:4 1)c seiba.ck at a ratio onu tool ror every toot of.114..-:...nt. O.:11 :-Eodt.'mriart pai Irways, o3id outdoor reoroinion nrcm act.:nc.:•-:sury arc titwly1sc portnitted withii L Ulu groill-Klic..wel setback jj jhu. M L A::iiiI ;v. i!1 cr li iv iiIt vuIdre:iiiire screening, loading vanild Ix proilibited within 3t: equipment, within transitirmill wouLl require scrcening. All outdoor !Alt:. ',.rrciii-niEorial set...lacks kvould l&shkl,:l ;And Iiinil1I Eo 16 iiLT.-.1iti.-111. storimvitor .y,Id oon-gi!--.1ut1t The following table provides a comparison of the development R-2 & Crdr Development Standard Comparison Lot Maximums Minimum Setbacks Zone Building Height C: ()ye! age Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage Density R-2 35 ft. 50%, 15 it 20 ft. CMU 10 11. 10 ft.* 5 ft. 10 20 ft. N/A 4 die s/acre N/A ciOjaccrif re.cidiffrliitri hsc. Vii01'VIVTV INI.010,1A11{).N: 1'1“n: Existing 1,...clutd Use: .11K: 16,1, o: 5.85 aerit.6 in size.Inc proport,,'IS with ii-L.:tt,s andhrubs 1kr Mc. RS:W CHI ioal A rotts 1 2016) Ike site .tiocs not have wctkintls.. Thc lochlod ilIi tlic ElooLiphin, wahtFi riortls io,..2,a.ed in the ricloilviny. Single- Family Re:-icioraial F•.1111-mirl-ron (R-2) Vacant rproperlAcIcac1I blanket iirdinage eascineril part ol short phit SE 1I(:'9- ! 0 of 12 Staff Report . SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: CPA -2016-0003 North Comp Plan: CMU Zoning: CMU Land Uses: Union Pacific Railroad track and right-of-way, Commercial (self- service storage) South Comp Plan: SFR Zoning: R-2 Land Uses: Residential East Comp Plan: CMU Zoning: CMU Land Uses: Commercial and residential West Comp Plan: SFR Zoning: R-2 Land Uses: Residential Note: A 150 -foot wide Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located adjacent to the property along the northeast boundary of the property. 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: October 26, 2017 Application Submitted: October 26, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed . February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing January 31, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 6, 2018 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 2, 2018. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. Page 4 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Community infrastructure is designed and built in response to the development of property which in turn is dictated by the land uses that are permitted through the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. All services are available or will be required to serve the site as development occurs. The City is required by the GMA to idents and protect Critical Areas. Critical Areas include Frequently Flooded Areas, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Wetlands. The majority of the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the railroad right-of-way and will require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from water flow. Alluvium soils are generally loosely consolidated and hold moisture. Any development on the site would require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property. The request does not conflict with other GMA goals. The request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: The subject property was created through a short subdivision process that was completed in 2012. Prior to the subdivision in 2012 the site was unplatted property and existed in its natural state. Single-family homes have been built adjacent to the site as part of that short subdivision. The properties located west and south of the site in the Forest Meadows neighborhood were subdivided and developed with single family homes in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located along the northeast boundary of the property. The right-of-way is 150 feet wide along the boundary and contains a railroad track bed and a set of tracks. Chester Creek flows along the southwest side of the tracks within the railroad right-of-way and is confined to a banked channel. Page 5of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 A self-service storage facility is located northwest of the site side on the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way.. The storage facility was permitted and constructed in the mid to late 2000's. The gas station and convenience store located east of the site at the southeast corner of Dishman Mica Rd. and Bowdish Rd. was constructed in the mid 1990's. The zoning of the subject property was changed from agricultural to single family at the time of the Forest Meadows 2"d Addition subdivision in the early 1980's. It has remained as a single family zone since that time. The commercially zoned properties located northeast of the site have undergone several zone changes since incorporation in 2003. The property was zoned B-2 under the City's interim zoning, Community Commercial (C) from 2007 to 2016 and Corridor Mixed Use from 2016 to present. The amendment does not respond to any substantial changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the area with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way being a dividing line between residential and commercial land use designations. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The proposed amendment does not respond to a mapping error and would not correct any error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Analysis: Between 2007 and 2016, commercial square footage in Spokane Valley increased roughly 700,000 square feet. The vacancy rate for office buildings in Spokane Valley has been much higher and more volatile than the countywide vacancy rate for office property. High vacancy indicates there may be an oversupply of office space in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley has 4,349 acres of commercial and industrial land capacity, with the greatest concentration in its industrial designation. There is a higher portion of vacant land across these designations compared to residential designations. General commercial land use makes up 18.2% of the City's land use. The proposed amendment does not address a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in the area that addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to accommodate future growth. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations and permits a wide range of uses. The uses range from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If commercial development occurs the site will transition from open field of grasses, trees and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas and buildings with commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of the surrounding Page 6of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the CMU zone and multi family development would be limited by the physical factors imposed by the site. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater associated with Sundown Drive. The site is undeveloped and covered with grasses, shrubs, and trees. It is a low lying area adjacent to Chester Creek and part of the Chester Creek floodplain. The terrain associated with the single-family lots located south of the site was raised to lift them and remove them from the floodplain area. Any development that would occur on the site would require compliance with the Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the floodplain can be undertaken through a Map Revision process with FEMA. Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream will require the necessary buffers and protections outlined in SVMC 21.40.032. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and 40,000 square feet. The proposed change to CMU would allow multi family development and a wide range of commercial and light industrial uses to occur on the property. The CMU is intended to provide for these uses along major transportation corridors, recognizing the historical low -intensity, auto -dependent commercial development patterns. The CMU zone has no density limit, height limit or lot coverage maximums. Development consistent with the CMU standardscould be significantly different in character and scale from the low density residential uses. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along Dishman Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The SFR land use is the only use located south and west of the railroad right-of-way in this area. The railroad right- of-way serves as an organic boundary separating the SFR land use from the CMU land use along Dishman Mica Road. The change would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that exists adjacent to the site. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. SVMC 22.20 requires concurrency review when an application is submitted. Future development projects will be evaluated to determine if the impacts of the development will meet the Level of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of development, or redevelopment, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Page 7 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 A Trip Generation and Distribution Letter was submitted as part of the application that contemplated the highest intensity of uses for the site. The information was reviewed by the City's Senior Traffic Engineer. It was determined that the higher density would account for an estimated 845 new trips throughout a typical day over the lower density residential use. During the peak hours there would be an expected additional 14 new a.m. peak hour trips and 56 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the Dishman Mica and Bowdish Road intersection, the Level of Service (LOS) calculations indicate that the intersection will operate at a LOC C during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for this land use to the model continues to give a LOS C. By granting the change to CMU, a delay of about 3.5 seconds on average would be added to every vehicle using the intersection. It was determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency. The site is located within the service area for Spokane County Water District #3 and is currently served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley updated their Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman Mica corridor, and the City were considered at that time. Appropriatechanges in land use designations and zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the update process. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan underwent a periodic, legislative update in 2016. The 2016 update relied on information in the Existing Conditions Report and the Retail Improvement Strategy to inform the need and location of commercial and mixed use land uses. As part of the 2016 update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman Mica corridor in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. The Comprehensive Plan has identified 1,073 net developable acres of land within the City that are available in the CMU zone. In the south Dishman Mica area, near the proposed amendment site, there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about I% per year. The City's estimated 2016 population was 94,160 according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), making Spokane Valley the ninth -largest city in Washington. The County's current population allocation assumptions anticipate Spokane Valley's modest growth pattern to continue, resulting in a 2037 population of 109,913 in Spokane Valley. According to the COSV Retail Improvement Strategy Report the population density for this area ranges from 21-50 people per ten acres in the vicinity of the site to 11-20 people per ten acres south of the site. Northeast of Dishman Mica Road the population density is more than 50 people per 10 acres. If the 5.86 acre site was to develop at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre then an additional 128 dwelling units Haight be expected. However, it is assumed that the site characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density. Light Page 8of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the population density. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is not consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Findings: The 2016 Comprehensive Plan was informed by the 2015 Housing and Economic and Transportation System Existing Conditions report, the Retail Improvement Strategy Report, and the Tourism Strategy Report. The City conducted in-depth analysis of the land use needs as part of the update. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report provided an in-depth analysis of the existing conditions which include population and demographics, housing, land base, and economic and development trends. The report also analyzed the zoning issues for multi -family, mixed use, office and neighborhood. The Retail Improvement Strategy completed a Trade Area Analysis and Retail Trade Capture Assessment and developed a retail strategy and action plan. Changes made to the land use during the 2016 update are in consonance with that analysis and the comprehensive plan goals, policies, and strategies. The area south and west of the proposed amendment site is entirely low density SFR land use. The neighborhood is separated from the. CMU land uses along Dishman Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The SFR land use is the only use located south and west of the railroad right-of-way in this area. The railroad right-of-way serves as an organic boundary separating the SFR land use from the CMU land use along Dishman Mica Road. Designating CMU land use southwest of the railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the SFR land use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 update included changes to the CMU land uses in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. Those changes were deemed adequate to provide the CMU land use needs at the time of the update. Additional change to the CMU land use in this area is not consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion(s): The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update was developed with considerable public input and an in- depth, focused analysis of land use quantities and deficiencies. The 2016 update responded to the identified deficiencies with considerable land use changes in the Dishman Mica corridor. Those changes were deemed sufficient to address land use needs for the foreseeable future. Additional CMU property is not necessary. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with adequate transportation, water, and sewer facilities. (See section 4 above) Page 9 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received the following public comments to date. Comments received after the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the February 22 meeting. Name Comment Maleah Christensen Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding, drop in property values, and traffic. Colleen Shubin Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding and impacts to the neighborhood. Holly & Kreg Woodbridge Oppose the amendment; concerned about flooding, traffic, crime, and impacts to schools. Jenny & Ed Yake, 4003 S Forest Meadow Oppose the amendment; concerned about flooding, believes displacement of the floodplain by development may create flooding on his property, concerned about traffic, wildlife, and school impacts. Patrick Miller, The Millers Oppose the amendment; concerned about home values and traffic; cites the available CMU properties on Dishman Mica Road. Cindy Gleesing, 4225 S Bowdish Rd Opposes the amendment; concerned about impact to the neighborhood, traffic, property values, and quality of life. Kay Boger Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding. Keith Opposes the amendment; does not feel the development is appropriate. Richard Schultz Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding; feels commercial development is not appropriate. Concerned Ponderosa Family Opposes the amendment; concerned about school overcrowding, increase in crime, home values; does not feel multi -family is appropriate for the neighborhood. Scott Henderson Opposes the amendment; does not like the idea of apartments and rezone for this area. Mike Reents Opposes the amendment; concerned about drainage, traffic, property values, school crowding, increased crime, increased noise and loss of privacy. Molly Kinghorn, 4041 S Ridgeview Dr. Opposes the amendment;. concerned about traffic, school crowding, drainage of Chester Creek; feels that single family residential is appropriate. Darby Jacobs Opposes the amendment; concerned about traffic, fire safety; does not feel multi -family or commercial development is appropriate. Page 10 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 Mr. & Mrs. R.W. Bravinder Oppose the amendment; feels the change is not appropriate for the neighborhood; concerned about flooding and traffic. Tamara Perrin Opposes the amendment; concerned about schoolcrowding, house values, and traffic. 2. Conclusion(s): Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on February 2, and 9, 2018. The NOPH was posted on site on January 31, 201 and mailed on February 6, 2018 to residents within an 800 foot radius. Pursuant to Section 17.80.120.B. Lc the City determined it was appropriate to increase the radius from 400 feet to 800 feet due to the likely public interest in the proposed amendment. All comments have been reviewed and considered. The comment letters are included in Exhibit 10 of this staff report. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: The amendment application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comments. Agency comments are attached in Exhibit 9. The following agencies submitted written comments for the proposal: Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer Yes January 10, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes January 10, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Building & Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes January 5, 2018 City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County, Building and Planning Spokane County, Environmental Services Yes January 12, 2018 Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) Yes January 18, 2018 Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish & Wildlife Yes January 8, 2018 Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Page 11 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power & Light Modern Electric Water Company Central Valley School District #356 East Valley School District #361 West Valley School District #363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District #18 Consolidated Irrigation District #19 East Spokane Water District #1 Vera Water & Power Spokane County Water District #3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): Agency comments generally contemplated future development and no substantive issues were identified. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to CMU is not consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #: &Ot - Received by: _ Fee: /560 60 4/350 $ 4 File #: CPA - Z01a dODOY CcrA -20 11 -000 PART 11— APPLICATION INFORMATION 0 Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 N Sullivan Rd CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: info©WhippleCE.com PROPERTY OWNER : CRAPO, DENNIS A & MELISSA MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N SULLIVAN RD CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: {509) 924-8964 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Bowdish Rd and Sands Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PARCEL No.: 45333.1807 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: CMU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): We are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zoning Reclassification frornR2. Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) as is on the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracts. The land is now vacant with trees, shrubs, grasses and, weeds. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 11I -- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) ,o,i , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) /75 '? (Date) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this E (AY) day of ©cam, , 20 fl NOTARY SEAL ``00%211111M% `,`%%%�.VSON AA/01110, '��,'. F y : Spokane VaileyM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 Community Development - Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ planning®spokanevalley.org Year 2017 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 1st of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow(@sookanevallev.orq) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(a7sookanevallev.oro), 509- 921-1000. PL -06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 Spokane Valley. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED*' A. Submit the following for MAP AMENDMENTS: ® Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application and SEPA Fee ❑ SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) ❑ Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 -foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by str-ikethreugh and additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; '1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of 4 AWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. October 24, 2017 W.U. No. 2.017-1904 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Ray Wright Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bovvdish Change trorn Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Bowdlsh Road & Sands Road Planning Level Traffic (Trip) Distribution Letter Dear Ray: Per the City of Spokane Valley requirernents, we have prepared a planning level trip generation and distribution letter for the 5.85 acre +/- residential property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bowdisb Road & Sands Road. This letter will establish the potential trip generation and distribution for the change ofland use from Low Density Residential to (R-2) to Corridor Mixed i 1sc (CMU) for the subject property as shown on Figure 2, Site Plan, and determine if further study may be required. This report will follow the standards fur doing traffic distribution letters as :oL uircd by the City of Spokane Valley, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Thr planning level project proposes to change the current land use code designation from Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The subject property is approximately 5.86 acres +1- of developed land. The project site is currently =develop cif The existing land use is Low Density Residential (R-2) which has a maximum density of ,4 residential units per acre, per Table 19.704. Under the current land use designation, the subject property can be developed into 23 single family residential lots. With access from Bowdish Road The proposed 7.orii nix, i:; Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) which has a mixture of potential land uses that are allowed Under tire. City of Spokane Valley Municipal code (Chp. 19.60,050)_ It is anticipated that the 1tigliC:,st and (best land use for the subject property. Would include a 15,000 sf (15.0 ksf) retail store w tl7 o0 apartments above. VICINITY/ SITE PLAN The site is listed on the current comprehensive plan as Low Density Residential and currently zoned as R-2, The site lies on a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, T.25N., R.44B., W.M. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99215 PO Box 1566 ^ Verada.le, UVP. 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 2 within the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1 and a preliminary copy of the Site Plan is included as Figure 2, please see the Appendix. The parcel number for the site is 45333.1807. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Types The existing land use is residential, and the proposed land uses are commercial and residential landuses. ITE has developed data regarding various trip types that all developments experience. These are found in several places, however, for this analysis the Trip Generation Manual 9"' Edition as well as the Trip Generation Handbook were used to develop the criteria for this analysis. Generally, all existing and proposed developments will be made up of one or more of the following trip types: new (destination) trips, pass -by trips, diverted trips, and shared (internal trips). In order to better understand the trip types available for land access a description of each specific trip type follows. New (Destination) Trips - These types of trips occur only to access a specific land use such as a new retail development or a new residential subdivision. These types of trips will travel to and from the new site and a single other destination such as home or work. This is the only trip type that will result in a net increase in the total amount of traffic within the study area. The reason primarily is that these trips represent planned trips to a specific destination that never took trips to that part of the City prior to the development being constructed and occupied. This project will develop new trips. Pass -by Trips - These trips represent vehicles which currently use adjacent roadways providing primary access to new land uses or projects and are trips of convenience. These trips, however, have an ultimate destination other than the project in question. They should be viewed as customers who stop in on their way home from work. An example would be on payday, where an individual generally drives by their bank every day without stopping, except on payday. On that day, this driver would drive into the bank, perform the prerequisite banking and then continue on home. In this example, the trip started from work with a destination of home, however on the way, the driver stopped at the grocery store/latte stand and/or bank directly adjacent to their path. Pass -by trips are most always associated with commercial/retail types of development along major roadways. Therefore, for this project pass -by trips will be considered. Diverted (Linked) Trips - These trips occur when a vehicle takes a different route than normal to access a specific facility. Diverted trips are similar to pass -by trips, but diverted trips occur from roadways, which do not provide direct access to the site. Instead, one or more streets must be utilized to get to and from the site. For this project, because of the many different routes that can be taken to and from the site, we believe that these would be difficult to track and verify. Therefore, no diverted trips were acknowledged for this analysis. Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 3 Shared Trips - These are trips which occur on the site where a vehicle/consumer will stop at more than one place on the site. For example, someone destined for a certain shop at a commercial site may stop at a bank just before or after they visit the shop that they went to the site to visit. This trip type reduces the number of new trips generated on the public road system and is most commonly used for commercial developments. Determining these trip types is more difficult to quantify and without specific guidance are usually determined by engineering judgment on a project by project basis. Although some shared trips between land uses may occur with this project, there is no supporting data to justify a large shared trip reduction. Therefore, to be conservative no shared trips were credited for this project Intermodal trips (non -Vehicle) Pedestrian Trips — When a residential or hospitality land use is located within close proximity of complimentary land uses such as, shops, restaurants, offices, or event centers, some vehicular trips will be replaced by pedestrian trips. The decision for residents/guests to drive or walk to their destination is dependent upon several factors and variables. The first may be trip length or distance; the second may be the route, typically the crossing of a large roadway without signalized crosswalks or other safe crossing facilities would be a deterrent; the third may be parking at the destination; and fourth may be the weather as rain or snow conditions may deter pedestrian activity. For this project pedestrian trips will not be considered Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 4 Trip Generation Characteristics for the Proposed Project As noted earlier, trip generation rates are determined by use of the Trip Generation Manual, 9''' Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the number of trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. The purpose of the Trip Generation Manual is to compile and quantify empirical trip generation rates for specific land uses within the US, UK and Canada. Existing Land Uses For the existing Single Family residential land use, the highest and best use of 23 single family residential lots will be used therefore land Use Code (LUC) #210 will be used. The potential trips generated by the single family residential land use are shown in Table 1. Table 1- Trip Generation Rates for LUC # 210 — Single Family Detached Housin No. of Dwelling AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol. @ 0.75 trips per Directional Distribution Vol. @ 1.00 Directional Distribution Units Unit o 25% In 75 /o Out trips per Unit o 63% In 37% Out 23 17 4 13 23 14 9 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 8 Dwelling Units Rate ADT 23 9.52 219 Proposed Land Uses For the proposed Multi Family Residential land use, the highest and best use of 100 multi -family residential land uses will be used therefore Land Use Code (LUC) #220 Apartment will be used. The potential trips generated by the multi -family residential land use are shown on Table 2. Table 2- Trip Generation Rates for LUC #826 Specialty Retail Center Thousand Square Feet KSF AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips N/A Directional Distribution Vol. @ 2.71 Trips/KSF Directional Distribution In Out 44% In 56% Out 15.0 - - - 41 18 23 Pass -by 8 4 4 _ r New 33 14 19 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 20% Pass -by Per Engineering Judgement KSF Rate ADT 15.0 44.32 665 Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 5 220 — Apartment Trip Generation Comparison Since the existing single family residential land use trip generation is proposed to be replaced by the proposed Multi Family Residential trip generation, the difference in trips generated is shown on Table 4 --- . ..--r -------- ----- -----■------. Land Use Code (LUC) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. of Dwelling Units AM Peak Hour Vol. @ 0.51 trips per Directional Distribution Vol.. @ 0.62 irectional Distribution tripsper Unit 65% In 35% Out Unit 20% In 80% Out 60 31 6 M 25 38 25 13 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 38 KSF Rate ADT 100 6.65 399 Trip Generation Comparison Since the existing single family residential land use trip generation is proposed to be replaced by the proposed Multi Family Residential trip generation, the difference in trips generated is shown on Table 4 --- . ..--r -------- ----- -----■------. Land Use Code (LUC) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution In Out In Out LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed)- - - 33 14 19 1 LUC 220 Apartment (Proposed) 31 6 25 38 25 13 LUC 210 Single Family Residential <17> 14 <4> 2 <13> 12 <23> 48 <14> 25 <9> 23 Difference Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) < > indicates Subtraction of number ! Land Use Code (LUC) Rate ADT LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed) 665 399 LUC 220 Apar twent (Proposed) LUC 210 Single Family Residential <219> Difference 845 As shown on Table 4 the additional trips of the Corridor Mixed -Use land uses are anticipated to generate a total of 14 additional trips in the AM peak hour with 2 additional trips entering the site and 12 additional trips exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, the Mixed -Use land use is anticipated to generate a total of 56 additional trips, with 29 additional trips entering the site and 27 additional trips exiting the site. The anticipated average daily trips to/from the proposed Mixed -Use land uses are 845 trips. TRIP DISTRIBUTION It is anticipated that the subject property is accessed via Bowdish Road. The roads anticipated to be used by the additional trips generate by a development of the subject property are listed below. Bowdish CPA change L`rnr:i LUR (R-2) to Corridor Mixecl Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Leiter October 24, 2017 Page 6 Bowdish Road is a northfsouth, two-way, 2 -lane. minor arterial serving a large residential area south of Interstate 90. 13owdish Road mins south from Mission Avenue, and crosses several major arterials, until it intersects with Sands Road. Bowdish Road, between Mission Avenue and ❑ishman-Mica Road is a two-lane roadway. South of Dishrnan-Mica Road, Bowdish Road crosses the Union Pacific Railway and becomes a local access roadway. Sands Road branches off of Bowdish Road and continues the arterial to 440 Avenue. Tlowdish Road is posted at 25 MPH on the local access portion, and is posted on the mieor:Aerial as 35 MPH. Considering many factors such as the surrounding transportation facilities, typical colintuting patterns, existing development in the area, and the Al )'1' of surrounding roadways the traffic for the proposed development is anticipated {t:; ii,llows, 5% to/from the south on Bowdish Road, and 95% to/from the north on Bowdi,h 96 -lad, Where the trips will follow existing traffic patterns at the intersection ofT)islellaii- MiL i Road & Bowdish Road. Conclusions and Recommendations It is anticipated that a change of land use to Mixed tlsc would generate 14 additional AM peak hour trips and 48 additional PM peak hour trips. Based on the number of trips generated the location of the project and an understanding of the operation of intersections within the area, we believe that if the change is approved that there would be no impact from this project on the surrounding transportation system. Additional at the time of any "real" project the "real" project would be reviewed for trti [itis imreiL:t at that time. Therefore, based upon the analysis provided and a working knowle 1p t: 01 in the area we recommend that the comprehensive plan map amendment be allowed Le movc ibrwrard without further analysis. Should you have any questions related to this document please do not hesitate to call at 893- 2617. TRW/bng enol: Appendix (Vicinity Map, Site Plan, Trip list %) cc: Sponsor File APPENDIX 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Trip Distribution by Percent 4. Misc. Information 1T, Y _r L Inks 1.u�. • • A. E. L- -41711 r. PROD SITE � n E 43rdfn'.'}. i 1: -1.:1r.1 Chest'er i vi I NOT TO -SCALE • PROJ #•: 17- 9a4 DATE: 1 O I a2 Oi 1 7 u RAWr,I : 6N I APPROVED: TRW CPA TRIP EENERATIfN & IDITRIELITIDNJ BDWDISH CPA RflWIT) I-1 RDAD r SANAS ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 4WCE WHIPPL CONELJT)143 EnCANEERS OWL ANC TRi.NtSPORTATlO i 1 ENGINEER:NG 252E 14CtRTN SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VA4r, INSHIN;TON 5821 i PH. 502.4a3,251T FA% -..7111-975.0227 RCY,J #: 1'7.1 904 DATE: S 0/20/1 7 D RAW NI ; EI N .APPROVED: TWN CPA TRIP GENERATlC]N at DISTRIBUTION BDWDISH CPA RDWD1SH RaAD & SANDS ROAD s OKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTDN WCE 'hpl EF'I.li i;UNSIIr.➢INC ENGINEERS CIL'z_11r+R T11LM7PLIl1f4T IC PI EMYJINEEP"HL3 2b2LINORT1.1SULLI A /4.64) vf,I LEY, WASHINGTON 09216 Pli MI .n99.7761'I FAX: 5105-926-0227 TRIP GENERATION TOTAL IN OUT AM PEAK 14 2 12 PM PEAK 48 25 23 BOWDISH ROAD AM(2/11) PM(24/22) 95% BOWDISH ROAD 5% AM(0/1) PM(1 /1) W NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 17-1904 DATE: 10/20/1 7 DRAWN: BNB APPROVED: TRW CPA TRIP GENERATION�//&DISTRIBUTION B D YY D' S H CPA BOWDISH ROAD & SANDS ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4WC E WHIPPLE CONSULTING' ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99216 FH: 509.893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 Photo 1 — Property Frontage — Boy., dish Road looking North Photo 2 — Intersection of Dishman-Mica Road & Bewdish Road, Looking North 1.1*it1i 1 f41/0r • { • • r_7 r 4WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative: Parcel: 45333.1807 October 23, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for parcel 45333.0807 is to change the land use and zoning from R2 (Single Family Residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), consistent with the property north of the Railroad tracks. The subject parcel is approximately 5.86 acres and is accessed via Dishman Mica Rd to Bowdish Road, south Sands Road. The parcel fronts Bowdish Road, on the east property line, for approximately 175 feet, which is the access point for this lot. The north property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad is 940 feet. The west property line is approximately 525 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .42 to .85 acres and a 2.25 acre vacant lot owned by the City of Spokane Valley, which is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The south property line is approximately 685 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .30 of an acre to .80 acres. All lots were created per SHP-09-10. See exhibit 1. The following services will be provided by the utilities listed. Electricity will be. supplied by Avista. Natural gas will be provided by Avista. Comcast will provide cableTV. And telephone will be provided by Centurylink. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Man. The parcel is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track and with all the noises associated from the tracks to the subject site is not contusive to single family housing. This is consistent with the owner's experience in developing and selling Tots in the Ponderosa East Subdivision, laying south of and adjacent to the same railroad line. With the amendment there will also be a buffer between the tracks and the existing single- family lots. The physical environment will need to be mitigated to make the land amenable for permitted Corridor Mixed -Use development. The site falls into the Chester Creek flood plain, but not within the floodway and with the correct mitigation the site can be raised for permitted and allowed uses, thus improving the stream bed for birds and mammals to thrive. The impacts on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhood will be minimal with the buffering required and this space being a buffer for those who live close by. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 A PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements This request is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. A. Goal LUG -4. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. LUP-4.1. integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for street upgrades to the entrance of the neighborhood. The location of this corridor mixed-use site will have minimal impact to the layer residential development being place adjacent to the existing railroad right of way. b. LUP-4.2. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and services. This change will take advantage of existing pedestrian and bike route to the Chester Store and Bowdish/Sands Road and Dishman Mica Road currently utilizing the existing railroad crossing. c. LUP-4.4. Encourage Mixed -Use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. Integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for an unusable and difficult to market lot to add mixed use near the train tracks. d. LUP-4.5. Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulating height, scale, setbacks, and buffers. This amendment to buffer the residents for the train tracks and adding mixed use to the area. e. LUP-4.7. Develop design guidelines that encourage quality design and pedestrian and vehicle circulation in commercial, office an Mixed-use development. This amendment allows for Corridor Mixed -Use to be a positive action in this neighborhood. B. Goal LUG -9. Encourage the development of mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. f. LUP-9.2 The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include: a. A variety of housing types including apartments, condominiums, town houses, tow - family and single-family dwellings on small Tots. b. A full range of retail goods and series including grocery stores, theaters/entertainment, restaurants, person services and specialty shops. c. Public/quasi-public uses and /or open space: d. Professional Office and other employment oriented uses; and e. Commercial uses that require large land areas by have low employment density and are anti-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries, warehouses, and auto dealerships, should be prohibited for either Mixed-use category. This amendment allows for a variety of dwellings, shops, and or services. C. Goal LUG -14. Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. g. LUP-14.3. Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protects views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. This amendment allows the neighborhood to keep it's identify without the clutter of signage and keeps Corridor Mixed Use encroachment with are surrounding the Railroad close to the Dishman Mica Arterial. D. Goal LUG -16. Provide a street system that connects neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. LUP-16.1. Encourage new developments, including multifamily projects, to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks to allow people to safely get around easily by foot, bicycle, bus, or car. This amendment allows for upgrades to Bowdish and Sands along the site and can extend frontage upgrades for connectivity, allowing for circulation across the frontage or the property. b. .LUP-16.2. Develop street, pedestrian path and bike path standards that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. This amendment can extend to the boundaries for connectivity allowing for circulation across the site frontage. The following provision of the development codes allows for the proposal: a. Per the Amended Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject parcel is located in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. b. Per SVMC Chapter 19.70.030, Mixed-use, the lots will comply with the dimensional standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Front yard setback will be 15 ft. minimum, rear yard setback of 10 ft. minimum, and side yard setback of 10 ft minimum. Driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved with hard surface material. c. Per SVMC Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses, Corridor Mix -Use are a permitted use in the CMU zone. d. Per SVMC Chapter 22.20, Concurrency, certificates of water and sewer availability have been submitted with the application. With regards to traffic, a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter has been submitted detailing the anticipated changes to traffic as a result of the project. e. Per SVMC Chapter 22.50.020, Vehicle Parking, each unit will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. f. Per SVMC Section 22.130.070, Development Transportation Improvements, the streets will be improved and built to current City of Spokane Valley street standards. g. Per SVMC, Chapter 22.150, Stormwater Management Regulations, the project will be designed such that post -development storm water will be treated and disposed of by methods approved in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. EXHIBIT 2 J.viap' .rn-cam 10-JlJL, W41 FliSompENN•I 1 � I I II min i■III Inn ■■i■ DLIII !Bl MINIUM hams emit17 Ian • ■.r■I 11111■; 1111:i C 111111■ ma F �? + As°,e 411 NM= 11111111I11', punning Wi' 1, 1 Ids I =t. Afl3 1l z• 122 r�i� �' ■11I� rl i, z 11'i: .- PA. Z7 tir 411-1 E 11 1 P64124Atin • 1E-si NMI th A. • 11 LeJ MEI -- i !'MI , ill =11 M� 7 El; R. c,, € G I 1 M �mowi`1• I a-�'. ■■M WO. E_ i -Bill � gniziesei Ma =MI MN 1Ng.di InatIkAMII 1l�I j11I1u1 11LI111 ..1I1u■11■ row ns' 1111 i'1I1 ■u 111. Fire _ iI1 1110 ■ ■11s• Aga •�1 �i■fBit • Iii• ■■1■h Altiviak mix ®� . %VIA l'` 1111 11111Ii�-;11i1 I4 fAllies pi ‘rtri, 1111111i�1��u1i . ktrEs Ln =PI 1!"1am 11111 ■■ !J A� ■1• n 't � a,��!■ 11111 ,111111. tl II 11119 ri rut% 11�IIII : ■4 11au '-' 41111 .4 to \v.' ■1■ Dire t IIVIOW714, JR' c th-PFA J1111I#A 4/Iii n► Fir [}intricl• 1 4i AMR/ r�Q 0] 1���1l111 7.4 E itfr University High F Chester 1. Elementary 1 F. Th id Horizon Middle iii i. E L pr. r E Sioux Cri EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map E4 sAv Study Area 45333.107 I VACANT LAND Spokane .0,00 Valle y :VA -2.0 1 8-01013 Owrier: Ourilits Sri 1117.A.P 4) Request: urr? :mum: EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map f Spokane ..„00 Valley CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & cissa Crapo Parceltt; See Map Address: See Map Prf pa,,v quibffi .4.i,', aryl •C- .1.11.!.; fj:Vii,Vdf.111;'111 1,001 fl 7.41101y Ay, ,)117 ,Li[t 11) I AI))) . • t..11114 0))). .. 014)4 '• ). • )14,11111.11.1.)..; '111111' 1. . )1)1 riliNNikt (15 • .1f 'II) •.°00'000.11,41.:1,01011 AO° 111 00' ' 1 11 11,1 1,v 11 1)1111110111)1111,11)/Ii(01)), t) iii 1111)t'' 1gt t11 ),)) „ t) „ ,)(,w,, di) )3 t .„),)111 "tir•r),),!,i' , 1 ,,,,)).0.9,,.).)0'....,.....1 „.,„, ..).1,10 1 ''111.' Y11(1,1.1 ,, • 0)••• ' ') I) .11))1 A . • ' • 1.10,..),i,' .0,1 ,,,wit •,.. ., )...)$..t. 001 .1 '1)1 ,,cii(11(1111,,„.. ,,..,),111.• )' 14. ,tly ' 'r7*". • ').'Jit. - . 1041 NOY 1 )11; • 14 • "t11} 1) 111 )1, Spokane Valley. COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ® Fax: 509.720.5375 ® planning@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning classification. Location: Parcel numbers 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 26, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. • EXHIBIT 6 Spokane Valley,. STAFF USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development — Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite 8-3 ♦ Spokane Vattey WA 99206 509.720.5310 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ ptanning@spokanevattev.org Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: ►t PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** Completed SEPA Checklist ® Application Fee ® Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/Z" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ® Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give. the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Change Bowdish and Sands 2. Name of applicant: Dennis and Melissa Crapo CIO Whipple Consulting Engineers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2528 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 - Todd R Whipple, PE phone:509-893-2617 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2017 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Upon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.A previous Short Plat SHP-09-10 was prepared, this SEPA checklist, Application form, Trip Generation Letter, and Narrative. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None known If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification. Once the site is rezoned then a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Project Specific SEPA, Building Permits, Water Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Plans, UIC registrations, Street Permit, Utility Permit, Street Obstruction Permit, Street Tree Plan, etc... PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of 18 Spokane _" Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification proposes to change 5.86 acres from R2 (single family residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), see exhibits 2 and 3. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.The subject parcel is located on the west side of the intersection of Bowdish Road and East Sands Road, just south of East Dishman Mica Road, with appoximatley 275 linear feet of frontage on Bowdish Road, located on portions of Southwest 114, Section 33, Township 25N, Range 44E, W.M. Spokane County Parcel Number 45333.1807. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? Yes Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Project does lie within the ASA in the City of Spokane, per Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area from the SRSM, as well as the high susceptibility area of CARA, per Figure 6-2 of the SRSM. Stormwater disposal methods will be consistent with Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), which may include grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywelis and gravel galleries depending upon specific soil types encountered at the locations of the proposed facilities at time of a specific project. Anticipated rate will be appropriate for the design option chosen. At this time the volume is unknown. Because the system will follow the SRSM there will be a dead storage component of 0.5' in each swale or pond area that should limit direct discharge of items used in the home as well as firefighting activities. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of 18 Spokane Valley. SEPA CHECKLIST 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? The CMU zoning may anticipate chemicals, but the future project for this site has not been chosen. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Applicable BMP's will be used during construction to contain any leaks or spills as they occur. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Once the CMU zone has been developed there may be chemicals stored,and spills associated with CMU volumes will be handled on-site per the facility spill prevention and clean- up plan. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, stormwater will be discharged into the ground. No potential impacts are anticipated at this time and the future discharge will be as allowed in the SRSM. The existing stream bed will not receive an new stormwater. PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of 18 Spokane Valley. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ® flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, 0 steep slopes, 0 mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?Less than 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NRCS classification is Endoaquolls and Flluvaquents, 0-3% slopes, and Urbanland- Phoebe, disturbed complex 3-8 % slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes If so, describe. A site review does indicate the presence of these types of soils, additionally, the City of Spokane Valley maps show unstable or erodible soils on the subject site. Therefore, during plan preparation of a specific project the site Geotech will note the presence of these specific types of soils and an acceptable manner by which to deal with them, see exhibit 5. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. In a future project there may be grading proposed for streets, site, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade and preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire buildable portion site. Although quantities are unknown at this time, we would anticipate the movement of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cy. Any import or export of material shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Building and Planning Department. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? During site preparation for a future project, some minor erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction, but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. The existing seasonal streambed may be mittigated to provide more buiding space. The subject site will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping. If so, generally describe. PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of 18 Spokane Valley,. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?60%-70" h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During site preparation for a future project, on-site grading shall be consistent with approved grading and temporary erosion sediment control plans. Use of appropriate BMPs during construction and the stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping following construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During site construction, for a future project, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance. Additionally, a future project may create exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion and occupancy of a future project, construction air emissions may occur, exhaust machinery and vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? None known. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All future site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air (SRCAA), construction related requirements. Future tenants may require additional review through SRCAA. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site is in a Flood plain, see exhibit 4, which may be mitigated so the SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of 18 pokane Valley property can be buildable. Chester Creek a seasonal streambed is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, although this is a non -project section Chester Creek does lie within 200 -feet of the subject site. Future projects will need to take this into consideration. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. Indicate the source of fill material.To be determined at time of flood zone mitigation, if at all possible. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? Yes. If so, note location on the site plan. See exhibit 7. SEPA CHECKLIST 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the SRSM. All future runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before discharged. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Yes. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. As noted previously, a future project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane and any other affected agencies. PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of 18 Spokane ao Valley° 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.There will be no water material discharged into the ground from septic tanks. . c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? The source of runoff from this site after completion of design for this propery, will be from the constructed elements of the design. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas to treat and discharge the treated stormwater (as required by the SRSM) to the underlying soils, via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. Will this water flow into other waters? No. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. Runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before entering ground water. The site does not contribute to any surface waters. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As noted previously, the project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during design and as approved by the City. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ®deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of 18 Spokane Valley ® grass O pasture O crop or grain O wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 0 water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ® other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? CMU projects usually take up a large amount of space. Most of the vegetation may be removed. The seaonal streambed may be mitigated allowing for more vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: With on proposed project at this time, measures to preserve or enhance vegetaion is unknown. The seasonal streambed would be the best place to mitigate. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Eg mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: 0 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List, any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. SEPA CHECKLIST c. Is the site part of a migration route? Yes If so, explain.The area is listed as Rocky Mountain Elk habitate, but the site is surrounded by homes and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required to create a project consistenant with this designation, see exhibit 6. PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 9 of 18 CITY Spode Valley' d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:With no proposed project, the measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is unknown. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used by future site-specific projects for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind and other sources of power would be available for future projects. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The future construction of a CMU site should not affect solar energy on adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Final building plans shall demonstrate compliance with the commercial provisions of the Washington State Energy Code (WSEC). 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?Unknown. If so, describeOnce a project specific plan is developed a new SEPA will need to be completed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply, at this time as this is a non - project section. b. Noise SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 18 Spokane Valleyx ) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Typical noises associated with the Railroad Track: train whistles and the sounds of the train cars traveling past the site, with collector street traffic, commercial uses, and residentail uses adjacent or nearby. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For a future CMU project, short term noises from construction would be anticipated. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with CMU areas. Future construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Future construction restricted to hours allowed by City code. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The subject site is currently undeveloped. b. The property to the north is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and further north is Corridor Mixed Use mini storage. The property to the east is a single family lot with the north portion currently vacant, which is the portion of land adjacent to the subject site. c. The properties to the south and west are approximatly 1/3 of an acre single family homes and a vacant lot to the northwest of the subject site which is owner by City of Spokane Valley. d. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are on the site. f. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of 18 Spokane Valley' g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2, Single -Family Residential h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CMU Corridor Mixed Use. i. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?Unknown. j. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?Yes If so, specify.Aquifer Sensitive Area, flood plain, Chester Creek floodwater and Elk migration route. k. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is unkown at this time with not project selected. I. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A n. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Develop to applicable zoning code development standards at time of specific project development. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Unkown at this time. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of 18 Spokane P.. Valley G. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Unknown at this time. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35 feet. Future project exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane region . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Yes, views will be altered by future development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Final site and building plans shall be developed cohesive with related design standards of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code, 2 stories with marketable attributes. 11). Light and glare a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce? Unknown What time of day would it mainly occur? The subject site will be illuminated at night consistent with the City of Spokane Valley zoning codes and standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Yes, ambient light affect. SEPA CHECKLIST G. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Exterior lights from the adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area and Train lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See comment to 11a. PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 18 Spokane Valley. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing bike lane running south on Bowdish and at the the intersection of Bowdish and Sands, turns onto Sands Road. There are 2 public parks within 1 mile of the site, Castle Park and Brown's Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? None anticipated. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No If so, generally describe. None identified by WISAARD search. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, other than those requird by City of Spokane Valley Code, Washington State, and/or Federal Law. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Dishman Mica Road; Bowdish Road and Sands Road. There are no plans at this time Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Spokane Transit Route 97, 0.80 miles to the north at the intersection of Bowdish Road and 32"d Avenue. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 18 Spokane .._ Valley c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Unknown. How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? There may be upgrades to Bowdish Road. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Unknown at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? None anticipated If so, generally describe. Existing Union Pacific Railroad line. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? See the attached Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is anticipated to generate 845 average daily trips. The project is anticipated to generate 14 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. These rates were developed from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time as they are project specific impacts. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Unknown. If so, generally describe. Unknown at this time. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Unknown at this time. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ® electricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ® sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ® other - describecable TV. SEPA CHECKLIST b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the PL -22 V1.0 Page 15 of 18 Spokane Valley. immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities are known at this time to be service providers adjacent to or within the immediate area. 1. Avista — Gas 2. Avista/ — Electricity 3. CenturyLink — Telephone 4. Comcast / Other — Cable TV 5. Spokane County Utilities — Sewer 6. Consolidated Water District #19 — Water SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: tis lezel it? D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes, as the current site is undeveloped, development will increase stormwater runoff, vehicle emissions and site related noise, however, the allowed uses will be restricted on to produce, store or release toxic/hazardous substances. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Through cordination, CC&R's and proper site management. PL -22 V1.0 Page 16 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The future site will be graded, which will remove plants. There are no fish or marine life onsite. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The grading will remove most if not all plant material on the site. The stream bed should be mitigated to a more healthy condition. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This site will not likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The owner will use Energy Star equipment and has the option to use wind or solar energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wildemess, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The site is surrounded by homes and businesses and by mitigating the existing stream bed will more likely than not have game birds on that portion of the property. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation of the stream bed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no existing plans as of yet for this property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The Corridor Mixed Use is unknown at this time. There are utilities on or close to the site. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures at this time. PL -22 V1.0 Page 17 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any project on this site must follow local, state and fenderal laws for the prtection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t 's check Date: 1 //;7 Please print or type: Proponent: Signatur 44,0,%6 6 Yl (-4he,zi�' `�j / k1 >. Address: Z?ZA ,if- `5J/(IVB- J �'j , V41 ` ' /6 z Phone: � ZCe /7 1 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 18 of 18 EXHIBIT 7 0"ift, s'�I' Col 1MUNITV & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NT PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720,5240* Fax: 509.72.0.5075 • plunningia spokanevalley,org FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-01J03 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'A of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Whipple Consulting; Engineers, 21 5 Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OWNER: Dennis & Melissa Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this piopeisal docs not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Staten L,-:111. (I,IS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a c(ini:,leicri cnvironenent tl checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is ava i 1113k. to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will nut act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palanitak, Planner, (509) 720-503 I , mpalanink@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLY- OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner f DATE ISSUED: February 2?�.11 8 SIGNATITRL;.!-���..&I-tr>-‘) APPEAL: An appeal of this detenuinotion shall he submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar clay's after the date issued. The appeal must be written aid make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appy :'ils_ and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at title ;;f:iprcal submittal, Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final 11 -ay... -.:hold d tLrnlilt:ition. Cal' .1, spoicanc Valley 1cuticul iii h'on-Siprtiticancc CONN 11;e No. CPA- t;1 x-c,i0 i February 2, 2018 Page I of 1 EXHIBIT 8 Sfiblianeii,•••OValler� COMMUNITY & PUTtLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5D75 • planning@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80A20, Notice of Pubic Hearing, the Building &. Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2418, beginning at 6:Q0 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Lund Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classifrcation to Corridor Mixed Use (CM1J) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMH) zoning classification. Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'Js of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Locirtieu: Applicant(s): Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of A licatian; October 26, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 201S Staff Contact: Martin Paluniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk okanevalle}`.° Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 request to the Spokane Valley City Cc,uri il_ NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting vvhe require special assistance to accominadatR lilrysic.ai_ hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon ay possible so that pis rangements may be mate. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 5:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Con-iprehense Land Use Designation 'Aro I' 111 MF NC MU CMU • RC January 31, 2018 Zoning R1 1/;.. R2 R3 • POS "14641106;_ii f Project Site IMLJ 1:4,514 0 °Ann VT'S 1 C I 0,05 C.1 0.15 rrt ; L km VOniCine. ItC6t. tAnrferOr Ce<CTIV5C-t. %et LI 1.1.4 al-4.re EXHIBIT 9 #100"s, Spo'lrane .000Via Community & Public Works Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokzne Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5000 • Rix.; (509)72C-5075 • www.spokanevaney.org 1111111M1111111111111111101111.111k Memorandum To: Marty Pa laniuk, Planner From: Chad Riggs, Senior Engineer Date: January 10, 2018 Re: CPA -2018-0003: Flowdish and Sands Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment SEPIA Checklist Review Comments 1)eveloprrient 1;'_11.1;incoritig has reviewed the k for CPA -2018-0003 to c11!tw,.,2[Lw cornpfdleip.dvc Ccirridor IJke (CrVit1). ,j(i not S1:PA contains a hhiikci IiiII1L,C Cascnient 4] 11'. -OL) -10 flu. I (1Hposul. The .pliit .iczLion ".Afr) wr)(iiiic.-..fem-n /0 of hiCf‘h" 1.1-L11,,olif prior z.iro.,"o12o.1 r), Engir),,i7 Eolcirlofiohs k."-;yarl. rc tqq.e.iLf eascf)kv).1 (1 or f.;.14.ruk).,kl'cc Shect 2)", apithcait should Kc maiL. altmaion dud siipporting ch.-cArrapst cakiliatioits win be requirL...c..1 for ..orty to thebinnket drainapc, L:_..nserrierit. All conditions vi11 be deferred to the timt.; of plai. bulkiltiz permit application_ To: Martin Palaniuk (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Change land use from LDR to CMU Address: SS09 As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, a wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected. SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Environmental Services Department "under separate cover", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to plan submittal, the developer is required to contact Chris Knudson or Colin Depner at 477-3604 to discuss the details of the sewer plans. Once submitted, the sewer plan may require revised and or additional plat comments to be addressed. January 10, 2018 CPA -2018-0003 Review of Trip Generation & Distribution Letter TEDL dated October 24, 2017 Parcel No. 45333.807 A planning level Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TIDL) was submitted to the City c( Spokane Valley for a proposed land use change from Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed [Jse (CM Ll) if the 5.86 acre -/- parcel is developed to CMU, the higher density would account for an estimated 845 new trips throughout a typical day over Row flensity Residential. During the peak hours, we would expect there to be an additional 14 new a.m. peak hour trips and 56 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the Dishman Mica and eawdish Road intersection, LOS calculations indicate that the intersection will operate at a LOS C during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for this land use to the model continues to give a LOS C. By granting the CPA, a delay of about 3 2 seconds on average would be added to every vehicle using the intersection. Based on the information submitted in the Tetter combined with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model, the City of Spokane Valley has determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet concurrency at time of building permit for this CPA. Attached are intersection capacity analysis to support the conclusions in this response, No pass -by trips were credited at this time for this analysis us recommended in the letter. Adequate street capacity exists ut pa s -by consideration. In the future, at time of permit, the applicant may submit a project specific Tj D and request a pass -by trip exemption. Ra Wright, PE Sr. -Engineer, Traffic City of Spokane Valley HCIV1 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 45: Bowdish & Oishman rnica Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (uph) Future Volume (vph) ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (S) Lane Util. Factor Fri Fit Protected Said. Flow {prat} Flt Permitted Ss ti, Flaw (perm) Peak-hcur 'actor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR ked.lct'an (vph) 1,nrie Group Flow (vph} leavy Vehicles (°%) Tu:'n Type Protected Phases Perrnitted Phases Actuated Green, G (S) 0.8 Effective Green. g (s) 0.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane Grp Cap {vph} 14 Ws Ratio Prot 0.01 vas Ratio Perm vire Ratio 0.79 Uniform Delay, di 40.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.6 Delay (s) 175.6 Level of Service P Approach Delay (i) Approach LDS Intersection Summary ECL 111 10 10 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0,95 1482 0.95 1482 0.95 11 0 11 99 Prot 1 HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume 10 Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) intersection CapaortyUtilization Analysis Period (rein) Description: 2015 counts c Critical Lane Group 4 EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL 470 110 35 210 30 60 470 110 35 210 30 50 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 6.0 4.0 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1515 1442 1489 1.00 0,95 1.00 1515 1442 1489 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 495 116 37 221 9 0 0 5 602 0 37 248 9% 9°% 12% 12% NA Pro NA 6 5 2 46.3 462 0.67 6.0 4.0 865 c0.40 0.70 12.3 1.00 4.6 18.9 0 19.7 B 3.2 3.2 0.04 4.0 4.0 56 c0.0S 0.66 3$_4 1,00 27.8 66.1 49.2 49.2 061 5.5 4.0 X04 0.17 0.27 7.5 1,00 0.7 6.2 A 15.6 B 0.95 0.95 32 53 0 0 0 0 12% i% Perm 4 at NBT NBR SBL 120 40 15 120 40 15 1700 1700 1700 5.0 1.00 0.97 0.99 1559 0.84 1332 0.95 126 11 210 NA 4 16.5 16.5 0.20 5.0 4.0 271 o0 16 0.77 30.5 1_[15 13.6 44.1 D 44.1 ID 0.95 0.96 42 16 0 0 0 t} 5% 5°% Perm 4 1/1012018 4, SLIT SBR 4 r 150 10 157 10 1700 1700 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 10°0 0.85 1.00 1.00 1612 1376 0.96 LOG' 1561 1376 0.95 0.95 158 11 4 9 174 2 5% 5% NA Perm 4 4 16,5 16.5 16,5 16.5 0.20 0.20 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 317 2B0 0.11 a,00 0.55 001 28.9 25,7 1.00 1.00 2.4 0.0 31,3 26.7 C C 31.0 c 24.5 RCM 2000 Level of S rvIce 0.70 81.0 Surn of lost lirne (s) %, ICU Level of Seraice 15 G 15,0 G COSY Network BSonnen ro80 kotric 't(liAtia Synchs 9 Report Page 1 ry -lei i. HCIVI Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 45: Bowdish & Dishman mica P4tiouement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 170 Fohrr Ve!,irne (vph) 10 410 Ideal Flow I;vb-ijal) 1700 1700 Tatar Lost time +s) 4.0 6.0 Lang Utit. Facto; 1.00 1.00 Frl 1.00 0.91 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flaw (prole) 1482 1507 Fit Permitted 0-95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1482 1507 Peak -hour factor, PHp 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow {uph) 11 495 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 Lane Group Flaw (vph) 11 626 Heav Vehicles % 9%G 9% Turn Type Prot NA Protected Phases 1 0 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 45.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 45.8 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.01 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 852 v/$ Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.42 vds Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.79 0.73 . Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.6 5.6 Delay (S) 175.6 18.7 Level of Sege F B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Sumo aary E13T EBR WBL HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2015 counts c Critical Lame Group 135 700 0.96 142 0 0 96 43 43 1700 4.0 1.00 1,00 0.95 1442 0.95 1442 0.95 45 0 45 12% Prot 5 3.0 3.0 0.04 4.0 4.0 4- 4VBT 210 210 1700 5.5 1.00 098 1..00 1489 1.00 1489 0.95 221 6 247 12% NA 2 48.5 48.5 0.60 5.5 4.0 53 891 c0.03 0.17 0.85 38.8 1.00 72.D 110.8 F 28.1 0.75 01.0 76,7% 15 COSY Network BSonnen 1-0-o 1)M1 oealc ir 0.2E 7.8 1,00 0.8 8.6 A 24.0 C WBR NEL 30 58 30 58 t700 1700 0.95 0.95 32 61 0 0 0 0 12% 5% Perm 4 HCM 2030 Level of Service Sum of Inst time (s) ICU Leval of Service NBT 444. 120 120 1700 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.99 1558 0.79 1246 0.95 125 10 219 NA 4 17.2 17,2 0.21 5,0 4.0 264 c0.18 0.83 30.5 1.00 19.7 50.1 60.1 D NBR SSL 40 15 40 15 1700 1700 0,95 0.95 42 16 0 0 0 0 5% 5% Perm 4 15,0 1/10/2018 SBT SUR 4 7 162 10 162 10 1It70 1700 5.0 5.0 1,00 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1612 1376 0.97 1.fl4 1565 1376 0 95 0.95 171 11 0 9 187 2 5% 5% NA Perm 4 4 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 0.21 0.21 5,0 5.0 4.0 4.0 332 292 0.12 0.00 11.56 0,01 25,5 25.2 1.00 1.00 2,1 0.0 31,2 25.2 c c 20.9 C sync -Imo 9 Report Page 1 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2128 PJ. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99286 Phone (509) 926-1788 FAX (5O9) 892-#125 www.ipoirsituvalleytire.com November 9, 2017 City of Spokane Valley 1021C E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA gg2Q5 RE: CPA -2017-0003 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review For the above referenced project and has no comments an the SEPA checklist, Specific fire department requirement shall be conditioned on future permits. Sincerely, Traci Harvey Fire Prctention Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department O:'Bcpt Pala UnsharedtpreventiQn UnsharedlPlats�Stiorties�2D1 ; ,f:r-P ti(:P,\-;-() ilk •lo:;Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4607 N' Monroe Stree(• Spokane, Washington 992(J5-1295 • (5(J9)329-3400 January 18, 20718 Mr: Martin Palaniuk Iiniinci City ol Spokane Valley 11707 I. SIan gue Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Crapu Ilan :°imcnt rnekIL/ one Rc:cl ati i icati(ni, 1'`ilc '+' (..l'h-2018-{0{}11 Item: LII: Th.nik you tor Lie (11aporti:lllty 1(1 coinuie It (11' Llle NotiL'.i i)f Application and antieipatod. 1)el-ruin...aion or Nor:sitm;rlil7L:nnce rL'•i,L1riIillg the proposal ti) uhangc: 5.86 :'.L' -lam. 11X1'1'. liliy.l� 1 ;1n'sil I.Li:;i,l r:ti II (12) tc Corridor Mixed Use ((`\ .IJ) liar ['Attire (level upiri m 'I'rY:>pc}nent.: Dena I ,(".i.i, :l C.'.re113i7}. The I)uI)LL1'tincat o[ I.cology (L',coIo ?i) [MS 1L'\ ie\A'l'Sl I[ic- C.C)t'•Llll.t`IlI`3 and submits the ccmmc,UU : V1':lkr auditPiro !rain--Sliannt1I1'arisor 50') 329-3610 Prt)per c:cltil[1C1 an.' Li;erhalti:tlt Ctii1rol pr2-.!Ctic'-Lei iiuis[ he used on the cony:inic..Lim IIL: i 11ti ikCll'ttl'(,`.111 :iltrl. to prt`VLFC7t upland til`I.11:ltci i.; from) surfaceLla.le','li'i,wider. L{1L::r: swill r\\',.ties(ir(l! Il roles •ili 1-krovic'L rcille'-rc111t-nts. Also TL i[7 to the St{iCllllwtlter Managenie2t Manual for Eastern Washin •to11 hound ut: htt.:llwww.ec.wa ovd,+romramsiw•lsturinwater/eastern manualtmanual.htrnl_ ground disturbed by construction activities must ALL. stabilized. When appropri ile, rise native vegetation typical of the site. All new dry wells and other injeetior welIs iiiu.ltit 11 regisic'rcd with the itindcr.}round Injection Control program Oil() ;i I }c:j7,:i liii� n[ c,[' 1.:colcii5.y prior to use. A n cl, cll Gllatt'hw. from the well(s) must comply viik IIk ` :'equircrrtcnt (nonendangerment standard) at I li.7 i,i,t oI' \viicr l;il lc., Cc nlEiet the Eastern Regional Office LTIC Coordinator, l.lv'la 1)t.rcn ii s at (509) 3518 or via email at Llyn.Doremust ecy_wa_gov, You may also go 1 htt liwvmr.ee .vvaov/•ro• rams.{w•f, mclwtrluiclreaistrationIre infa.html for registration forms and further information. Mr. Martin Palaniuk January 18, 2018 Page 2 ` 'L1ri111...vlilcr rininfFinny contain increased levels ofgrease, °il.s, sediment, and other - tor111.,A, Ilc•r I3,e!--141,11;:4.'_ Illl'•]1'- Prac•t.ccs (BM E's) ,,-;lull_Lltl bc i11s1.n11cd and 771111iIISlI'.i`tt •;f, Ina] ;1111 iEltiS`k'.:".I"IsL'. 11'311 `.'t ir)IirL]I)L'lil1cly (reale(' 14: remove L=1cse y4111L;417i`l .`.. i Ii[,LILi11L' I`i :1tL`.'•d1111'Iti :,11c1 111,11J1tL'I':ll1L'4' 1:1 1.1 4'I'uSion and ticLlil]LL ]tl control 'lest Vhili7:iy.clre 11 Practices (1.3MIs) are I`4',C:.111'inEcI'IiLet] both L-lLlriii . G1:1ii c1.111-4. d vt:lilpr7li::11. Of the site. S1[71'n-rwate1`Pollution Prevent ion 1'I;;11 1411' the pr:,,jc`c:1 ,illy Cll`.i Ifo_ l't'tll.li"'t't' ;mid .tilifilll(: be developed hyiI qualiiit'iI pL•1;:[11i4 1 I'[r:;li.ll :Jrlt] 4t:11:115C..l)l i.til'i,'."47l 11 L'. 111('•• In the 1711]]! must be iu111)1eliler1Lc:: I)FL ]- tr) an C- l !0`11; -9%!(lirll7., r,1' c.(r;Nt.r,k...1.it)17. I '.L, L: rontunl. .r . mcasures must171, effectiVC L{) prevent ;�';)II 11+; 1i t1L;°r]f? al -vied lith) .tid.krlacC ill l' I:•}: ;slt]r111.w•tlit'r 1[111[11"I'. s[.Ilil, Sill lltil tit?il t';Ill Lh111'rrgL` ilCIL1.3Eif'. kt;': 711,°:1 ;11111 are considered poi lutil1ii . 1 1 y ti l he 71�in IIu�L ]:� .1 1,•I,;ic1, .: ,I�, I�Ic�c1��;.,;rr � Llut`il7 the S.t.:i!-‘traction period. Proper- cI@: I'71)S;.1I tili'f clll lr'L:C Ita11. del]rls :11Lk?il tic 111 such 11 Frrnmer i`.Cil7rli]I Y c1 - the Mill.1.1r1:11 :a1.[lr11-1watL"`•i t]I.4i11di e S il.C.111 Or c;1111. -:L: water c11LI:11111 ak F1"Ihk ik:]1 tl C,tlrl;Ct Wale I 1 )lin7.11sters and refuse collier:lion :ci 1 I]IYcrti L1111.;1171o, t:ol rLrtiii]li I'7r111:fI7xoI'l7L1t., 11t9111L'tIk111g. and nave (:11as1' I1 Viii. covers. men dl.t: t'r;tti1t` 17:.11 17;; plekcd up immediately and returnee] do t11c container and the area properly cleaned. The lOpc: ioi (II i1 co]1-IrCIL.Li '1 :ate that disturbs one litre L)r inure of total land ?ll tl. i11Ld which has ur 'v ]11Z1ti °. �1 ciir;� ll:n i,t ol'storniwater to aSurlrlcc. 1.'iltCr 1.11' Lo. a storm setae:, must appl V I1C' +'11yr4'I'1 '" uiid(': 1 ).'11:trllnciii Li. 1....eulogy's B%1. iIiiiL t rclferal Perini( li}r StormwaieI 1 )1.,...nIr*s Asst.}e1::.(.LI 1,V.I ti (`S?C1sI.ruction 1i )k `neck of Silts w'1c.rc less 111'1111 1711.' zl':rC L)l tL7lill 1intid arC:1:1 wi 11 I)L' llIS11.1117Ld 7111,1L1 Iti1, 11}1;1v 1f Il7l: l'i111, 1C"lltidYL:II 111:11'+ II i I.`4 'y)Ill t irl sL I:.l[LL.l plan C}1l}'I}11', In( 111-';:41c' pore Lli,'ll] 17114 IL'.I' `. \• 111 eviznio:r=ly ht' dis1L1rl)cd. i)ise.nari,e- ty1 'il(01',1:1".%die: 1"14111' without a permit is iilc t'1 ;1.1[1 ;I iity he subject to enforcentenL itl llt)il 11 1i1:': 1 )L:1}Isrllllt'11l or. Ecology. If any soil ar grotlllil 1',';'LL : tu1'1;u )il3JL 111" I s;llcil','li ".d1 r: -.A2 oil ills: H 1e c ull11]'1:1] info}]'ml.al1S711 is u.pp.1eaht may be I't&ELli,.0. IG' ::Il :i'_IL cicltlllion..I w:Lltlii`1 :".11"l reports 1171 1L1Llll7 , 17LIt Iii )i limited ;o, temporary eni ii111 C1I14.I ti4tllill{lli C011l]'01 plans. IL sturrnwaleL' polluiioll ..1rc"vL'lillon liar, i] wilc inap Ll list of known c nt1t]1n1i11;nlr.tc •.1 jl lr t;717ct lalrtirtiClrl', tlllil +ie:ptkl I`11I111d a11,1 1 finer nli'rniation about the cont'lriI.i]r;Yrlts. Application should be made at least 60 clays prior to commencement of construction activities. A permit application and related documents are available online at: http:+//www.ecy.wa.govlprcurarslwq(storrnwater/construction; or by contacting the Water Quality program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504- 7600; (360) 407-6401. Mr. Martin Palaniuk January 18, 2018 Page 3 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Ecology's comments are based upon information submitted for review. As such, they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate staff listed above. Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office (Ecology File #: 201800082) cc: Todd Whipple, PE, Whipple Consulting Engineers (for Dennis and Melissa Crapo) Mary Moore From: Lawlor, r, Jeffrey J ([4 6) <Jeffrey.I.awlorghdfw.wa.gov> Sent; Monday, January 8, 2018 7:43 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: F'N: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: 5EFA Documents CPA-2017-0003,pdf Martin Palaniuk- Thank you for the o1portunity to comment on CPA -2018-0003- BowdishfSands Rd Comp Plan Amendment. Please let the record show that Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream should be afforded the necessary buffers and protections as outlined in the Cities CAO. If there is a need to install a crossing on this stream as part of future development then a hydraulic project approval will be required by WDFW. Thank you. Jeff Lawlor Assistant Regional Habitat Program Manager 2315 N Discovery Place Spokane Valley ti's'. 99216-1566 50g-392-1001 N321 j ffrey.Iawlor[tu dfw.wa.gov From: 5EPAtJcsk (DFW) Sent: Friday, January S, 2018 3:17 PM To: Lawlor, Jeffrey J (EFW) Subject: 1=W: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 Sent From SERA inboK Kelly StiII 1 WDFM! Habitat Customer Service Specialist 1 361902,2422 1 Keliy.stilt dfw.wa,gov Th+s e.,rnoh and your response may be sub.(rt td pubre drsck sure, Frani: Martin Palaniuk [maiIto:nipalaniuk[u sPokarnevailey.erR1 Sent Friday, January 5, 2018 3:11 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dove.bvus@avistacarp.com>,'Central Valley School District #356' < roweil cvsd.or 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard[icenturykink.cam>;'Chris Johnston' <cr' ohnstonCsaokanesheriff.vrg>; 'Chris Knudson' <CKinudson@`pokanecounty.arg>r Anderson, Cindy (ECY) <CYAN461C}ECY.WA.GQV};'City of Liberty Lace' <atainin@libertylakewa.gov>;''City of Spokane Tirrell Black'<tblackjasookanecity_org>;'Colin Depner' <CDEP9 Ef pspokanecountv.vrg>;'Comcast' <brvan richirdsonC cable.corncast.com};'Consolidated Irrigation District 419' <consolidatedirrigationt Comcast,net>; Mary Moore <rnmoore@soic kanevallerr,or ,>; Doug Pmvell <d.erg›; 'East Spokane Water District #1.' <distl comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District f#361' <srnithL0C evsd.ore>;'Environmental Services Judy Green' <lagreen(c3spakarrecvuntV.org>; 'Inland Power 8.. Light' <connieniginlandpawer.cQm>; McCann, Jacob (ECY) <JMCA461@o ECY.WA.GOV>; Mary Moore <mmoone@spokanevalley ori›;'Mike Makela'<NiakelaM@sooktanevalleyrfire,com>; Mike Stone 1 <rnstone[spnkanevallev.org>; 'Model Irrii;.ition Ai let ,'f th' <jin1@modirr.arg>; 'Modern Electric Water Company' <rnoder mewco.cor t>; Patndde, Brian (PARKS) w=t rian-.Patncrderr PARKS.lh1, .GOV>;'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistatorp.corrt>;'Spokane Ae4.r.f 'r Joint Board' <info#ospokaneart uifer,c'rg>;'Spokane County Fire District i' ' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane. y Planning & Building' ‹jpedersora spokanecountv.arg>;'Spokane Coiiri.,Y, 1J1 ifities' <Lred spukanecounty.org>; '` t1 : cane County Water District #3' <scwd3@corncast.net>; 'Spokane Fief i:3r�:7i (. 1p;i, Air Agency' <awestbvqsookanet:pdanair.orw>;'Spokane Regional Health District' <1 sava a srhd. rg>; 'Sp t, )rRegional gional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.ore>;'Spokane Transit Authority' <kutitir , in@spokanetransit.com>;'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.corn>;'Tom Richardson City raf Millwood' <tom.rfchardson[c millwoodvoa.us>; Harvey, Traci <harreyt scokarrevalleyfire.conn>;'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@ver: waterandpower.corm>; CCM GMU Review Team <reviev�rtearn comrnerce.wa.Rov>; Kmrhler, Gretchen (DAMP) <Gretchen.Kaehler 7D.A.HP.wa.$av>; ECY RE SEPA REGISTER <separet;ister a@ecy.Wa.Eov>; SEPADesk OW) <SEPAdesk dfw.wa,gov>; EJNR RE NORTHEAST REGION <rortheast.region a dnr.wa.gov>; Caidotti, Chris ;PARKS) -Chris.Guidotti PARKS.WFA.GOV>; 'WA Transportation' <Fi G.{wsdot,wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg(a wvsd.org> Subject: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 All, Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following project: Project Name: Bowdish/Sands Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment File 4: CPA -2018-0003 Site Address: Not addressed. Parcel No. 45333.1807 located west adjacent to the Bowdish Road and Sands Road intersection. Please submit writ.. ' r'::i'i fl rrl4or mail, by January 19, 2018 CO. 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and n<:ti::i care Thank you. Marty Martin Palaniuk Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Si,o!wii V �Iley WA 992DS (509) 720-5031 1 rnoalaniuk(ospokanevalley car SOokane This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 crrrc�e COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Spee PLANNING DIVISION Valley- REQUEST alleyREQUEST FOR COMMENTS - ROUTING MEMORANDUM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: January 5, 2018 TO: Interested Parties, City Departments, and Agencies with Jurisdiction FROM: Martin Palaniuk, Planner 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: 509.720.5031 E-MAIL: mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org SUBJECT: CPA -2018-0003 - Bowdish/Sands Road Comp Plan Amendment SEPA Checklist for: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). LOCATION: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Please review the attached SEPA Checklist and submit written comments via mail, facsimile, mail or in person by January 19, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. to the attention of the staff person identified above. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead SEPA agency for the environmental review of the above referenced project. If additional information is required or needed for your department or agency to comment please contact the Planning Division. If no comments are given by the date indicated above, it is assumed that there are no comments relative to the environmental review. The determination will be based on the existing information. 10201 E. Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley, WA • 99206 • (509) 720-5000 • Fax (509) 720-5075 Spokane Valley e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #:� X� �` i 66 -'350 sit deceived by: �� Fee: File#: C?AoZdm-oIoi Cc 2011 -coo ) PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION (1 Map Amendment; or I Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 N Sullivan Rd CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: Info@WhippleCE.com PROPERTY OWNER : CRAPO, DENNIS A & MELISSA A MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N SULLIVAN RD CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: (509) 924-8964 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Bowdish Rd and Sands Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PARCEL No.: 45333.1807 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use m gr € '$ ZONING DESIGNATION: WI Development Engineering R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: CMU OCT 2 6 2017 Project it: - BRIEFLY BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attacihext full explanation on separate sheet of paper): We are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Change and iAlli eelassific-ation-frornR2, Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) as is on the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracts. The land is now vacant with trees, shrubs, grasses and weeds. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 Spokane Valley, COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 111- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) 1 �-el ncs C.--(qp2) , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. ignature) STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE NOTARY Len SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this '— NOTARY SEAL ‘%%►►►uIfl it iii ii Pa-Allpi `` 1. • • NOTARY PUBLIC® : COMM. EXPIRES : OCT.12, 2020 ° 0 A/4./ RY SIGNATURE /n //-7 (Date) day of -"tom Notary Public in and for the State of Washington C.C.),/r1A-1,\ Residing at: , 20 11 My appointment expires: Vck . `7-‘ 7,02D LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize _ to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL -06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 4WC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative: Parcel: 45333.1807 October 23, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for parcel 45333.0807 is to change the land use and zoning from R2 (Single Family Residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), consistent with the property north of the Railroad tracks. The subject parcel is approximately 5.86 acres and is accessed via Dishman Mica Rd to Bowdish Road, south Sands Road. The parcel fronts Bowdish Road, on the east property line, for approximately 175 feet, which is the access point for this lot. The north property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad is 940 feet. The west property line is approximately 525 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .42 to .85 acres and a 2.25 acre vacant lot owned by the City of Spokane Valley, which is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The south property line is approximately 685 feet adjacent to single family Tots ranging from .30 of an acre to .80 acres. All lots were created per SHP-09-10. See exhibit 1. The following services will be provided by the utilities listed. Electricity will be supplied by Avista. Natural gas will be provided by Avista. Comcast will provide cableTV. And telephone will be provided by CenturyLink. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track and with all the noises associated from the tracks to the subject site is not contusive to single family housing. This is consistent with the owner's experience in developing and selling lots in the Ponderosa East Subdivision, laying south of and adjacent to the same railroad line. With the amendment there will also be a buffer between the tracks and the existing single- family lots. The physical environment will need to be mitigated to make the land amenable for permitted Corridor Mixed -Use development. The site falls into the Chester Creek flood plain, but not within the floodway and with the correct mitigation the site can be raised for permitted and allowed uses, thus improving the stream bed for birds and mammals to thrive. The impacts on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhood will be minimal with the buffering required and this space being a buffer for those who live close by. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Spokane Va11ey STAFF USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development - Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 0 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 + Fax: 509.688.0037 0 planning@spokanevalley.org Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: PART I -- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ® Completed SEPA Checklist ® Application Fee ® Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ® Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 **Wane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Change Bowdish and Sands 2. Name of applicant: Dennis and Melissa Crapo CIO Whipple Consulting Engineers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2528 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 - Todd R Whipple, PE phone:509-893-2617 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2017 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Upon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.A previous Short Plat SHP-09-10 was prepared, this SEPA checklist, Application form, Trip Generation Letter, and Narrative. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None known If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification. Once the site is rezoned then a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Project Specific SEPA, Building Permits, Water Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Plans, UIC registrations, Street Permit, Utility Permit, Street Obstruction Permit, Street Tree Plan, etc... PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of 18 Spokane:: Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification proposes to change 5.86 acres from R2 (single family residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), see exhibits 2 and 3. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.The subject parcel is located on the west side of the intersection of Bowdish Road and East Sands Road, just south of East Dishman Mica Road, with appoximatley 275 linear feet of frontage on Bowdish Road, located on portions of Southwest 1/4, Section 33, Township 25N, Range 44E, W.M. Spokane County Parcel Number 45333.1807. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? Yes Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Project does lie within the ASA in the City of Spokane, per Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area from the SRSM, as well as the high susceptibility area of CARA, per Figure 6-2 of the SRSM. Stormwater disposal methods will be consistent with Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), which may include grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywells and gravel galleries depending upon specific soil types encountered at the locations of the proposed facilities at time of a specific project. Anticipated rate will be appropriate for the design option chosen. At this time the volume is unknown. Because the system will follow the SRSM there will be a dead storage component of 0.5' in each swale or pond area that should limit direct discharge of items used in the home as well as firefighting activities. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of 18 *Wane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? The CMU zoning may anticipate chemicals, but the future project for this site has not been chosen. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Applicable BMP's will be used during construction to contain any leaks or spills as they occur. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Once the CMU zone has been developed there may be chemicals stored,and spills associated with CMU volumes will be handled on-site per the facility spill prevention and clean- up plan. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, stormwater will be discharged into the ground. No potential impacts are anticipated at this time and the future discharge will be as allowed in the SRSM. The existing stream bed will not receive an new stormwater. PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of 18 Spokane ., Valley' B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ® flat, n rolling, n hilly, n steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?Less than 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NRCS classification is Endoaquolls and Flluvaquents, 0-3% slopes, and Urban land - Phoebe, disturbed complex 3-8 % slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes If so, describe. A site review does indicate the presence of these types of soils, additionally, the City of Spokane Valley maps show unstable or erodible soils on the subject site. Therefore, during plan preparation of a specific project the site Geotech will note the presence of these specific types of soils and an acceptable manner by which to deal with them, see exhibit 5. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. In a future project there may be grading proposed for streets, site, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade and preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire buildable portion site. Although quantities are unknown at this time, we would anticipate the movement of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cy. Any import or export of material shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Building and Planning Department. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? During site preparation for a future project, some minor erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction, but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. The existing seasonal streambed may be mittigated to provide more buiding space. The subject site will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping. If so, generally describe. PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of 18 *Wane Spokane Valley. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?60%-70" h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During site preparation for a future project, on-site grading shall be consistent with approved grading and temporary erosion sediment control plans. Use of appropriate BMPs during construction and the stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping following construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During site construction, for a future project, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance. Additionally, a future project may create exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion and occupancy of a future project, construction air emissions may occur, exhaust machinery and vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? None known. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: AH future site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air (SRCAA), construction related requirements. Future tenants may require additional review through SRCAA. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site is in a Flood plain, see exhibit 4, which may be mitigated so the SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of 18 Spokane w�K_ Valley. property can be buildable. Chester Creek a seasonal streambed is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. i 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, .although this is a non -project section Chester Creek does lie within 200 -feet of the subject site. Future projects will need to take this into consideration. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. Indicate the source of fill material.To be determined at time of flood zone mitigation, if at all possible. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? Yes. If so, note location on the site plan. See exhibit 7. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the SRSM. All future runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before discharged. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Yes. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. As noted previously, a future project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane and any other affected agencies. PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of 18 Spokane Valley 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.There will be no water material discharged into the ground from septic tanks. . c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? The source of runoff from this site after completion of design for this propery, will be from the constructed elements of the design. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas to treat and discharge the treated stormwater (as required by the SRSM) to the underlying soils, via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. Will this water flow into other waters? No. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. Runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before entering ground water. The site does not contribute to any surface waters. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As noted previously, the project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during design and as approved by the City. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of 18 Spokane Valley. grass n pasture El crop or grain n wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other n water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? CMU projects usually take up a large amount of space. Most of the vegetation may be removed. The seaonal streambed may be mitigated allowing for more vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: With on proposed project at this time, measures to preserve or enhance vegetaion is unknown. The seasonal streambed would be the best place to mitigate. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ® birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ® mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. SEPA CHECKLIST c. Is the site part of a migration route? Yes If so, explain.The area is listed as Rocky Mountain Elk habitate, but the site is surrounded by homes and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required to create a project consistenant with this designation, see exhibit 6. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 9 of 18 Spokane Valley Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:With no proposed project, the measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is unknown. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used by future site-specific projects for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind and other sources of power would be available for future projects. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The future construction of a CMU site should not affect solar energy on adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Final budding plans shall demonstrate compliance with the commercial provisions of the Washington State Energy Code (WSEC). 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?Unknown. If so, describeOnce a project specific plan is developed a new SEPA will need to be completed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply, at this time as this is a non - project section. b. Noise SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 18 Spokane Valley. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Typical noises associated with the Railroad Track: train whistles and the sounds of the train cars traveling past the site, with collector street traffic, commercial uses, and residentail uses adjacent or nearby. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For a future CMU project, short term noises from construction would be anticipated. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with CMU areas. Future construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Future construction restricted to hours allowed by City code. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The subject site is currently undeveloped. b. The property to the north is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and further north is Corridor Mixed Use mini storage. The property to the east is a single family lot with the north portion currently vacant, which is the portion of land adjacent to the subject site. c. The properties to the south and west are approximatly 1/3 of an acre single family homes and a vacant lot to the northwest of the subject site which is owner by City of Spokane Valley. d. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are on the site. f. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of 18 Spoka ne ValleyK g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2, Single -Family Residential ( , f SEPA CHECKLIST h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CMU Corridor Mixed Use. i. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?Unknown. j. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?Yes If so, specify.Aquifer Sensitive Area, flood plain, Chester Creek floodwater and Elk migration route. k. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is unkown at this time with not project selected. I. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A n. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Develop to applicable zoning code development standards at time of specific project development. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Unkown at this time. PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of 18 CIT' oe Spokane Valley c. Proposed measures to any:Unknown at this time. 10). Aesthetics a. reduce or control housing impacts, if What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35 feet. Future project exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane region . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Yes, views will be altered by future development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Final site and building plans shall be developed cohesive with related design standards of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code, 2 stories with marketable attributes. 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? Unknown What time of day would it mainly occur? The subject site will be illuminated at night consistent with the City of Spokane Valley zoning codes and standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Yes, ambient light affect. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? Exterior lights from the adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area and Train lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See comment to 11a. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 18 Spokane Valley 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing bike lane running south on Bowdish and at the the intersection of Bowdish and Sands, turns onto Sands Road. There are 2 public parks within 1 mile of the site, Castle Park and Brown's Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? None anticipated. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No If so, generally describe. None identified by WISAARD search. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, other than those requird by City of Spokane Valley Code, Washington State, and/or Federal Law. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Dishman Mica Road; Bowdish Road and . Sands Road. There are no plans at this time Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Spokane Transit Route 97, 0.80 miles to the north at the intersection of Bowdish Road and 32nd Avenue. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 18 Spokane Valley c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Unknown. How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? There may be upgrades to Bowdish Road. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Unknown at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? None anticipated If so, generally describe. Existing Union Pacific Railroad line. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? See the attached Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is anticipated to generate 845 average daily trips. The project is anticipated to generate 14 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. These rates were developed from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time as they are project specific impacts. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Unknown. If so, generally describe. Unknown at this time. SEPA CHECKLIST b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Unknown at this time. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ® electricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ® sanitary sewer, C septic system, ® other - describecable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the PL -22 V1.0 Page 15 of 18 Spokane Valley. immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities are known at this time to be service providers adjacent to or within the immediate area. 1. Avista — Gas 2. Avista/ — Electricity 3. CenturyLink — Telephone 4. Comcast / Other — Cable TV 5. Spokane County Utilities — Sewer 6. Consolidated Water District #19 — Water SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 1 ^i D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes, as the current site is undeveloped, development will increase stormwater runoff, vehicle emissions and site related noise, however, the allowed uses will be restricted on to produce, store or release toxic/hazardous substances. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Through cordination, CC&R's and proper site management. PL -22 V1.0 Page 16 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The future site will be graded, which will remove plants. There are no fish or marine life onsite. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The grading will remove most if not all plant material on the site. The stream bed should be mitigated to a more healthy condition. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This site will not likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The owner will use Energy Star equipment and has the option to use wind or solar energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodpiains, or prime farmlands? The site is surrounded by homes and businesses and by mitigating the existing stream bed will more likely than not have game birds on that portion of the property. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation of the stream bed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no existing plans as of yet for this property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The Corridor Mixed Use is unknown at this time. There are utilities on or close to the site. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures at this time. PL -22V1.0 Page 17of18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any project on this site must follow local, state and fenderal laws for the prtection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t 's check Date: to/ -74//7 Please print or type: Proponent: c14,ff?,& 6) Yds (14h e Address: i�'J A - '�-ct%�IV dr ,26/2 5(40, V� ?log, Phone: /7 Signatur Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22V1.0 Page 18of18 EXHIBIT 10 A Mary Moore From: Richard Bravinder <yoandme2@msn.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:32 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Bowdish and Sundown Zoning Changes We are writing to protest the proposed zoning change and possible development at the intersection of Bowdish and Sundown in Spokane Valley AKA Sundown Sands Development. This proposed change appears to have bee ramrodded thru the system with no consideration for the people who will be most affected by it. From the homeowners who's land sits adjacent to the proposed rezone and were told that there would be no development in the area, to the local residents who have bought into the area because of the type of lifestyle they sought and found, to the future sellers and buyers who's property values will be negatively impacted, and the neighborhood standards both aesthetic and financial, all of these are the losers. It is difficult to understand how a development can be built on an area that is adjacent to and part of a flood prone area, a creek runoff that often floods across the roads and is so out of sync with the community and neighborhood style. There is an enormous traffic congestion problem in this area already especially when it comes to emergency evacuation issues such as the fire storms we have experienced and the increased traffic that will occur from the upcoming Harvest Center expansion. This proposed development will only lead to further congestion problems with the potential for death and/or injury to people seeking safety. The voters of the Valley recently changed the makeup of our city council with the intent to have people on it who were more concerned about the residents than developer dollars. This will be their first opportunity to show we the voters how you our represenativities respect our desires. We urge you to honor our faith in you and reject this zoning change. Respectively: Mr. & Mrs. R. W. Bravinder 4115 S. Sunderland Dr. Spokane Valley 1 Mary Moore From: Cindy Gleesing <j.gleesing@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:34 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Ponderosa project I am writing to complain about the proposed Bowdish and East Sands Rd project in the Ponderosa area. This project should not take place. Zoning should NOT be changed. This project would cause a huge impact to our neighborhood. Our road system can not handle this project!!! Property values would decline. The impact to our neighborhood and quality of life would be substantial. Do not allow this to happen. Cindy Gleesing 4225 S Bowdish Rd Sent from my iPhone Mary Moore From: Maleah Garn <MaleahGarn@msn.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018.9:05 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Mr. Palaniuk, I am emailing concerning the changing of the plot of land from residential to corridor mixed use. I am concerned about the area any way, it seems to flood every year. If this land changes from residential to corridor mixed use the price value on houses in the area will go down, where we all just got notified that they went up this last year that seems to send mixed messages to us home owners. Please think twice before letting this happen. That corner is already a little wonky and then to put in more traffic for commercial businesses or apartments it could be very dangerous. I just wanted to voice my concern for this as I am unable to attend the public hearing on the 22nd. Thanks for reading my email. Maleah Christensen 1 Mary Moore From: avasmommy19@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:22 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and sundown To whom it may concern, I am writing in hopes that myself, and many more in my neighborhood can shed some light on this devastating proposal to develop this land. To be completely honest I was opposed to even building the new houses that are now there because of the wildlife and the enormous flooding issues we already have on that Targe piece of land. Our neighborhood is clean, safe and beautiful and I cannot express how much I oppose ANY sort of commercial building OR apartments. Our school ponderosa elementary is already crowded enough. Not to mention how much traffic and potential crime this will add to our area. 1 don't care how "nice" or "upscale" apartment complexes can be there is always crime. We have had three major for storms in the ponderosa, this also poses a safety concern for us as building any new apartments will make it harder for any of us to get out since there could potentially new building on a main access road. We only have TWO of those to get in and out of ponderosa. I am not willing to let Mr. Crapo's greediness affect the safety of my family all because he wants to develop land that shouldn't be developed in the first place. WE as a community will not stand for it. The wildlife and flooding issues is also a huge concern. This land needs to remained untouched from any new potential buildings. For the safety of our community and the wildlife as well. Thank you, Holly and Kreg Woodbridge Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Scott H <scotteye74@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 6:35 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Re: CPA- 2018-0003 Thank you for sending this to me. I see there is a traffic study done. But can I ask what, if anything is being done to address access to the Ponderosa neighborhood? Currently there are only two access points to serve the area. Does the city have any plans to limit development until such time as more access is provided? Are there currently any limits are in place? Can you please advise me where to look in the SVMC to find out where traffic volumes are addressed for this area. I do plan to create a letter stating my disapproval of this plan but I would like to have as much information as I can prior to doing so. When does the comment period end? In the narrative on page 4, Item a, under "The following provision of the development codes allows for the proposal" it states that there is a plan in place by the city to amend the current comprehensive plan and change the parcel to CMU anyway. Can I please get a copy and or link to that map? If the city plans to amend this anyway does that mean that it may be rejected now then the City is going to change it anyway and there is nothing we can do about it? I see LUG goals and LUP goals often referenced can you also advise me as to where these are located? Thank you, Scott Henderson 10115 E 48th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 If my professional signature is attached to the previous email and either email will become part of the record please remove the LandTek signature and add it as shown above. This is for me personally, LandTek LLC is not involved. I have switched to my personal email for further inquiries. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> wrote: Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 F: (509)926-276 Forwarded message From: Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org> Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:22 AM Subject: RE: CPA- 2018-0003 To: Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> Cc: Carrie Koudelka <coudelka@spokanevalley.org> Scott, 1 There has not been a specific proposal for this site. Should the request to rezone be approved then any of the uses in the CMU zone would be permitted. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the application documents. I am in the process of developing the staff report. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the proposal February 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM at the Spokane Valley City Hall. I would encourage you to submit written comments. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Marty Martin Palaniuk I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue ( Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5031 1mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org lne Valley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Scott Henderson[mailto:shenderson@landteksurveyors.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org> Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Hey Marty, First off this is for me personally, and is not work related at all. I live up in this neighborhood so I am just a concerned citizen. Can you forward me any public information on this project CPA -2018-003 (Bowdish and Sundown). I am curious what/how this project is being proposed. I will likely be one of the many that dislikes the idea of apartments and/or rezone here. Thank you for your time, Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 2 F: (509)926-2736 3 Mary Moore From: Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Hey Marty, First off this is for me personally, and is not work related at all. I live up in this neighborhood so I am just a concerned citizen. Can you forward me any public information on this project CPA -2018-003 (Bowdish and Sundown). I am curious what/how this project is being proposed. I will likely be one of the many that dislikes the idea of apartments and/or rezone here. Thank you for your time, Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 F: (509)926-2736 1 Mary Moore From: Heidi <htaylor1013@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 3:24 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and Sands Rd Parcel Change Request City Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave RE: CPA -2018-003 Dear City of Spokane Valley, This letter is to express objection to file number: CPA -2018-003, located at Bowdish and Sundown to change the parcel from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. It has been a dream of mine to live in Ponderosa since I was a child. That dream came true the summer of 2017 and I move my family and two children to Ponderosa. I have always felt that Ponderosa is a great place to raise a family, due to the excellent schools, neighborhood support/involvement and low traffic area. The request to change this parcel to Corridor Mixed Use would be detrimental to the City of Spokane Valley, specifically the Ponderosa, for the following reasons: Schools are already overcrowded. The current ballot is asking us to vote yes to building another high school. Currently the high schools are 1,100 students past capacity. We cannot guarantee that voters will vote yes, thus not solving the overcrowding problem, which is both unproductive and a safety concern. If Diamond Rock is allowed to build on this property and condos/apartments are put here, that means a mass amounts of residents and many with children, adding to the school overcrowding. Diamond Rock already has made their mark on Ponderosa, across from Redeemer Lutheran on Schafer Road. These condo/apartments have been added to the apartment -free Ponderosa area. To add another one intersection over, is unnecessary and irresponsible. If this parcel allowed to be changed to Corridor Mixed Use, the potential of petty crimes/theft increases. There are often petty thefts in the area of Ferret Drive and Coleman, in Ponderosa. Multiple dwelling residences, will increase the population in this area, subjecting our community to crime/theft against our protest. Resale value of the homes in this area will decrease for all in this area. The poor homeowners who recently purchased homes on the block of Sundown and Bowdish would have terrible value. 1 have heard from many that they were promised that the area behind their home was "protected" and "would never be built upon". Our Fire District insurance coverage would increase due to multiple residential dwellings. The above are just a few issues that changing the parcel located at Bowdish and Sundown from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use would cause. Please take our concerns into consideration and deny the request of change. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Concerned Ponderosa Family Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Mary Moore From: Darby Jacobs <darby@jacobspatio.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:02 AM To: Lori Barlow Lori, My Name is Darby Jacobs, My wife Connie and I live at the corner of 48th and Skipworth, we really think there should not be development at the corner of Sundown and Bowdish, besides it being a wetlands, the traffic in the area couldn't handle it, there are only 2 roads out of the ponderosa, Shaffer and Bowdish, if there is an emergency [forest fire] those 2 road could hardly handle the traffic that would have to come out of it with the homes up there now, much less adding a whole new apartment or multifamily homes to it. Hope you chose wisely, Darby Jacobs Jacobs Custom Living 16023 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 99037 509-926-4230 509-924-3916 fax www. jacobscustomlivinz com 1 Mary Moore From: Kay Boger <kboger08@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:00 PM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Jerald Boger Subject: Parcel number_45333.1807 Hello Ms. Barlow, I am concerned about the change in plans to Commercial mixed use for this area. Since the houses have been built and water has been diverted, the small creek running next to the railroad tracks rises to the rail. Could you please send me the link for the proposed development? Sincerely, Kay Boger 509.994.4283 kboger08@gmail.com 1 Mary Moore From: Keith <klmcos@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:43 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Diamond Rock Zone Change and Development- Bowdish and Sands Rd Area. Lori, Why are developers allowed to continually overdevelop areas with mass housing such as condos and apartments? We home owners move into areas free of such developments. With more traffic congestion and increased potential for crime, as it usually happens with lower income housing, what benefits are us home owners who live in the area gaining? I am referring to the zone change and development happening by Diamond Rock in the Bowdish and Sands Rd area. I oppose this development and will be at the meetings. Thanks Keith Have a Great Day! 1 Mary Moore From: Molly Kinghorn <mkkinghorn@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Building in Dishman Mica - Bowdish Area Please do not approve the re -zoning of land at Sundown and Bowdish near Dishman-Mica. This area is already being targeted for too much commercial and apartment buildings. The increase of traffic will be awful and the impact to already crowded schools needs to be addressed. Apartments were just finished up next to Albertsons on 32nd. A huge apartment project is planned for the prior Painted Hills golf course. Barney's on Dishman-Mica is planning multiple retail buildings. Please consider keeping this area of our neighborhood as single family lots. The Chester creek also can't be ignored. It is dry a portion of the year, but has a lot of water at this time of year. We shouldn't keep trying to push this water elsewhere - such as into homeowners basements. Please don't re -zone this land. Molly Kinghorn 4041 S Ridgeview Dr Spokane Valley WA 99206 1 Mary Moore From: Patrick <ptmiller1619@netscape.net> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:57 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Land use change on sands road We currently live in the ponderosa area and have recently been informed that a five acre parcel on sand rd. is being reviewed for land use changes. We would love to see the acreage stay zoned as R-2 and not CMU. Rezoning this property is unnecessary and will be very damaging to our home values. Looking at the project size and how much traffic this will create. Their is no way that sands intersection and Bowdish rd before the bridge crossing the creek can handle the traffic increase. We have many commercial Tots available for purchase on Dishman mica near Chester store and harvest food that can be developed for small community businesses. Please don't allow this changed in land use to be approved. The Miller's Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Lori Barlow Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:56 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Land use change on sands road Please include in the PC packet. Thanks - Lori Lori Barlow, AICP City of Spokane Valley (509)720-5335 Original Message From: Patrick[mailto:ptmiller1619@netscape.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:57 AM To: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Land use change on sands road We currently live in the ponderosa area and have recently been informed that a five acre parcel on sand rd. is being reviewed for land use changes. We would love to see the acreage stay zoned as R-2 and not CMU. Rezoning this property is unnecessary and will be very damaging to our home values. Looking at the project size and how much traffic this will create. Their is no way that sands intersection and Bowdish rd before the bridge crossing the creek can handle the traffic increase. We have many commercial lots available for purchase on Dishman mica near Chester store and harvest food that can be developed for small community businesses. Please don't allow this changed in land use to be approved. The Miller's Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Mike Reents <Mike.Reents@nationalbeef.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:17 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA -2018-003 Hi Marty, Thank you for your time today on the phone and explaining to me the change in zoning. My wife and I just bought our home in the neighborhood this summer, had I known the owner of the property behind me was going to ask for the change in zoning I would have never purchased the property. The dirt road put in this summer does not allow for drainage from my property which worries me. I am also concerned about too much traffic, devaluation of my property values, overcrowding of the schools, increased crime rates, noise levels, and lack of privacy as this would be built in my back yard. Thanks, Mike Reents Field Marketing Manager National Beef Mobile: (509) 499-5129 Fax(509) 922-6462 Toll Free:1-800-449-2333 (8712) National Beef Packing Company LLC 12200 North Ambassador Drive, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64163 1 Mary Moore From: RICHARD SCHULTZ <rschultz2006@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:16 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: SVMC 19.70.050 Bowdish & East Sands Project in the Ponderosa area I have lived in the Ponderosa area for 26 years . This area has been under water all most every year I have lived here. I believe that rezoning this area to commercial is not fair to our community and to the people that would purchase unknowingly in this area and be flooded out. The Maps and Photos presented at the meeting on Feburary 8th were not up to date and deceiving to some one that is not familiar to this area. The Photos presented were before the 5 houses were built. this is deceiving. this is not an honest indication of this area today. I am against rezoning this area for commercial use. Thank You Richard Schultz Mary Moore From: colleen s <clb2653@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:20 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: proposed building at bowdish and sundown Dear Sir I am writing to voice my opposition to this proposed build site. The zoning definitely should not be changed from residential to corridor mixed. Too many families will be affected by this change. It is also along a creek that has seasonal flooding. Please consider the people that live in this area, we chose these neighborhoods because of how family oriented they are. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Sincerely Colleen Shubin Spokane Valley resident 1 Mary Moore From: Tami Perrin <tamiperrin@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:47 PM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk; Planning Subject: CPA 208-0003 To Mr. Barlow, Mr. Palaniuk and Commissioners, am very concerned about the proposed zone changes in the Ponderosa neighborhood. This is not a good or safe place to put apartments or businesses. That area can get congested from trains that are right next to the land. There are only a couple roads in and out of the Ponderosa, so this would cause a concern for safety as well. Dennis Crapo has built the houses that are also on that land and promised them that they would not put anything behind them. This would lower their values of their new homes, and I feel it's very dishonest of Dennis to do this. Another concern I have is for the schools' capacities. Chester Elementary was just remodeled and they already ran out of room for their kindergartners so Ponderosa Elementary is housing all their kindergarten classes. Our new school would not have room for another apartment complex of families along with the current growth, and we would have overcrowding again. Horizon Middle school is overcrowded as well and would be the middle school for that area. Please take the time to go out and see this area so you can understand the issues that are not being presented by Diamond Rock construction as they have already presented maps that were outdated to not show the current houses on that land. I am not opposed to growth and building. We are excited to see Barney's plan to add more businesses, on their land, that are in the appropriate place, with great traffic flow, and will not decrease the value of the neighborhood. That is the right way to do things. Thanks for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, Tamara Perrin 1 Mary Moore From: avasmommy19@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 6:07 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Proposal to build on sundown and bowdish To whom it may concern, I am writing in hopes that myself, and many more in my neighborhood can shed some light on this devastating proposal to develop this land. To be completely honest I was opposed to even building the new houses that are now there because of the wildlife and the enormous flossing issues we already have on that large piece of land. Our neighborhood is clean, safe and beautiful and I cannot express how much I looked ANY sort of commercial building OR apartments. Our school ponderosa elementary is already crowded enough. Not to mention how much traffic and potential crime this will add to our area. I don't care how "nice" or "upscale" apartment complexes can be there is always crime. And WE as a community will not stand for it. The wildlife and flooding issues is also a huge concern. This land needs to remained untouched from any new potential buildings. For the safety of our community and the wildlife as well. Thank you, Holly and Kreg Woodbridge Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Jenny <j_lundberg@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:12 AM To: Martin Palaniuk; Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and Sundown Hello, I live at 4003 S Forest Meadow, and I just want to send this email to express my concerns for the land being built on at Sundown and Forest Meadow. That entire area floods every year, so I'm not even sure how those homes were approved to be built. Since those homes were built, we have even worse flooding behind our house from the creek. I looked into getting flood insurance to prepare for these new homes and the possible Painted Hills development, and was told there is nothing I can do since I am not in a flood zone. If my home floods after these developments, I will not be covered. How is this not an issue? The water needs to go somewhere if it can't flood on that FLOOD PLAIN anymore at Bowdish and Sundown. Traffic on the corner of Sundown and Bowdish is already horrible. It's a high traffic area and people that tend to speed. There are always walkers in that area too, so I can see this creating all sorts of issues. Where is our wildlife going to go if you continue taking away their habitat? I see deer and moose in that field often. It's a shame someone would consider taking that away. We moved to this area for the wildlife and nature. Traffic on Dishman Mica will be impacted from this, as well as fire evacuations from Ponderosa. This is not okay! Our schools are already overcrowded. Ponderosa was created to have homes on bigger lots, not homes on top of each other or multi unit housing. Also, we feel like our house values will go down. Please do not allow this to go through. Thank you, Jenny Yake and Ed Yake Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone i EXHIBIT 10 B Mary Moore From: cctlbuech <cctlbuech@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:59 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Development in Ponderosa Dear Mr. Palaniuk; Many in our neighbor strongly oppose the proposed building on the corner of Bowdish and Sundown in the neighborhood of Ponderosa. Also known as project number CPA 2018-2003. Applicants Dennis and Melissa Crappo. As our neighborhood of single family homes continues to grow traffic at our two entrances are already having a negative effect. Any development at this location effectively blocks 1 of the entrances. As this neighborhood has a history of catastrophic fires with subsequent evacuation of the neighborhood blocking one of our only two entrances will place all who live here at risk. This property completed flooded last year during spring thaw when Chester creek overflowed its banks and covered Bowdish and the railroad tracks. Increased crime and increasing the population will continue to erode the quality of our already maxed out elementary school. These are all reasons that any development on this site should not be allowed. There are few neighborhoods left in Spokane Valley that have not seen multi -family homes shoe -horned into whatever available real estate is left. Statistics prove out that communities that have a higher percentage of multi -family units vs single family homes also have increased crime and transient population. We need to look ahead at what our true priorities for the city of Spokane Valley are. A cohesive, positive COMMUNITY that is a safe place to raise our children and grandchildren or a crime ridden, high density, overpopulated, burdened schools providing substandard education, with too much traffic? Not the future those of us with a true vision for our community want to see. Please say no to any development on this property. Thank you Cynthia Becklund 10522 East Ferret Dr Spokane Valley Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S7. 1 Mary Moore From: Kathy Catalano <KathyC@witherspoonkelley.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: RE: Reference CPA -2018-0003 I am writing in support of all the Spokane Valley residents who are fighting Diamond Rock Construction on his zoning changes, excessive building, etc. Diamond Rock is encroaching on homeowners' enjoyment of their homes by literally building apartments/duplexes in their backyards. I know this for a fact as he has already done it to me (side of my house), and is literally doing it again (behind my house). So now the lovely view I once was able to enjoy is now gone and I get to stare at duplexes and traffic up and down the street and semi -trucks literally on the side of my house because they have nowhere else to park. This company and its owner Dennis Crapo needs to stop. He is ruining the close knit neighborhoods we maintain in the Valley and should not be permitted to make the Valley literally an apartment complex. I will be attending the meeting this evening (it's my understanding there is a city council meeting). I must say, individuals that are speaking of this meeting and our council are quite unimpressed with the council it seems and feel that the citizens of Spokane Valley go unheard. Kathy Catalano Word Processor 1 Witherspoon • Kelley KathyC(c�witherspoonkelley.com 1 vCard 422 W. Riverside Ave, Ste 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-5265 (office) (509) 458-2728 (fax) witherspoonkelley.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and nay be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient. unauthorized use. disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error. please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all nopies from your system. Thank you. 1 Mary Moore From: Jill Collier <jill_gir102@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:30 PM To: Planning; Martin Palaniuk Subject: Sundown and Bowdish zone change Dear Commissioners and Mr. Palaniuk, My name is Jill Collier and I am writing in response to the proposed zone change to the parcel on Sundown and Bowdish from single family residence to CMU. My property overlooks the parcel in question and I am opposed in the strongest of ways to this proposed change. The Ponderosa neighborhood is one that is known for its rural and more secluded feel. A CMU land designation would go completely against the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Aside from the increased noise, traffic and general disturbances to the neighborhood commercial businesses and multi -family housing brings to a neighborhood, the residents in close proximity would no doubt see a decrease in property value as well as decrease in quality of life in our peaceful neighborhood. It is misleading of the petitioner to imply a CMU would fit the nature of the neighborhood because there are similar nearby zone designations when in reality the neighborhood is set back away from commercial properties and the surrounding businesses we do have are small, locally owned businesses with minimal sound or traffic impact. The entrance to the property is also located on a stretch of Bowdish road that is not as busy an arterial as the more northern stretch of road would imply. Again, this area is protected and set back into a single family home neighborhood, divided by railroad tracks, trees and the Chester Creek. My greatest concern for the zone change is the precedent that would be set for the rest of the neighborhood. Having a CMU located within an R2 with considerably sized lots sets the precedence to divide up other larger parcels changing the entire feel of the neighborhood. Sadly, the owner of the parcel in question has already given us the residents a glimpse of what a CMU would feel like when he utilized this property as a private landfill over the last 2 summers. Our neighborhood was filled with a horrid stench as day after day landscaping trucks and trailers would dump Targe loads of garbage and compost onto this property. This broken trust leads me to believe should the city approve the zone change, our neighborhood will be doomed to more encroachment of unwanted activity and inappropriate build up. When the planning commission revised the comprehensive plan last year, there seemed to be a sense of importance on preserving neighborhoods while allowing for expansion of private properties in more fitting areas along major corridors. I believes strongly, this zone change would go against the intentions and hard work of balancing growth and families that the commission has diligently set forth. Thank you all for your time and service and please do not allow the zone change. Sincerely, Jill Collier 1 To: Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department RFC: i_ FEB 2 o 2018 SPOKANE VALLE? COMMUNITY DEVELOPri -• In regards to the Re -zoning of the panel of land shown in the enclosed notice. am a long time resident of the Ponderal neighborhood and have great concerns of the re -zoning of this property, to mixed use from a low density residential use. This land was once designated as a wet lands, and was changed to residential use. Since then (6) new homes were built, and this last parcel was designated to have ane single residence built. The owners have been bringing in fill dirt for a couple of years, but the land is still lower than the creek bottom which borders the property. If the bank of the creek should fail, or if the creek should be blocked up and cause an overflow this land would be 10` to 15' below water_ 1s there a variance of how close anything can be developed next to the creek? Street access is another big issue. Where this property would have access is in a very busy intersection and visibility to any an coming traffic would surely cause accidents to happen. Finally I would ask that you keep our Ponderosa neighborhood strictly a "Residential Area" and this parcel of land be used as such. Concerned resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood. COMM JNITY &PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CI1 ti C1F BUILDING & PLANNING DIVisior1 kane elle IOT10E OF PUBLIC HEARING 107.10 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,720.5240 • Fax: 509.7205075 • planningcspokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 201$ Pursuant to Spokane Valley ME,aicipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hca ring Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-1003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Pian Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Rcsidertti rl (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning classification. Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'fa of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s); Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 26, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palatiiuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 malan't s rrkneuallev.orrr Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 request to the Spokane Valley City Council. NOTICE Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, bearing, cir other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible: so that arrangements :nay be made. A staff report will be available for inspection severs (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Worts Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:04 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comr-ehense Land Use DesHHlation 415 Project Site . nuarjr 31 2018 Zoning N MF 'MU R1 NC 1 SPO<.=,rIE 1/ALLEY cor.1r.iu Nrry 'It LC=°.it li R2 MU R3 CMU r POS RCr��. RECEIVED FEB 2 0 20181 1:4 5144 t t-- o 5 KM &man: er. Citra18Y, ihee E7ircb? KAscra Rtt% CMS.Avrt.= C;3. ulas& r* - Sri C ' 114 Mary Moore From: Dan Williams <ffdwilliams@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:15 PM To: Martin Palaniuk; Lori Barlow Subject: CPA -2018-003 Attachments: 11401 E. Sundown Drive.docx; 11401 E. Sundown drive diagram.pdf Letter attached concerning the re -zoning of the land behind address 11401 E. Sundown drive. Thank you, Dan Williams To whom it may concern: My name is Dan Williams. My wife and I purchased a home at 11401 E Sundown Dr. on February 3. The next day a sign was posted for a SEPA determination and notice of public hearing comprehensive plan amendment to rezone the area behind our home from single family residential to corridor mixed use. My understanding of this is that rather than a home being built, the builder wants to place either apartments or some other form of commercial structure in this area. I have a few concerns with this. First is that during the purchase of our home we were informed by the builder's realtor that they could not build directly behind us as it was zoned as wetland. With this in mind, my wife and I agreed to purchase this home knowing that information. I understand that this is hear say as all's have is a diagram that was both shown to us during an open house and then again later via email. My next concern even though my family is new to the community is the access to these said apartments will only have one route, off of Bowdish. In the event of potential flooding or a fire how are these multiple units supposed to evacuate? I wanted to let you know in writing that my wife and I will be very displeased if the City of Spokane Valley chooses to approve this re -zoning. My wife plans to attend the meeting held tonight February 22nd to voice her concerns, I am unable to attend because I am working. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you for your time. I have sent an attachment of the diagram that was shown to us when we attended an open house. Dan Williams 509-954-2926 ffdwilliams@gmail.com m D o 0 ID D) g, O 0 O Cr N N O NO O X 0O x P oo 0 o r o O FDrt p (D O (D O 6 N W O y CO 3 ib :-nco co k4 0 •• 4 o -O - o iI 0 • (D so ac O a o < (0 co • 0) (D CD m s 5- (.0 iOq tJ IIaM Pao- gP' (0 —wo a9. ( 011 o P.- co o : 1 • rn o CA • CO01 y, to 0 01-Pw mm CD 01 ago or • G) N 0 N rt -0 C MI • a0 'O j CD II o ((DD 0 O • O CD o. CD 5 11 0, N inm 0 (D O N 0 D II rn N N 0 a 514,b ec--- ero p COO 3I c %( o- 1 S. Ili I 1 1 i I 11 I. DIAMONb•� fOCK CONS T f iCTION (509)924-8964 11401 E. Sundown Dr. Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206 Lot 6, SHP-09-10 w w 0 28'6" Elevations / b e a a D m 0 CO S. 0 0 N O. eL 'n 0 O'0 - CD CDw m m = .6.N 63. _ro O (D 0' a O Q • ro O N O Q 0> ro CD O N V c0 ,v m 0 0 S OLfl W IIaM peoeig 5. m ID m — 0 j O •• @ Q O 71 0) 0 0 O N :1 co Orh V 03 —1 4. `''6r5 r 244 51/6•%1131001.3 rope -4m et by of tool 41.0 6 4.1 5' 5'S• 5'31 Y TO 05 NI2¢b 11- 6505)2510 7650942610 Nom Above Transom Above 061 Ges PYepisee a 0 554 34• 6 P 3 244 Post 6' 51f6•%916L3 9 9 ---114-3-6 4-6'•31116 5 113.1%15 1/21 61.53 y PN51tW0, Top ofFlux Joists i u 5 100014 el 1 ! 4 a loom pumas 4T.6• 30,1551.50 10 TamAb e 3 it 25 m 1 150509 4 34 1521. F 5. ore Y 6 6' ib' 5 55'4 1 W SCALE: 1 1/8" = 1' Q1 � ./'u-, i'1 OI�`lW� �. OCK 11401 E. Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206 First & Second Floor a CONS MICTION Plans LI (5O9) 92[4-8964 Lot 6, SHP-09-10 ••••••••,.• • •••••*..., • -'•-•••:•:.. „ • • • 2 .1•,.•••••••• • ••. • \ Nps.„.•%•""\o'N• (A. Cvl • -•-• • • . • ••••. .,. ........ s......,, . . ..,.. i ......., `,FS....:,... .,. . ,. 4.,,,.. • .... .. ' ...',:'2:::".:•- ,.. .....:?............ / COSTING NON I ..-••••:••Zi*, N.W. 1/4 SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 25N., RANGE 44E., W.I EASING/PROPOSED FLOODWAY • - • •.• \ • • • • 01110•00... FOR FULL LEGEND SEE SHEET C0.0 / •'`,••`..,11.". 7 nil) EAL 1. 1 • N \ • • • • • .C) • Ye.S • • It • • • • \*•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY UNE ' •LDALTS OF PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • EXISTINCTOP..CFPAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • DOSILNG STORM CULVERT AS SNOW . PROPOSED STORM CULVERT 02.990149 DLISTING STORM DRAINAGE CATCH BASIN • • ‹. „r***:, • 0 • •-:•••• DONE • °WI ® COiLSTRI ®EXTEND 0 FRONDE • • • • \ •••• •••••-.. '11.•:;,:. ....._ .... ,-...:-.II•Es-z-r, ,.&,..kz,,..1..„ ••:,-,z;-.;4:-..!••-1/4-4,-.. -7L-- •'•••., '.\-\:•'z"..1.,-; '''''‘•• . . • , N.', '`.....1. '•••• • ' N....N. ':::ii 11 .-.1..t . / 1 i 1 . .. I . V s ' • ' 1111I . --'TI 1. \ IN 1/ " • • . • • • • • •\ • • • • • • •• EXISTING' 100 YR • • F1090j1AI9 \ . • :‘,„. • LOT • 1 • 1 • t '1 / f• • ( / PROPOSED 10d Yrt 1 7 0 / • FLOOD PLAIN / / 1 4'• • • / l'or.f / 43 / 1 4 .....-2005-- . .....____ .. “, ZIP -4 ,..........,==2akl . 0 VI , s...., , • • -, .,..._, . • , ,,,‘,1% e • ;,,,c,, f • , ...,„ oo, \ ?---'1•• • ”- - - \ • \ 1 I \ \ i I • • \ . i I • •1.„. • , • . • • I I • • L.--1 \ . . 7').•••-• • • ' . \ • . \ \• • \ • • • • -, • • L. I •...1 1 • I , • ti .-11.1.-- ••., 1 I 1. ' ' , • • 1 • • . 1 E. 1 1i1 9 • • \ / "A 1 C - , 1 i • 1F 2.. I / 7...IF'-k- • ). I 1‘ I• • I • • • C./ ix •.• . al tois/ •4\ — , aPogr 7.500 CY ---...... • ' \ • . ( \ \ , , , I \ STRUCTU FILL ,--...,.. _/ I l v \ , . 1 Ig.., 113O3 \\ [ .4. 11307 1 \.„ E. 11311 I, t. E. 11317. 1 E 11321 1 .E 11401) \ •LOT • 1 ..X,c:,),_ \ LOT \ ; LOT ..../..- ----.LPT, 1 LOT 2.0011.. • I.Fr....,,, :‘ 1 , <,,, \2 \ I , \3,„1_,_ „... 4 •••-„,‘ L ..... ?„..._ i ...........-7-0 . . \ ‘ - \ t • \ i f.— 1 1 .... !,-, -"------4:-. \ ,, :.. ,„../ \ • • \ I \ \ \ • • _1 1-1.....• \ --., , ., . 4 -r- 1 1 --. • : 57/ 1 ‘ \I . \ \ ‘1.41 .. .1 , j. ,tr 1 • • I .1 ' • :„:„ ., .71.091 ELIN____}.„,:•••"'-'11 lit ...--_.../ I '',..,. „ 1 -- - . ' ',1`........ • • t . /./ i' "•-........___±...........e.,/./,- - ...„ • . Iv,- t D .. I .„.;,111.s .. i_ ,..L./-.!_,„, • . N.....0`' 1 '," - -,-- laillliMANNIEBIOMI • --•••••-•s-_____-;...,\.. , --- ...t • •••,,- ..S. • -- SUIVIDcp.,----....-Z \ '4•1 . • . , :.. . . . • , . . '.. . 0 • .,,se r -t •t-ei. 1". : . ,.., SITE GRADING PLAN ' ' SCALE 1•••="40. • GRAPHIC SCALE. . • G F -so; • . • • • 1401 • REA . • • • • • 80 Sundawn D "� •� .4 g0 61 3.1523 3.1522 3.9163 5 First American 40 E. Spokane FaIPs Blvd Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: 609456.0550 Fax: 866.537..9602 Um. v in 41 17r1 X11 This map/plat Is being furnished as an ald in locating the herein described land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other land, and Is not a survey of the land depicted. Except to the extent a policy of title Insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the company does not Insure dimensions, distances, location of easements, acreage or other matters shown thereon. geoAdvantage Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:40 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Concerning Project Number CPA -2018-0003 Deanna From: Dar and Steve [mailto:darsteve@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:39 AM To: Planning Subject: Concerning Project Number CPA -2018-0003 To whom it may concern: We would like to add our names to the list of residents of the Ponderosa area, who are opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting the change from Low Density Residential to a Corridor Mixed - Use designation of Parcel number 4533.1807. Our concerns include; 1. Irreparable Damage to the Environment: The encroachment of buildings and roads into what is obviously a wet -land that should not be disturbed. This would have a negative impact upon wildlife and the over all esthetics of the Ponderosa area community. It would destroy the beauty of this area. 2. Noise and Light Pollution: The effect that a Corridor Mixed Use Designation, which would allow any number and kind of use of the parcel and the ensuing construction activity projects that will follow, is a very frightening prospects to Ponderosa residents. One of the many reasons we live in this area is the peace and quiet that it provides us. 3. Significant Increase in the Amount of Traffic: More businesses, construction and/or residential dwellings such as apartment complexes in the Corridor Mixed Use parcel, will only add to the traffic congestion on the already too -narrow Dishman-Mica Road and Ponderosa residential streets. For example, in the event of an emergency (such as a wildfire evacuation that has happened on more than one occasion) this increase in traffic will lead to an extremely dangerous situation! Too many cars and not enough escape routes in the event this should happen. Please hear our concern! This request for a change in zoning is a BAD idea and we are firmly opposed to it! We plead for the Spokane Valley City Council not to allow this to happen! Steve A. Zwicker G. Darlene Donoian/Zwicker 1 Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:39 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands Road Deanna From: STEVE & MELODY LUNDEN [mailto:slunden@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:27 PM To: Planning Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands Road Planning Commissioners and staff, oppose the amendment CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands,Road. I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed change in zoning. As a longtime resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood, since 1991, I have seen a variety of changes to our neighborhood, some positive and some negative. The change in zoning proposed for the parcel in questions is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the majority of the site is located within the floodplain. The new residences that were recently built had fill brought in to raise the elevation. The area in question was to provide for an area for the storm water from Sundown to drain via a blanket drainage easement. If the parcel is filled, that drainage area would be lost. Second, the request to change zoning is not consistent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan. Sufficient CMU acreage is available within the city limits as currently configured to provide for future growth. Additionally, the railroad right-of-way has been a dividing line or organic boundary between residential and commercial land use designations as referenced in the staff reports. This change would not be compatible with our neighborhood. There is no viable reason to change the zoning based on these two factors. Third, high density development would add substantially to the traffic that crosses the UP rail crossing in the morning where school buses must stop at the crossing. This would cause delays and impact to us as we travel to work. Traffic has been a considerable problem when evacuations are required due to wildfires. With only two public entrances and exits to the neighborhood, it is a problem. The third 1 chained access is only opened by the Fire Department and may not be available as it is secured via lock and chain in an emergency. To conclude, I would request that the change in zoning be rejected due to the flood plain, drainage, traffic and that, by the City's own report, the added CMU acreage is not needed. This would not fit in our neighborhood and would violate the natural boundary provided by the UP Railroad right-of-way between the Single Family Residential from Corridor Mixed Use. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, Steven M. Lunden 4221 S Hollow St. Spokane Valley WA 99206 2 Mary Moore From: Maleah Christensen <maleahgc@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:27 PM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk; Planning Subject: CPA 208-0003 To Ms. Barlow, Mr. Palaniuk, and Commissioners, As I am unable to attend the public meeting on February 22 concerning CPA208-0003; I thought I would send my thoughts and views in writing ahead of time. I am concerned with changing the zoning of single family to CMU in the Ponderosa neighborhood at Sundown and Bowdish Road. Changing it can bring in a lot of unwanted traffic. I bought a house adjacent to a Diamond Rock development that changed prior to our moving in. We didn't know that everyone who lived in those 24+ townhouses all had to drive past our home to get to their's. The sign at the end of the street says dead end, but really it isn't. I wish I had known before we bought our home how much traffic there would be. For the new homes just built in that same area, they were under the impression that there would be residential homes built there. If anything else goes there it will decrease their home value and views. Which is sad, when we were just notified this last summer that housing appraisals had gone up. In an emergency situation (fire or such) there are only two ways out of the Ponderosa area. To add more congestion on now both of these exits doesn't seem safe or prudent. Emergency crews will have a hard time getting to the incidents when everyone is trying to get a way from them. Along the lines of disasters, the area is known for its potential of flooding pretty much every year. That doesn't seem wise to make it worse with adding apartments or commercial businesses there. How are we to keep the water flowing away from existing homes if we pile up dirt in the wrong places and have more issues. I would am excited about what Barney's is trying to do with their property. I fully support more companies to come and bring revenue to the area, but not at the expense of tax payers and home owners. There are many places business can lease or own; there are plenty of apartment/duplexes that people can rent. What was hard for us was finding a home we could purchase and put down roots in the area. Changing this plot of land will continue to hinder families from be permanent community members. Temporary housing doesn't fix that problem. Please take the time to consider the impact this will have on the neighborhood and the community if you are to pass this, listen to the voice of your voters. Take the time to consider if you were one of those new houses how you would feel. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Sincerely, Maleah Christensen 1 Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:55 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Proposed Ponderosa zoning change Deanna Original Message From: ajmoglia@gmail.com [mailto:ajmoglia@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:07 PM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Proposed Ponderosa zoning change Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > Please add this to your list of letters fighting against: > cpa-2018-0003 We have lived in this area for 18 years and moved here because of its semi rural area, wildlife, quietness, and uniqueness of being a neighborhood yet space around us. > This zoning change would kill the natural wildlife habitat ( which is in a natural flood zone) crazy how an ordnance can change what is natural, safety of our neighborhood, increase in traffic and noise. > I encourage you to vote NO for this ordnance. > See you at the February 22nd meeting at 6pm. > Thanks for your time. > Joyfully, > Al and Marylou Moglia > 509-842-8112 > Sent from my iPad Mary Moore From: Lance Verity <Isvertandcompany@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:13 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Cc: ibarlow@spokanevalley.org Subject: Comments on CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: Runoff Weirsjpg; Traffic speeds evening jpg; Traffic speeds morning jpg; Vehicle view on south bound traffic Bowdish jpg; Weirs jpg Ref: CPA -2018-0003 General: Well here we are again, the Chester Drainage area is again under assault from a development squarely within its boundaries. Unnecessary developments within wetland/drainage areas are a terrible use of land. Infringing on these natural areas puts any structure in these areas at risk. CARA/ASA: Without a doubt every person within the Spokane Valley already knows about the wetlands within and around the proposed building area. Every vehicle that passes by this area via the Dishman-Mica Roadway, most assuredly sees the flooded fields and Chester creek. What they probably don't know is the function of this wetland and how it's connected to the Sole Source aquifer beneath them. These wetlands must be recognized as a structure unto themselves and how they function within the Chester Drainage area. Indeed this wetland must be considered as an extension of the Chester Drainage area. To keep the effective purpose of the wetlands (filtering and percolation) the size and location must be retained. Safe Practices: Unfortunately the individuals purchasing homes in this area will be at risk from potential flooding. Each year Spokane and Spokane_ Valley witnesses increasing water through runoff; mainly because of rain on snow events. Spokane has committed millions of dollars in retaining runoff in temporary storage (CSO) tanks. Grassy swales and dry wells are not significant replacements for the naturally developed drainage and wetlands of the Spokane Valley. If you think Spokane Valley doesn't have any such structure or will ever need it see attachments. Water will go where it wants; it follows the path of least resistance. Time is on its side. Reference attachments: 1. Weirs 2. Run off Weirs Traffic management for safety: The traffic into and out of the "Ponderosa" area has only two locations, through either the Bowdish/Dishman Mica intersection or the Schafer/ Dishman Mica intersection. If this development is completed, the entrance to the property will have to be utilizing South Bowdish road at the curve. The south bound traffic on Bowdish road will have a very limited time to respond to exiting vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. As shown on the attached overlaid satellite photos, evening speeds at this curve are approaching or equal to the speed of traffic on Bowdish/Dishman. The following scenario was formulated for a vehicle traveling 40 MPH during evening hours on Bowdish road; referencing attachment # 3. At 40 mph Travel time for 220ft = 3.75 sec 1 Reaction time = 1.5 sec Reaction distance = 88ft Vehicle stop distance =80ft Total reaction and vehicle stop distances = 168ft 220-168 = 52ft and 2.25 sec to spare. While most drivers are attentive and not impaired I am concerned about cell phones and the fact that on Feb 9th an attendant at Chester gas station and myself pushed a stalled vehicle off the tracks nearby. Whether the diver was impaired or what, I thought it was a very unsafe place to park at 6:50 in the morning. Reference attachments: 1. Traffic Speeds Morning 2. Traffic Speeds Evening 3. Vehicle view south bound Bowish Road Thank you, Lance Verity 710-6593 4222 South Hollow Str Spokane Valley lsvertandcompany@gmail.com 2 Mary Moore From: Sharee Tucker <sheeye7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:43 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Project for 7th & University Hello Martin, This is Sharee & Shawn Tucker and We are residents on 7th street. We oppose this initiative because it is a family neighborhood. On our street alone, there are at least 6+ houses with multiple children ranging from infancy to young teenagers. Our street is a safe pathway away from traffic for kids to wall< to school, therefor seeing many more children walking to and from school from 6th & 4th street, using our road. While kids are at school, I (Sharee) walk my toddlers with a group of women who also have babies/toddlers. If you have had kids, then you would know how attentive you must be with them. Now imagine a steady flow of cars, SUVs, and trucks passing by. This would be no easy feat to take a walk with our kids. We also have quite a few elderly people who enjoy the relaxed climate of our community. If we increase traffic, this will bring a higher sense of commotion and urgency. Please take into consideration all of our amazing residences here on 7th street: parents, children, nurses, city workers, and teachers. We work hard to provide a safe haven for the things we value most: FAMILY. Sincerely, Sharee & Shawn Tucker P.S. I was planning on attending the meeting, but I must a attend a mandatory meeting that will last until 6:00 downtown. I will still drop by directly after my meeting in case this one is still going. Sent from my iPhone F ' E. 81h,A4eE _ _ r3'ik1LC L Light House nermgcoglexori•fracr'..4-.G14e.:= 11T 1 Siracle ua*,a���c1:•[Oti] tttpv.,,r villAygoogle.corrtirri ac-- ww,gocsileccrli . f Mary Moore From: Meg Williams <meg jwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:52 AM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: house.pdf To whom it may concern; My name is Megan Williams. My husband and I just closed on a home at 11401 E Sundown Dr on February 3. The next day a sign was posted for a SEPA determination and notice of public hearing comprehensive plan amendment to rezone the area behind our home from single family residential to corridor mixed use. My understanding of this is that rather than a home being built the builder wants to place either apartments or some other form of commercial structure in this area. I have a few concerns with this. First is that during the purchase of our home we were informed by the builders realtor that they could not build directly behind us as it was zoned as wetland. We were given a plot map which I have attached showing where they stated they had planned to continue with other homes. Please see the 3rd page of the attached document. This deception was used to secure the purchase of our home as we had disclosed that we would not buy it if it was only going to continue to have been developed. I understand that this is hear say as all's have is a diagram that was both shown to us during an open house and then again later via email. My next concerns even though my family is new to the community is the access to these said apartments will only have one route, off of Bowdish. In the event of potential flooding or a fire how are theses multiple units suppose to evacuate? I plan on attending the meeting on the 22nd to continue to voice my concerns but wanted to let you know in writing that my husband and I will be very displeased if the City of Spokane Valley chooses to approve this rezoning. Thank you for your time. -Megan Williams 509-671-0717 11401 E Sundown Dr Spokane Valley, WA 99206 g. 0 �, 0. o 0 - al (D N IO v X 1 fn O0. G O 7 O 0 - CD ID CD o o 0. o n o -, O SA ID N (0 � O O N O ED O O (0 CO V 03 - .. n IUvjiI 1r —I --I G) O 111 N r.“.0 -11 0 (D o. O 0) :o o [ r. -coon N W O O 4 •, : co 13 0 0 O `1 W C • o O'o - N• c 0 o -n 3 ° °-• W 2 c °` < N m m q] SPOL1191A1 IIeM paoels dam o m 0E O) 0 Nolo cD N O 0 csp • n ti — N ▪ g • N 7' 24'•6' 47-6' 4.1° e Iia 'Io 51/6`X113 (5731.5 — — Top ott%amalbp fu+atl 42610 2650142510 mum Above hdnoom Above 36' bas F4epleee 4' .4 506'X9'6L5 51/6`X13112'61.5 FM.O50 Top of floorJalds ®i 1000FH : 1 N3 R 4 ��® bold puooas 5 7 476 354 11' 6177 50 6 OL143 10 T smAb e 6' 6 17 21 9'-10 1/4' 4' 3'•10 1/4', 4.5` 641 6' 6' 5 6' 16 5' 55.6 16 3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 1`2 ` o c3 D[�I,MO, 11),;1130011 .�,`, ,�D. CONSTRUCTION `/" (509)924-8964 Dr. Valley, Wa. 99206 Spokane Valley, Lot 6, SHP-09-10 ./to,,.), _..1') 9 4050 SL —.._ -- �—(--�_._� - loo tIt i i n ( i 4'6.60013 N 0 '- 8 IP a0 2 QQN a Jit m m _e_ i e Co 3'-6 112`. u ; 1 75 0109 , 6' 6' 5 6' 16 5' 55.6 16 3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 1`2 ` o c3 D[�I,MO, 11),;1130011 .�,`, ,�D. CONSTRUCTION `/" (509)924-8964 Dr. Valley, Wa. 99206 Spokane Valley, Lot 6, SHP-09-10 First & Second Floor Plans . \ • N.W. 1/4 SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 25N., RANGE FOR FULL LEGEND SEE SHEET CO.O EXISTING/PROPOSED FLOODWAY . • • • • I PROPERTY BOUNDARY UNE • •OMITS OF PROPOSED CONCRE1E ▪ 1977.10 • PROPOSED TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ' ELEVATION • • ▪ F1977.101 COSTING TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • .. E7051ING STORM CULVERT AS SHOWN \ t\ • • • • kI • • • • t .1 Il • IV \ •••• • • • l • • • \ \ 1-`--•1 \\ •\\\ \ I 1. \\ \\ . •\ \\ I• \ 0\\ °: \ \ \ \ • • • • • • \\ • \ • • \• `\ 622IWG•loci 'YR \ FLOC PLAIN •\ . \• \ ' \ \\ a 1. ot __A 1 • i•;• • I \1 1 E 11219 r1 ,1 rt'}1 • 1 ' 1 \ V 2009• .., 1 } I\-- X 1 7 \ P v�1 J jE.11303 `\ 11307 LAT \ LOT \ 1 1 \ • 2 1 } \1 • \ • \\, \ \ 1 \ \• \ 1 . \\• LOT 7 • I 1I �II •1LL1 tCITS 1-6 1 SSTRU? J. 0 FILL "^` \\• E. 11311 It, E. 11317 \ LOT ly_ --ted OT `\3,x..'`11 4..\ • 1li- 1`1• • 1 • 1 \ • 11, rI ! I1 /I PROPOSED 10d 711 \ FL000 PLAIN1 1 1 / 1 . PROPOSED STORM CULVERT AS.SHOWN 6221190 STORM DRAINAGE CATCH BASIN • 44E., W.I GONE O CONSIR1 DETAIL F 0 191 0 EXTEND ® PROVIDE f• • r 1, \ E. 11321 1 .E 11401 /1 LOT �QC�'.. •LOT/ • orf. 1 \' \\ •! A \ \\ I • .r-1! f•A, \\\• I t 1 1 \• \ 1 1 ! •1 k ]` 0 00 7R 111/ \ 11 l , 1\ j}t \ 11,I1 • / /� \� 1.k 1' \ •1. \ \ • \ S t . , • 1 . \ • • j - •I • • .., , i{/ _J SITE GRADING PLAN ' • SUNDpWNpR E 0u, i • r: $ ,94:, Ii ' O • SCALE 1•=40• GRAPHIC SCALE. ' / DI SI Gc NOT • RFA 5 t M e R r First America, 40 E. Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: 609458-0550 Fax: 886.537.,9802 This map/plat is being famished as an aid In locating the herein described and in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other and, and is not a survey of the land depicted. Except to the extent a policy of title Insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the company does not insure dimensions, distances, location of easements, acreage or other matters shown thereon. geoAdvantage EXHIBIT 10 C Barney's Harvest Foods 11205 E. Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2U CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PONDEROSA COMING SOON! VILLAGE The Ponderosa area is growing and Barney's wants to be part of that growth. In 2018, the Bamey's Center will begin growing into Ponderosa Village, We want this multi -use center to be a welcome addition to our community. What features does the Ponderosa area need? Are you interested in locating a business in the Ponderosa Village? Barney's wants to hear from you and get your feedback. Stop by our Customer Service counter and fill out a feedback form. OR you can log on at'.vww.hanresffoodsnw.com/bameys-survey/ and give us your opinion that way. Ether way, you'll be entered. AD completed forms will be entered into a drawing for as $250 Gift Certificate on January 20, 2018. Please give us your thoughts and watch Ponderosa Village become a reality. Thank you so much_ We truly appreciate your business! The Management & Staff of Barney's Harvest Foods PRSRT STD US Postage PAID Spokane, WA Permit #91 roiL 2r9f2018 FEMA Flood Map Service Center L Search By Address Chariges to this FIRM Revisions (0) Amendments (3) Revalidations (0) You can chose a new flood map ar 1n' v(' `lie location pin by selecting a different location on the dccator map belo r or b ent&ring a new location in the search fled above. NOTE: Meese be sure to (=nage popups jar this site. irk 1.7 • FE3 22 Z9.13 DIV OF SPOIcANE VALLEY MAP FAME'S OTHER ARIAS GENERAL STRUCTURES at real path nrelrBDI ;'ra Digital Data !Wadable i U1-n7apped }40 4:P E.4 Afea or Minimal Floud Hazard Lpr.1R5 Area at tJnaetermtnec Flood Ilar.sta =? Culti•et1 of Storm Sewer ;111111mm Letiiee. D! e, or F1o13d4a41 httntlimsmfernsmpkrp❑rtalfsearch7ActdressCluery=11511%20E%2esunriowrf/e2Odr.%2QSpaksne%2Ovalley%2C%20wa.#searrhreaullsancher 2!3 6) r\ cti 2 1r4'' S , 1 My name is Shawn Johnson, I live at 11311 E Sundown, directly bordering the lot we are discussing this evening. We purchased our home from the Creeppos/Diamond rock in Oct of 2016. At that time our understanding was that the lot behind us would be ONE single family home, there was even a sign at the development showing it vvas a single lot. We specifically asked if our home was in a flood zone, we were told it was not. However we have since learned it IS in a flood zone, which explains the ankle deep water frequently in our back yard. I fear that ANY development of the lot in question would only cause even more water to rise in our yard, potentially causing all manner of problems, including structural damage. Had we been made aware of either of these issues prior to purchase, we would never have even considered purchasing the home_ Our place was chosen with great care, as we were downsizing, looking for a neighborhood with a bit of nature, our last home_ We felt in love with the Ponderosa neighborhood, the people and the park like area. We can only hope that the value of our home is riot severely depreciated, as. I believe it will be, and we will try to sell immediately if rezoning is approved hoping the Toss isn't too significant. We have NO desire to live next door tin anything commercial andf or multifamily, retail, or Tight manufacturing Yes, the property belongs to the Creppos and l understand their desire to use it. Maybe in this case, the best use of the lot is to donate it to the city as a park area, or allow the neighborhood to purchase the lot at a fair market value, which I understand has been attempted at a price far higher than its current value. Clearly I do NOT support rezoning, in fact 1 don't support development of this lot at all. We have watched deer, eagles, geese, ducks, quail, hawks, even a moose and her calf use this property. To take that away from not only the wildlife and birds, but from all the people who enjoy the beauty and serenity of this place feels wrong. It gives financial gain to only a few at the expense of the many, I hope that we are bigger than that, I need to believe there are still some things more important than money. Thank you for your time 22 2N8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 02/22/2018 To: Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department fry $r, '-- �,d �_0 -jt r, L1I'J, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY We plead with you to keep the single family zoning for our area. When we purchased our house, the Train reason we chose the Ponderosa was because it was uniformly single family residences. Even though the properties had a higher cost, we liked the large lots and the privacy it brought, and don't want this changed for our backyard_ The area in question is listed as a flood zone. As building has increased upstream in the Painted Hills area we have noticed in the last couple of years that the area across from Harvest Foods on Dishman Mica has becorne a pond of water (as it currently is today) that stays for most of the summer, The houses that were recently built adjoining the and in question had quite a bit of sail brought in to prat them on a higher level. We are concerned that if this also occurs for the area being discussed it will cause new issues for current home owners_ Attached are some photos of what it looked like when this area flooded in 1997. Additionally, the roads into the Ponderosa are already restrictive enough without adding an extra Toad on them. When the fire occurred in the Dishrrnan Hills in 2008, area from Dishman Mica to 44th was asked to evacuate, the houses above 44`h were not. It took us 1 hour to go two blocks and we are the one of the closer houses to Dishman Mica. Building has continued to occur in the upper area of the Ponderosa and there is still only 2 roads, llowdish and Schafer, that provide an entrance/exit. Changing from single family zoning will only exacerbate this problem, Dar/le and Beverly Thorn 1j..1101,1111., ' 212 2;,•72,• • . • ••,•• • . ci 00(6 Cc 1,(Zik ci 6'11 To: Spokane Valley City Council Frorn: Dave and Kay West Re: Building on Designated Flood Plain Date: 2-22-18 FE3 2 2 2313 CIT? CF SPOKAN VA? L P'1 Thank You for the opportunity to address a critical and very important issue that will affect many people. We know that you will honor all opinions and will came to a decision that will be benificial from a financial and safety concern for all people in the affected area: Le property value and increased traffic. My wife and I reside at 5.4007 Forest Meadow Dr. that borders the Chester Flood Plain, Every year_We.receive flood .water_up_on_ uLpropectyisee attached picture frorn water diverted up stream from 1.15. ifthese proposed mining changes and building permits are approved, the water that would normally be absorbed in those areas will he diverted to the field behind us and ultimately encroach on our property and intoour home. Please feel tree to visit our property to see exactly the risk of flooding we face. Thank You for your service to our community. e ectfully ubmitted: Dave and Kay West February 13, 2018 Cary P. Driskell City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 • RECEIVED is OTY OF .GP- LEGAL 1twi-.'.r J , Re: Protective Covenants of Old Orchard Subdivision (copy enclosed) Recorded 2/23/54 ,as No. 223697B as amended by Amendment to Dedication dared 4/09/54 recorded 5/19154 as No. 240866B Dear Mr, Driskcll: We are homeowners at 10719 E. 8111 Avenue in Spokane Valley (parcel no. 45212.1350) and recently received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mail. The hearing pertains to an attempt to alter the restrictive covenants that have been in place in oar subdivision since 1954. We met with Martin PaCarniuk, planner, last week to discuss the upcoming hearing and were advised that the parcel located at the comer of eland University was removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016. We request that you review this matter and advise us how this occurred. And we would like a copy of the minutes from that hearing. We and other neighbors never saw a sign of a hearing and never received notice in the mail. We want to know if this is correct and if so, please explain in detail the process that was taken to remove the covenants. We request your response prior to the hearing on February 22" Please be advised that Stere Schmautz, owner of parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349, and applicant for the upcoming hearing previously attempted to alter the restrictive covenants in 1997 and was denied. At that time we and several neighbors opposed this alteration. Sino. that time, we and our neighbors know of no other attempts to alter the covenants. The restrictive covenants have been in place for almost 64 years and per paragraph P of the covenants, they axe binding "unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part." it is our understanding there is no agreement. Please advise immediately if your understanding is different. It is also our understanding that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also provides that an application to alter a subdivision "shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcel sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were tiled at the time of approval ofthc subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or • • portion thereof." SVMC 20.60.010 Again, there is no agreement and one owner's desire to violate the covenants should not be allowed to take precedence over the binding restrictive covenants and wishes of the majority of homeowners. Without "an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants" the Building & Planning Division lacks authority to consider the application. SVMC 20.60.020 To our knowledge, there is only one property owner, Steve Schmautz, in our subdivision in agreement to change the restrictive covenants that have been in place for 64 years. Mr. Schmautz does not live in our subdivision and wants to use his property for commercial purposes. We live in a residential subdivision and do not want to incorporate commercial property into it. Commercial property will decrease all residential property owners' home values, increase traffic, and increase crime. As you know, the protective covenants are a recorded document on all parcels in the Old Orchard Subdivision. The property owners have relied on these covenants for many years. Paragraph Q of the covenants states: "If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing so, to recover damages or other dues for such violation; or both." We intend to follow this provision if it is warranted. Please let us know the current zoning for parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349 owned by Steve Schmautz and if either of them is no longer protected by the restrictive covenants, we request detailed information as to how this was accomplished because it is in direct violation of the notice provisions in the SVMC. Please consider this letter as our filing of a written request for a copy of the notice of application and the final decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, .441-4C q"'a-Q--/g-dudi- 8ebert 10719 E. 8th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 926-7227 Enclosure cc (w/encl.): Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department Mark Calhoun, Spokane Valley City Manager Martin Palaniuk, Planner Heather Bryant/Steve and Tresa Schmautz Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing; the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 80p0 -feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Counncikhambers, City Hall Project Number: 'Applitii ' CPA -2018-0004 "11're-vp1tation o O ifioi5: . j & i privaC;ely-irtiti ieti'siW:specificio np n ivetlan- Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-f'pmily Residential Urban District (R 3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Environmental Determination: The City issued a Determination,o£Non-significance (INNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant Its the,$ta'le Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and chapter 21.20:Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Parcel numlier45212.1348; located in the $E corner of 7'h Avenue and University Road, further -located .in,the.NW'/ of Section 21, Township 25 INjorth; Range 44 Fast, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Location: Applicant(s): Heather.Bryaht, 108 N Washington, uSuife,500, Spokane, WA 99201 Ovv let sjs, r, i "'Steve '&;Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spolane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 'Date Determined Complete ' January 5, 2018 Staff Contact Martin Palaniuk, Planner . , (509) 720-5031 ynpalaniulc@svoktutevallev.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 Comr ission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to acegmmodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at.(509) 921-1000 as soots as possible so that arrangements inay be made.. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing 'at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the 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 Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, filed for record February 23, 1954F, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11; as follows; PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County Planning Commission, no lot in this subdivision. shall be sold until such lot ie furnished a°- domestic water ,supply. S. All late in• this' sizbdivioion shall be classified and known as Residential Lats.. C. None 2,ut metro structure's Shall be erected upon • any- lot ..p this sub- ' ' d1`viston - , D. I(ot mare than'one structure Shim be erected upon any lot, except that' one detacbed‘garage'shall be permitted. E. Orly single-family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. -(See exception- below).. F. No rebidential structure shah be -erected having less then,1000 square feet of Tloor space upon the ground floor, exclusive. of car- ports; breezeways, patios, porches or•other area not designed for indoor living quarters.' •. G. 'BD residential structure sbsi1 be.erected. nearer than 30 feet to• the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than ..;55 feet, z or- s ala .any reeidence'be nearer a s .de_.propex''.ty;. ine then- 10 feet, land AIL other construction shall corifornn in ail respects to the building regulations of Spo ane CotintY. , r R. Any structure erected shall be complete as to external aipearance, including finisher painting, and shall be connected, to public sever or 'septic- tank within six,.qionths from date of cosml*ement of con- struction,.. . . 1. No basement, garage,; tax i ler;, or • other tetuparary stiUcture, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used ae living quarters at any ti mP . J. No advertising, sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged,, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or• parcels with less front,,side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. As a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a'structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. • • -2- N. The covenants above relating to size and location of structures, and number of structured on any lot shall not be invoked against any structure in this subdivision completed prior to the date of execution of this instrument. P. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and persona claiming under them until January 1, 1979, and are automatically extended for successive ten-year periods thereafter, unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to charge the covenants in whole or in part. az, If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such . covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing'so, to recover damages• or' other dues for such violation, 6r both. 28 Block 2 are sub- ..11110 ub- Lots, 1, 2, & 3, Block 3, and ;gots 6, 7, , 27 "`" ject to right -of -'say for irrigation pipe line. R. None of the covenants mentioned above shall apply to Block 3 of this Plat. • By instrument dated April 9,1954. recorded in Book 49 of Mise. records, page 571, Protective Covenant "10. was amended to read as follaur . • No residefntial struoture shall be erected having less than 850 • square feet -of floor apace upon the ground floor, exclusive of oar ports, breezeways, patios, porches or other area not designed far indoor living quarters. Pirbiit: Viawer [Fiat Image Search F es1 ul.t Type a question for help ; 21-25-44-2 )LD ORCHARD SUB . IS a� R9CT 191, CONI roti. MUM as T4v T' ales =UM tvtlr,NtCS 1189"2e40 % 240.04 3 Oast•, A,7ed 1,42.0 Pratt a a 1f40 Y'Er OCtelq N •Ketreir 1,INEOC Mit MAI •alar NE19"2�00.e cuvlr 2D3.42 4tSitt trt 1 ?TN iUliSOS, I.4 —L-- % ern Ma-1mm Lams Wie bt TUE CO EesN1$ 4E4,01E, *50►& 41.4tL arm, rq etv:a: LAT. Actlitet g it av Art 74 91X14 110.rt AU ft 111 """14,10,„„„„,A,„ nun uuuuu firmuumuuPY9�IY y '! e'"'awlgy� ,,kt ��fY�rynll�l�uuuuiuuum9911N„ „ ,,, aN 1 I �uuumr u a„: !I v(I Ili P 1 ';I;1Ca II� II; Iw, II I 'lllWal,{ I' L Illll'','y mll aI',A ll �'” Ym1IIVin p 111, ( 11 411 IINI, „ III \ 'I'lll� r�'IYb" pl l 101 II '' Im 11111191 ��1 II. II II �II,I,,, IIIIY�I'�rj I Ilhma� �, 1�II Iq'i 1 ti n BI' duiIw 1, IYJI!" I drWv ylll� yu d' IIII w ulll'iiG'iii 11dl)l I�u q'�ha u.. d� 1� Illulmollp!' ' ' I II ,,,, tid"°Il Idyl j. r I 1 ,d1°rll III ' II ," 0111 P II I 441 I . I P !wr,H1 J Ig1m,„ X11 III 11 . c'. { IVI'' 4 I 111NII . III II N 111,°' Uloid ,,' Iil,l 'III � 1, 1 "JI !)1,/,'....,:/t1." „11 VNII'1",' 1 0 ' w' Ir (U tt: i II uflrevN I IIII d'1` !PI � ' I �+✓"LP'd .'NI IIItir M11J�do " 11,f;al', IIII" Itir', 1114 Ifl;�rc W�I rrr JP I � dl m IIII I I u „, � °Ifi�l Y" Nu 14" d hl Ip ' anPtf Vp4Y ..,` mlk� 'w' ar II I1r II (IIII rl 'lu , .. �� ""u•° IIIIIIIIa ;II dY' � uu Il'u1(.1t IIYIu r , lu v'Ivd, III (IIIIIIII ,),,,„41'''4,1,J1.1 I.( I ") IIII /I�� I'v,r" wty �Illld �°•I �r`'' III I, ' °'� ,, ' , Iluu�P M 111 (' III!I INdp+ I V „II ��I� nllll,�P, Ilbl�ldl tt,��'11 II I IIN" III I,JI1 �, r '.'r Mme l oIUa IS}", if}f 4 fdll L.. 1„ 1 fi,. 11 II 1 II1 �Ilwl„ II � 4 II 4' I411 "1"' is IhI I I dp m l "pp,,, mwm ; Im, 'I1" II w r I. Fm IIII IM,Nn IYI hV,l1 111t/tt111 NIII'611',�,A I,1' �W ''(fin IIII Dull tiall�au tifillll� IN 111 'r 11'1 hiumrq II° 1 PIy1 III dm,bmdm, 111 Illiiii'i'I' it M ni,rll I, r rill..m N'''ull I IrP:/;'(1 (plfp1111 I, I uuuuu 'M1I III I IIuvn SIU iu 1,11','1),) nl P'1 'III rrr G, IIIuI,N 1 Il II ,Ill u^,,f11IM'+ lull' 11/11 Ih) (I IG v/Y �'),. , 1... . , Il I I,I I" tl III 4M.,11:44 M9,' I d, ll . I'r "' U;+SII''11(t' q l' /1,/,1, i .riIIcaiJ rens iviap L /k-zu.Id-uuu,5 4.5 33 1304 w 17. N3.1003 45333, 1008 45333 1001 45333..1202 Fs 45333.1 !DOS 45 333.1011 45333. ski 45333.1101 4533.111O2 45333.1529 0333.1528 T M 0. in eC V+. 'MI' ..--.--- . Ci Irt CTI.rir Cr, February 14, 2018 Parcel NumbersiWEBPADAL Parcels !1a1IeyAddrPts 1:2x257 O 0.0175 0.035 A ti• , • U d.43 0.06 0.07 mi 0-12 f.SR FERE, DeLarrna MaixroyIrdia. f)p n51rc1Map- €arttbrb GIS LAIN' enfFFAiJFtily 1^CC PppBuid ATTACHMENT 4 Spokane Walley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0004 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW '/a of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date Determined Complete: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 5: Complete Determination Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 9: Agency Comments Exhibit 10: Public Comments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately -initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of parcel 45212.1348 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The contiguous parcel to the south is also owned by the Schmautz Family and is zoned NC. The topography on the site affects the access from 8th Avenue to the vacant NC -zoned parcel, and due to the small size of the parcel it is not conducive to commercial development. In order to increase the area that will allow NC development, the zoning must be consistent across the entire parcel. To do so will require Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 a change to the land use designation through a comprehensive plan amendment. The parcel size could be adjusted to accommodate neighborhood commercial development if the zoning is consistent between the two properties. The site underwent a rezone in 1997 from a UR 3.5 zoning designation that allowed a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre to UR 22 which allowed a maximum density of 22 units per acre. The Hearing Examiner approved the rezone but limited the density to 14 units per acre and limited the maximum building height to 35 feet. During the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan both parcels owned by the Schmautz Family Trust were re -designated and rezoned. Parcel 45212.1348 was designated SFR, with an R-3 zoning district, and parcel 45212.1349 was designated NC, with an NC zoning district. An additional parcel on the west side of University, and under separate ownership, was also redesignated and rezoned to NC. Noticing for the Comprehensive Plan update process, public meetings, open houses and public hearings was completed consistent with the SVMC and Growth Management Act (GMA) (chapter 36.70A RCW). Individual notice to property owners was not completed, and not required, for the legislative action. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The property consists of a single parcel 37,090 square feet in size with frontage on 7'h Avenue to the north, University Road to the west, and 8th Avenue to the south. Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Residential (SFR) Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Existing Land Use: Single family residential and the uses normally associated with a use of this type. A home and detached garage have been constructed on the property. Access is taken from 7th Avenue through a private driveway situated between the two buildings. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) South Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) East Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) West Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) IMPLICATIONS: The rezone of the site to Neighborhood Commercial would allow a broader range of uses including retail and office uses. Since the parcel is currently developed with a single-family home, any change in designation to the parcel would have implications for future development. Impacts to the properties will not occur unless the current residential use transitions to a commercial use under the NC zoning designation. If redevelopment to a commercial use were to occur, the adjacent residential uses could experience impacts. Impacts may include greater lot building coverage and increased vehicle and Page 2 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 pedestrian traffic into and out of the site. Building setbacks, screening, and landscaping would likely mitigate the impacts to some degree. The Neighborhood Commercial zone is intended to provide an amenity that serves the neighborhood. In addition to retail and office uses, the NC zone allows some low intensity commercial uses such as medical office, day care, and community hall, club or lodge. Nonresidential development in the NC zone that is adjacent to a residential use is subject to dimensional standards intended to reduce the impact to the residential uses and the neighborhood. Building height in the NC zone is limited to 35 feet which is consistent with the maximum height permitted in the residential zones. Ten -foot side and rear yard setbacks would be imposed in addition to a 15 -foot front yard setback. Additionally, parking or drive aisles would require screening, loading areas would be prohibited within 30 feet of the residential zone, and mechanical equipment, building vents, and exhaust within transitional setback areas would require screening. All outdoor lighting in the transitional setbacks would be shielded and limited to 16 feet in height. Landscaping, parking, and on-site treatment of stormwater would also be required consistent with the development regulations. The following table provides a comparison of the development requirements for both zones. R-3 & NC Development Standard Comparison October 18, Lot Maximums Minimum Setbacks Density Zone Building Height Coverage Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage R-3 35 ft, 50% 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. 6 du's/acre NC 35 ft. N/A 15 ft. 10 ft.* 10 ft.* N/A Same' *!f adjacent to a residential use. 'Shaft comply with the density of adjacent single family residential zone. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: October 18, 2017 Application Submitted: October 30, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2018 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Page 3 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 proposal on February 2, 2018. The determination was made atter review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Community infrastructure is designed and built in response to the development of property which in turn is dictated by the land uses that are permitted through the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, fire protection, etc., is built to protect and to serve the public health, safety, welfare and to protect the environment. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property is zoned NC. The development of the southern adjacent NC zoned parcel is constrained by the site topography. 8th Avenue and University Road are elevated approximately four to six feet above this parcel making access to the parcel challenging from an engineering and construction perspective; requiring a steep entry approach. University Road slopes downward as it travels northward past the site and is at the same elevation as the site at the north boundary. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the northern site. Page 4 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to idents areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2.016 update. That parcel has some difficulties associated with access and is limited. The parcel cannot be made larger through a boundary line adjustment. Doing so would create a split -zoned parcel due to the underlying zoning. The amendment would allow the full use of the parcel and expand the NC zone. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior.to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change to NC will allow neighborhood commercial development of the property. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. Traffic will likely increase with the commercial development. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: Any stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. The site does notcontain any streams, rivers or lakes. The open space areas associated with the required residential front, rear, flanking, and side yards will likely transition to parking or commercial landscaping areas. However there will be negligible impact on the open space areas. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; (3) Analysis: The applicant submitted a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) as part of the application. Based on the City Senior Traffic Engineer's analysis of the TGDL, the higher density of a commercial use would likely add an additional 208 new trips throughout a typical day. The site would likely draw vehicle traffic from the pass- through traffic already found on 7th Avenue and University Road. Topography makes any traffic on or off of 8th Avenue unlikely. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood The uses are intended to serve needs normally associated with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial development and together with landscaping and screening standards, will reduce the impacts to adjacent residential uses. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. Page 5 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. Generally the use does not generate a need for those facilities. As noted earlier the uses permitted within the NC zone are smaller in scale and suited for neighborhoods. University Road and 86 Avenue are both designated as Urban Minor Arterials. Minor arterial streets provide inter -neighborhood connections, transit access, and serve both local and through trips. No impacts are anticipated. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: As noted earlier, the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Consumers increasingly prefer to live close to certain amenities. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends Report completed by ECONorthwest in September, 2015, identifies a lack of small-scale, neighborhood oriented commercial areas within walking distance to many of the residential areas in the City. Based on comments received throughout the public engagement process, it was clear that the community desired more small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The land use designations and zoning were changed for these sites during the update. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1 % per year. The City's population density is currently 2,414 people per square mile. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The NC use designates area for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Ideally the areas are no larger than two acres in size and are located as business clusters. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update identified the NC zone as underserved and identified and designated for areas NC. (5) (7) (8) Page 6 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with the same services that are . described above under the concurrency discussion. Model Irrigation District #18, Spokane County Environmental Services, Spokane Valley Fire District, and Central Valley School district provide water, sewer, and fire protection and schools services in this area. Urban services are available. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received the following public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the February 22, 2018 meeting. Name Comment Scott Smith, 10819 E 8"1 Ave Opposes the amendment; feels there is already enough vacant commercial areas, prefers the site remain residential. Ray and Jane Sebert, 10719 E 8th Ave Oppose the amendment; cite the covenants contained in the original plat restrict commercial uses on the site; feel traffic safety at the intersection of 8th and University is an issue; feel commercial will not maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Mike Irmer, 10806 E 8' Ave Oppose the amendment; cites the covenants; does not want multi- family development. Albert Keith Jonas Hiner, Ph. D. and Kathleen "Kitty" E. Brudos, 10824E 8th Ave "Oppose the amendment; concerned about increased crime; home values; cite the abundance of commercially zoned areas. Justin Braid Wanted information of the amendment; stated the neighbors have historically opposed multi -family development. Lonny & Nancy Green, 10715 E 7t'1 Ave Oppose the amendment; concerned about traffic, increased noise, and loss of home value; prefers single family development. 2. Conclusion(s): Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on February 2, and 9, 2018. The NOPH was posted on site on February 7, 2018 and mailed on February 7, 2018 to residents within an 800 foot radius. Pursuant to Section 17.80.120.B.1.c the City determined it was appropriate to Page7of9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 increase the radius from 400 feet to 800 feet due to the likely public interest in the proposed amendment. All comments have been reviewed and considered. The comment Ietters are included in Exhibit 10 of this staff report. The comments from Mr. and Mrs. Sebert were directed to the Office of the City Attorney. The response from the City Attorney will be provided to Planning Commission once it is completed and provided to the Seberts. Notably, the Seberts have identified existing covenants that they have indicated prohibit certain commercial development. Pursuant to Washington law, the City does not enforce private restrictive covenants. Private parties may enforce such covenants. Accordingly, staff has not taken a position on the applicability of the covenants to any future development. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments of significance to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer Yes January 18, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building & Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes January 8, 2018 City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County, Building and Planning Spokane County, Environmental Services Yes January 11, 2018 Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish & Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power & Light Modern Electric Water Company Page 8 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 Central Valley School District #356 East Valley School District #361 West Valley School District #363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District 1118 Consolidated Irrigation District #19 East Spokane Water District #1 Vera Water & Power Spokane County Water District #3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. - F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to NC is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT Spokane bailey' e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREH ENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 0-0 Received by:_22Z1A-- Fee: 7 /60e PLUS #: File #: ©&/ 7 —006/ PART 11-- APPLICATION INFORMATION "Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Heather Bryant MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washington, Suite 500 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE: 509.481-0899 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: heather(sdsrealty.com PROPERTY OWNER : Steve/Tresa Schmaulz MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washinglon, Suite 500 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 721 S University RD PARCEL NO.; 45212.1349 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban f_ '+ J U 11-,\ N _ '.' ;LLE'{ tvf {v`l U N 1 I y DE:'v E L["3i' '4I Iw j1l j PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): The owners, Steve and Tresa Schmautz, of the parcel located at 721 S. University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have This parcel (45212.1348) zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of L.L 111•. ..;ii i.gi�'1 J 12 1 2017 Spokane VaIley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART Ill - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) i, k,-Ek4-J\G ralf147(print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are rade truthfully and to the best o my knowledge. (Signature) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE 1007/P0/4 (Date) NOTARY SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this f N day of �c��-� 20 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE C111itiilliiiiuI1111iiIlllillllliiiiliihIINllliJotary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary Public E. Y State of Washington = 14 CARLOS A. HERRERA esiding at: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES F. JUNE 01, 2019 r5111111111111111111111€i11111111IIIltlt11111u EI My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: if the applic snot the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; V\ect,tin utz`1-61 ave.-1— regarding this application. owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters PL -06 V1.0 Page 5 o€ ,i' Spokane 40,E%alley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 1 Fax; (509) 720-5075 1 permiteenter@spokanevallev.org inamimmsmmap Year /970/7 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 18tof each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow cC�.spokanevallev.oro) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(spokanevallev.orq), 509- 921-1000. PL -O6 V1.0 Page 1 or4 *Wane Valley' COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 1 REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A. Submitthe following forIVlAP AMENDMENTS: .E1 Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) El Completed Application Form ❑ Application and SEPA Fee SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) ❑ Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 -foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing) One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change inconditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; a The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by striket#r-oughand additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a. narrative describing the following: 1. Whythe change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyondthe property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of `e-mail TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2017 TO: Heather Bryant, SDS Realty PROJECT: 721 S University Road Rezone Dear Ms. Bryant: Thank you for contacting Sunburst Engineering regarding this project. Spokane Valley always requires a trip generation and distribution letter for a rezone. The document created under this proposal will determine the number of trips generated by the site, and in general ways determine where it will go. The trip generation and distribution letter describes the project, the reason for the letter (such as rezone, building permit, etc.) and examines the traffic generated by it and then describes in general ways where the traffic would be distributed. These characteristics will be built upon if subsequent traffic impact analysis become necessary. Once a draft of the completed trip generation and distribution letter is ready for review, a copy will be emailed to you and/or whomever you designate for review. After you have reviewed and approved the document, it will be submitted. During this review please let me know of any changes you would like to the document:I am requesting a budget of $1,000.00, lump sum, to prepare the letter and will bill you after it has been submitted. 1 anticipate being able to have a draft of the letter ready for you to review within five working days from when the signed proposal has been received. If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and e-mail this proposal back to me. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call and thank you for this opportunity to work with you. Proposal acceptance: Date: 101 f9ci7 From the desk of... Phone (509) 924-2155 16402 E Valleyway Ave Ann L. Winkler, P.E. Fax (509) 228-9440 Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Sunburst Engineering Narrative for 721 S University proposal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2018 Narrative: The owners, Steve and Tresa Schmautz, of the parcel located at 721 S. University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have this parcel (45212.1348) zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. The proposed change would allow both parcels owned by Steve and Tresa Schmautz to be zoned to neighborhood commercial. Parcel # 45212.1349 located at 729 S University was changed to neighborhood commercial in 2017; while the proposed parcel was zoned R-3. Due to the current parcel boundary lines, as well as topography of the parcel, having 721 S University zoned neighborhood commercial allows for a more cohesive master plan in the future. The proposed amendment bears a relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment by allowing the parcel(s) to be developed in such a way as to allow for small-scale neighborhood -serving retail and office uses such as those identified in the Spokane Valley 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. The proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, especially in regards to creating a coordinated and planned growth plan. Although the proposed amendment would affect a portion of the City's adopted plan, it is felt that since with the owner of the adjacent property to the south and partial west is the same, it would be a benefit to the overall plan. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in the current zoning of the parcel completed in 2017; where their adjacent parcel (729 S University) was changed to neighborhood commercial while 721 S University is R-3. Amending the current zoning allows for the property to develop business(s) that fit within a close-knit community. Adding services to the neighborhood within walking distance. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would have minimal impact to the physical environment or effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. The goal would be to eventually develop an area that blends into the community in use and visual impact. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would increase the compatibility with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would have limited impact on the community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools. Small scale neighborhood shops often increase sense of community and loyalty for those within the neighborhood. Should the parcel be developed, the current vision is to develop small scale business that would bring missing elements to the neighborhood at time of planning and development. This development could potentially bring in more jobs to the local neighborhood, but not significantly increase traffic congestion or noise. Increasing this area to neighborhood commercial could add another buffer between the traffic along University Rd. EXHIBIT 2 V 1L uh1 Ly 1V1Q�J t. C t1'GV Z U'UUU` F Spy iE6.th a rib alley ve 1 E 7th Ave .x f1I -c_ES.th.Aue D^ 111.x: •.6t .A.v.e D E 2nd Ave E l st `Av_e E 4th Ave a —C E_$.tlihL.ud—• „1. .3rd -Ave 11111 .- um11111 7th UM 1E1119 Ave,", Ot Ave 11 111111 Central Valley Early Learning Ce E-13.th-Ave -13th A..e 1 hil■ J ■ ■ 0 E11thLn illlllII_..J��y ■■1111■■ ■ 11, li cElro, Ln Nem !MEW E 35th.Awe 1 E 9.th Ave _LOth Ave IE..L.th.A, !e E_L2th.Ave 111111 1 ,■_E.1;4.th Ave E 6th./tor_e l I I Opportuni 1Lth.P xe . —1, Elementary 1 E_l4th Ln �lr ■ IME w ■' IMME ■ m 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map E 7th Ave JStudy Area 45212.1348 721 S UNIVERSITY RD E 8th Ave *Wane OP okane ,i... Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately inilraled site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting In change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single family Residential (SPR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification 10 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map E 7th Ave Study Area 45212.1348 721 S UNIVERSITY RD E 8th Ave Spokane .0.0 Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately initiated sire -specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting 10 change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Comtrtercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (N() zoning classification EXHIBIT 5 spokan� .000valley° COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ♦ Fax: 509.720.5375 i ptanning@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Location: Parcel number 452I2.1349; located in the SE corner of 7t1' Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW E/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, I08 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: (%1, Va-71;(.1Z YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. iinf imtho w firrirrir II ,r « . U �VN: lul III,. �����1 l a•<< � tt� }} I NN i. -ddi V IflNl II �` �dll J� d �II� I11 �o irpilitriTteriffirig 10000 III 111 711111111. 111 w �,�� Fn IIII"I wl 11111111[111hI(P WIO IW11 Uji .Ill w w w1 l gji �I wlwl wlw m mwe �l III�I�J}�liiwl�l� � '� wt ��Wllllli ��wl � ii. ��I III VIII IOJ �J III�tU'Il �IVw WW CC.wwll NEN ulun dUU uo ��I ���� fi0�0 mlm iw��I�P �ml I11 ,4,1"' 111;m1„:"."1.�11„ o r� l dui ao iim �wi� wl 511° w ��om �I .1111,1,1,1,11;•[1:11111.1111.11.1i li� �w ul imnu� lui 16imw ml u w 1111 my m �I w ����� wllll ���� 1111 au- lIJ1 w w @[w Iw V� � wugYY �� X1111 1111 Nw ml w 1111 mi l .�iwdlll ��I Id ���� — uwlwlu��l 1111 Id Iw _ _ l Il l u Illi w _ 1111 m, iw I�ii�l Illllllllllliw �uVllo�omp l Iw IW wu Imwu 1111 1111 wNuu Iw w1[111111111iwllll I 1111 111 fl Ivor SETA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 4 Fax: (509) 720-5075 4 pernnitcenter ct.spokanevalley,org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted:,—. 1 Received by: Fee: '. . C) PLUS #: File It: 7b/ 7"0DD/ PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL. -"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED"* Completed SEPA Checklist E Application Fee 1 F ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8W by 11" or 11" by 17" size 4:)fs.. th • e ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering:,::,!' , PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; f The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to ?=:'a; consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS; This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. in most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of i.1.I 11latiliT alley VA�1 SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 721 Rezone to 729 Neighborhood Commercial 2. Name of applicant: Steve!Tresa Schmautz. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 708 W Cliff Dr. Spokane. WA Heather Bryant 509-481-0899 heather@sdsrealty.com (owner representative) 4. Date checklist prepared: October 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley- Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S. University parcel to be same as 729 S. University during 2017's review period. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Nothing planned at this lime; 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No know applications 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. No know applications 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project desoription.)Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S. University parcel to be same as 729 S. University during 2017's review period. Propsat would increase functionality and cohesiveness In boundary lines and topography PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of *Mane ,alley' .rrr"� SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 721 S University Rd: Spokane WA; Parcel # 45212.1348 primarily on the corner of 7th Ave and University Rd. with a portion of it running south towards 8th Ave. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? UnknowrPriority Sewer Service Area?Unknown(See: Spokane County's n tlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement PartA. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). No changes to current systems 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? No changes to current land use; chemical storage etc. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out ofdisposal systems. No changes to disposal methods; any future changes will follow proper disposal guidelines as provided by environmental agencies 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? None identified at this time PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of SEPA CHECKLIST b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? None identified at this time 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? if so, describe any potential impacts. No change to current B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, 0 rolling, ❑ hilly, D steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percentslope)? +1- 3-8% estimate c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. gravely ashy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. unknown e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. No change to current f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No change to current g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No change to current; potentially 50-75% EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of "fan h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No change to current; would use decorative natural features if needed in future SEPA CHECKLIST 2) Ai r a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No change to current b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No change to current c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No change to current 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. PL. -22 V1.0 Page 6 of ne P. Ma11ey. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 OO -year floodplain? location on the site plan. No If so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No change to current c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? No change to current Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No change to current 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No generally describe. If so, d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No change to current SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 VI.0 Page 6 of 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs FRI grass ❑ pasture El crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 0 other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed oraltered? No change to current c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No change to current; any future changes would include native vegitation; preferably draught tolerate, low water consumption 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: unknown ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. unknown c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No change to current PL22V1.0 Pagel of S "Mane P Malley. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No change to current; future electric and/or natural gas b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: No change to current; future would include LED fixtures energy efficient items 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? No If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No change to current 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No change to current b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from thesite. None 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of %Bey. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Rezone Neighborhood commercial (729 S. University; residential home b.. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing housing and outbuildings d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not for this proposal and/or planned in near future e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R3 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? No If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No change to current j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No change to current k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No change to current 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: No change to current PL -22 VI.0 Page 9 of Snrxtt ane Pa Valley, 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No change to current b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No change to current: potentially 1; middle income c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No change to current SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Nothing planned at this time; estimate tallest point 161/block or metal siding b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Nothing planned at this time Any potential building would be setback in potentially similar location as existing building(s) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would incorporate landscaping and natural elements to keep cohesiveness of community; and work into the new 'Appleway Trail' feel 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Appleway Trail b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. University Rd/ 7th Ave; small portion of 8th Ave Foresee potentially traffic off of 7th Ave or property directly on to University to avoid congestion at corner of 8th and University b. Is site currently served by public transit? No If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 7 Blocks c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the projecteliminate? No change to current PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of Spokane d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No change to current; potential change from private to public e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No change to current; unknown expansion at this time; any discussions have been proposing small scale business to serve community homes Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No change to current any future work would involve work with traffic control and civil to reducelcontrol 9. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ieiectricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No change to current C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 or SiT6kane ,��tlley� Date w L4, SEPA CHECKLIST Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for protect actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater Intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1.. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fishi, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: .5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No Change to current; PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? If parcels developed for neighborhood commercial, may see minor increase in traffic a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Evaluating best routes for traffic to move In/out of proposed property should the current land be developed for business use 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No known conflicts E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Address: Phone: Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of EXHIBIT 7 .001/alley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .) PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0004 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45212.1349; located in the SE corner of 76' Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 'A of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Heather Biyant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 OWNER: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: 4il%4 APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shalt be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0004 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0004 COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.7205240 - Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning�;rr spokanevalley.org PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7°i Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW %4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 9920I OWNER: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the Lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner r ll DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: 1 !f l 'l (Z•L 4 .''D J APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0004 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT *Wane COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Environmental Deterinination: The City issued a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 71h Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner(s): Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 - Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 palaniukgspokanevalley.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the 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 Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan Map 45212.1349 729 S UNIVERSITY RD Spokane „...0 Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Pram Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R•3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (N9 zoning classification EXHIBIT 9 January 18, 2018 CPA -2018-0004 Review of Trip Generation & Distribution Letter TGDL dated November 15, 2017 Parcel No. 45212.1348 A planning level Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley for a proposed land use change from Urban Residential (R3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). If the 0.85 acre +1- parcel is developed to NC, the higher density would account for an estimated 208 new trips throughout a typical day over R3. During the peak hours, we would expect there to be an additional 31 new a.m. peak hour trips and 16 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the intersections of 4th and University and 8th and University, level of service is predicted to be at LOS B for the intersection of 8th and University and LOS A for the intersection of 4th and University during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for the new land use to the Comprehensive Plan traffic model indicate no change in LO5 for either intersection with little to no added delay. Based on the information submitted in the letter combined with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model, the City of Spokane Valley has determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet concurrency at time of building permit for this CPA. Attached are intersection capacity analysis to support the conclusions in this response. No pass -by trips were credited at this time for this analysis as discussed in the letter. Adequate street capacity exists without pass -by consideration. In the future, at time of permit, the applicant may submit a project specific T +L a `d request a pass -by trip exemption. y right, ' E Sr. ngineer, Traffic City of Spokane Valley HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: University & 8th Movement EBL Lane Configurations '1 Traffic Volume (vph) 58 Future Volume (vph) 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1700 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Fri 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 Satd. Flow (prat) 1538 Fit Permitted 0.63 Satd. Flow (perm) 1026 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5,5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.39 Uniform Delay, di 38.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 Delay (s) 39.9 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2005 counts c Critical Lane Group 1/17/2018 4/ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR T 4+ li ft '1 +I 88 65 13 58 17 26 260 9 45 526 77 88 65 13 58 17 26 260 9 45 526 77 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1516 1454 1538 3062 1553 3046 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1516 1376 1538 3062 1553 3046 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 93 68 14 61 18 27 274 9 47 554 81 31 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 130 0 0 83 0 27 282 0 47 629 0 5% 5% 13% 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA 4 8 5 2 1 6 8 13.7 13.7 5.0 65.8 6.0 66.8 15.2 15.2 5.0 66.8 6.0 67.8 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.67 0.06 0.68 5.5 5,5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 230 209 76 2045 93 2065 c0.09 0.02 0.09 c0.03 c0.21 0.06 0.56 0.40 0.36 0.14 0.51 0.30 39.3 38.3 45.9 6.1 45.6 6.5 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.82 0.89 1.14 3.1 1.2 2.8 0.1 4.1 0.4 42.5 39.5 49.4 5.1 44.5 7.8 D D D A 0 A 41.8 39.5 9.0 10.4 D D A B 17.4 0.37 100.0 49.6% 15 HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service B 12.0 A COSV Network r BSonnen f 11 O Ir \ Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3217: University & 4th/4th Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 33 Future Volume (vph) 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1700 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1553 Flt Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow (perm) 1170 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)_ 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 00.03 vlc Ratio 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 Delay (s) 44.6 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2005 counts c Critical Lane Group 1/17/2018 C k- 4\ t t `� l EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 26 26 1700 4.0 0.95 0.91 1.00 2840 1.00 2840 0.95 27 33 30 4% NA 8 7.5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 255 0.01 0.12 41.9 1.00 0.2 42.1 D 43.0 0 34 34 1700 0.95 36 0 0 4% 10 10 1700 4,0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1538 0.71 1156 0.95 11 0 11 5% Perm 4 7.5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 104 0.01 0.11 41.8 1.00 0.4 42.3 0 21 21 1700 4.0 0.95 0.91 1.00 2784 1.00 2784 0.95 22 35 25 5% NA 4 7,5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 250 0.01 0.10 41.8 1.00 0.2 42.0 0 42.0 D 36 36 1700 0.95 38 0 0 5% 15 15 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1553 0.36 581 0.95 16 0 16 4% pm+pt 5 2 72.8 72.8 0.73 4.0 3.0 446 0.00 0.03 0.04 3.7 1.30 0.0 4.9 A 11) 328 328 1700 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3099 1.00 3099 0.95 345 1 349 4% NA 2 70.4 71.9 0.72 5.5 3.0 2228 0.11 5 5 1700 0.95 5 0 0 4% 111 118 118 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1553 0.51 838 0.95 124 0 124 4% pm+pt 1 0.16 4.4 1.33 0.1 6.1 A 6.0 A 6 81.5 81.5 0.82 4.0 3.0 733 c0.01 0.13 0.17 2.0 0.72 0.1 1.5 A ++ r 743 29 743 29 1700 1700 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3106 1389 1.00 1.00 3106 1389 0.95 0.95 782 31 0 7 782 24 4% 4% NA Perm 6 75.1 76.6 0.77 5.5 3.0 2379 c0.25 0.33 3.7 0.75 0.3 3.1 A 3.0 A 6 75.1 76.6 0.77 5.5 3.0 1063 0.02 0.02 2.8 2.16 0.0 6.0 A 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service 0.33 100.0 ' Sum of lost time (s) 45.0% ICU Level of Service 15 A 12.0 A COSV Network BSonnen 1 • h 1\kroi,i\l,Ntc`l v2 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Sunburst ENGINEERING November 15, 2017 W.O. No. 1718 Raymond Wright, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley, Public Works 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 16402 E. Valleyway Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99037 (509) 924-2155 sunburstengr.com RE: Trip Distribution Letter for Zone Change of 721 S. University Road Dear Ray: I have been contacted by Heather Bryant of SDS Realty to complete a trip distribution letter for 721 S University Road. A rezone of this 0.85 acre property is proposed from R3, Urban Residential to NC, Neighborhood Commercial' The neighboring parcel at 729 S University (0.38 acres) is already zoned NC. It is also is under the same ownership. No site plan is attached to this rezone. The site presently has a duplex on it which will be removed as a part of this development. The neighborhood commercial zoning was included in the zoning code for parcels where local businesses would appeal to the surrounding residents. The corner of 8th / University is a good location for this use and having this zoning on these two parcels creates a site big enough to attract locally oriented businesses. Access to the site is allowed to University Road, a principle arterial with sidewalks on both sides. Bicycles are also allowed on it. There are currently two sidewalk drops to accommodate this access, but no driveways have been connected to these proposed access points. The current residence is accessed from 7th Avenue, and a driveway is also present to 8th Avenue. The current zoning allows six residential units per acres and the site is big enough for five residences. If the site was fully developed as allowed under the existing zoning, it would generate 4 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 5 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 50 trips during an average day. Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 2 The site is likely to accommodate 7,400 square feet of building, just under 20% of the lot size. It is assumed the building would be partly in use as offices and partly as retail. There is also an interest by the owner to develop some housing on the site in accordance with the neighborhood commercial zone. The trip generation characteristics of the site once rezoned are expected to be represented by the characteristics found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual, Trip Generation, 9th Edition using several land use categories: Specialty Retail (Land Use Category 826), General Office Building (Land Use Category 710) and Apartments (Land Use Category 220). This manual is a nationally recognized resource for determining trip generation for these and other land uses. Estimates of weekday trip generation rates and volumes for the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour and on a daily basis are summarized on the following tables. 71�Q y4 lAIV \� Table 1 -Trip Generation Characteristics for Retail KSF 7 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ` AdT Vol @ 6.84 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol @ 2.71 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol @ 44.32 Trips per KSF 48% In 52% Out 44% In 56% Out 3.7 25 12 13 10 4 6 164 The pass -by trip rate during the a.m. peak hour is estimated at 60% (15 trips) and during the p.m. peak hour is estimated at 34% (3 trips), Table 2 -Tri Generation Characteristics for Office\ (i -u t 1 0• KSF p A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ADT Vol @ 1.56 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol © 1.49 Trips per KSF , Directional Distribution Vol @ 11.03 Trips per KSF 88% In 12% Out 17% In 83 Out 3.7 6 5 1 6 1 5 41 Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 3 Table 3 - Trip Generation Characteristics for Apartments � LU Units • A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ADT 1 Vol @ 0.51 Trips per Unit Directional Distribution Vol @ 0.62 Trips per Unit Directional Distribution Vol @ 6.65 Trips per Unit 20% In 80% Out 65% In 35% Out 8 4 1 3 5 3 2 53 When combined, the site will generate 35 a.m. peak hour trips, 21 p.m. peak hour trips and 258 trips on an average day. Some of these trips will be pass -by / diverted and internal trips. When discounting the number of trips generated under the existing zoning, the site generates 31 additional trips in the a.m. peak hour (16 new/destination trips), 16 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 208 trips on an average day. No nearby intersections will experience 20 or more additional trips in either peak hour as a result of the rezone. Distribution of new (destination) vehicle traffic generated by the site was based on likely routes to and from the building, existing geometric characteristics of the transportation system and other factors to be 70% south on University Road, and 30% north on University Road, and is shown graphically on Figure 1. Two bus routes run on University Road along the site frontage. The Valley Transfer Center is located four blocks north of this site at 4th / University, providing access to the greater Spokane area_ Sidewalks and bike lanes are also available on University. Therefore, trips by bus or other forms of alternative transportation should be expected and could make up 5 - 10% of the trips to/from this site. Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 4 I look forward to your review of the information in this letter and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sunburst Engineering, PS 1,41„, Ann L. Winkler, P.E. Traffic Engineer encl. cc: Heather Bryant, SDS Realty file 11/15/17 w o vs i 1}t — { • • i_Liii ; tl •1 -fp 4 l li; I .i• L=td =ra fl:1 :x114. r•r F111uC.nf�S •i• ,••' h �:+.".+x:11•;'' 1 Graphic Provided by Spokane County Scout Sunburst ENGINEER 1 NG 16402 E Valleyway Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99037 (509) 924-2155 www,sunburstengr.com 721 S University Zone Change Trip Distribution Letter Figure 1 Vicinity Map / Trip Distribution Map To: Martin Palaniuk (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0004 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Change from LDR to NC Address: SSO9F Facilities on the site are currently connected to sewer, however depending on the nature of the new use and or expansion; additional facilities may also need to be connected. Therefore, a sewer connection and inspection may be required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance initial building permit of the project in order to establish sewer fees. A sewer plan maybe required. Applicant should contact Colin Depner at 509-477-3604 concerning this. SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone (509) 928-1700 FAX (509) 892-4125 www.spokanevalleyFre.com January 8, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CPA -2018-0004 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the SEPA checklist. Specific fire department requirement shall be conditioned on future permits. Sincerely, Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Prevention Unshared\Plats1Shorties120181Comp Plan Amendment\CPA-2018-0004 Palaniuk.docx EXHIBIT 10 A Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:37 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Attn Marty: Project planned for 7th and University Would you like to respond to his questions?. Deanna Original Message From: Justin Braid [mailto:justin.braid@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:54 AM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Attn Marty: Project planned for 7th and University I live on 7th and our neighborhood is interested in what is planned for 7th and University. We saw the white sign but was unable to understand what "low density housing means". if there is an apartment planned on going in, we would like to know when the public meeting is planned so we can formally contest it as 15+ households on 7th avenue have contested another planned apartment house on 6th and Bowdish in the recent years. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Justin Braid 808-284-7305 1 February 13, 2018 Cary P. Driskell City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 FEB C,i niIN CITYpFQ SPOKANE DEPARTMENT PO P E ''A L L E Y Re: Protective Covenants of Old Orchard Subdivision (copy enclosed) Recorded 2/23/54 as No. 223697B as amended by Amendment to Dedication dated 4/09/54 recorded 5/19/54 as No. 240866E Dear Mr. Driskell: We are homeowners at 10719 E. 8th Avenue in Spokane Valley (parcel no. 45212.1350) and recently received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mnil. The hearing pertains to an attempt to alter the restrictive covenants that have been in place in our subdivision since 1954. We met with Martin Palaniuk, planner, last week to discuss the upcoming hearing and were advised that the 'parcel located at the corner of 8th and University was removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016. We request that you review this matter and advise us how this occurred. And we would like a copy of the minutes from that hearing. We and other neighbors never saw a sign. of a hearing and never received notice in the mail. We want to know if this is correct and if so, please explain in detail the process that was taken to remove the covenants. We request your response prior to the hearing on February 22nd. Please be advised that Steve Schmautz, owner of parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349, and applicant for the upcoming hearing previously attempted to alter the restrictive covenants in 1997 and was denied. At that time we and several neighbors opposed this alteration. Since that time, we and our neighbors know of no other attempts to alter the covenants. The restrictive covenants have been in place for almost 64 years and per paragraph P of the covenants, they are binding "unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part." It is our understanding there is no agreement. Please advise immediately if your understanding is different. It is also our understanding that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also provides that an application to alter a subdivision "shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcel sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. lithe subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or portion thereof." SVMC 20.60.010 Again, there is no agreement and one owner's desire to violate the covenants should not be allowed to take precedence over the binding restrictive covenants and wishes of the majority of homeowners. Without "an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants" the Building & Planning Division lacks authority to consider the application. SVMC 20.60.020 To our knowledge, there is only one property owner, Steve Schmautz, in our subdivision in agreement to change the restrictive covenants that have been in place for 64 years. Mr. Schmautz does not live in our subdivision and wants to use his property for commercial purposes. We live in a residential subdivision and do not want to incorporate commercial property into it. Commercial property will decrease all residential property owners' home values, increase traffic, and increase crime. As you know, the protective covenants are a recorded document on all parcels in the Old Orchard Subdivision. The property owners have relied on these covenants for many years. Paragraph Q of the covenants states: "If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing so, to recover damages or other dues for such violation, or both." We intend to follow this provision if it is warranted. Please let us know the current zoning for parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349 owned by Steve Schmautz and if either of them is no longer protected by the restrictive covenants, we request detailed information as to how this was accomplished because it is in direct violation of the notice provisions in the SVMC. Please consider this letter as our filing of a. written request for a copy of the notice of application and the final decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Al` vielekr -�-eL - Ra and Jane Sebert 10719 E. 8th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 926-7227 Enclosure cc (w/encl.): Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department Mark Calhoun, Spokane Valley City Manager Martin Palaniuk, Planner Heather Bryant/Steve and Tresa Schmautz iS. +I ut,thi-0la SiFf� tH� /26J -A'.;' Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 • Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing; the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22;2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Cha :bees, City Hall Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 Cominission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangeznents inay be made. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days- befcsre the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 ant and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Project Number: • CPA -2018-0004 -TIS"-alp-ii"eatro plr`lsat cscr�ptiibn:. - • . tea. pYiva .ittiattad'site spec% • Map and Zoning Map amendmerit requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban. District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with aNeighborhood Commercial (NC)zoning classification. Environmental Determination: . The City issued a Determination of Non-signxftcance (DNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant t� rite Stafe�Enviroihmental Policy Acf'(SEPA) and chapter, 21.20 :Spokane Valley Municipal Code., Location: • Parcel number 45212.1348 •Iooatecl•9n the SE comer o 1th Avenue and University Road, further located In the NW Vl of Section. 21, Towaship 25 Narh,, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian,. Spokane County, Wallington Appliearlt(s): ,, 'leather Bry t; 108 N WashiVitoii, Strife 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owne43, :, . • . Steve 8'Tiara: Sohmautz; 108 N Washington,. Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 • Date of Application: October 30, 2017 .Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: • Martin Palaniuk, Planner , . (509) 7205031 mnataniuk@snokanevalleugg . Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 Cominission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangeznents inay be made. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days- befcsre the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 ant and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, filed for record February 23, 1954, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11, as follows: P o ECTIV COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County P..an ±ng Commiasi.on, no lot in this subdivision..shall.be sold until such lot is furnished t domestic water.supply. r . B. All Iota: in• this subdivision shA1l .be classified and known ae Resiaentis.1 Lots•. . C. Ione tut net atructures 'shall be erected upon -any lot in this sub- - c .orison: D. N'o% mire than'one atruettre bhs.11 be erected upon any lot, except that bi e • detac ae'rl garage "shai3. be permitted. . E. bniy angle -family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. (See exception. ,- F: Iia reaidextitial structure shall be.erected having less than:1000 square feet of f I oor 'space upon the ground: floor, exclus; .Ve. of car- ports; breezeways, patios, porches or'other area•not desired for indoor living quarters:- G. .No residential. =structure s''1 i 1 be .erected -nearer tiara 30 ,feet to - the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than X55 •deet, nor, shall:.a y residence -be nearer a de„ props :- y .line than. 10 feet, : a d a1 L other q.anstructian sha1 : conf orM in all rs'spects to the building regulations of Spokane. OoUiaty. H. Any structure erected 0101 be complete as to external appearance, including finished painting-, and shall, ,%e_ connected_ to public sewer . or septic' tank within six, months from date of coinm0cement of con- • at`ruction,.• I. . No. basement, garage, trailer, or ,other temporary etr€ict re,, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used as`living quarters at•any time. J. No advertising. sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or -parcels with less front,,side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. Aa a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. -2- R. The covenants above relating to size and location of structures, and number of structured on any lot shall not be invoked against any structure in thin subdivision completed lrrior to the date of execution of this instrument. •P.' These covenants Are to run•w.ith the land and shall be binding on all parties and persons claiming under them until danuary'l, 1979, and ate automatically extended for successive ten-year periods thereafter, unless by a. vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part. Q. If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs. or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person'or persons violating or attempting to violate anysuch covenant to restrain -or 'prevent him or them from, doing so„ to recover damages' or- other dues for such violation r 2 both.& 28 Block 2 ax's sub- ject Lots, 1, 2, & 3, Block 3, and D ots 6, 7, 26, 7 ""— to right-of-way for irrigation pie line. - to Block 3 of { R. Mine yo�f the covenants mentioned above shall apply nr� Ma Plat. By instrument dated April 9,1954 recorded in Boolc 4.9 of Mise, 'records, page '571* Proteettre Covenant "r was ementded to read as folloWs. ' No residential structure shall be erected having leas than 854 'ggnar' feet -of floor apace ' upon• the ground floor, exclusive or car ports, breezeways, patioso• porohea or other area not designed for indoor living quarters. L V GS:6 jl °i 1 .,� iw :s• ;r ! a find aJ°so_DM �� u�na��� dde Jnt;\ " ` '• ��` 1,47,i:. r :31:aTfi.114 l 111156 3' bIIakewnMdiw■ir3.4)b$ aRDOA it Min ALILSRM na Lama' rain[ =2119.9ins !l 211Vgili•, Kfloocad Y9i M: p -Iia';•"�:a Y}.a�s� �:�? a'h��'w w.,. - ..uk �'lo-�i TNrdG WW1 40 21,21, RUM J 261- sara4 %; 4tfai2 ' Otgms ti u� s t e t wruaero at 6t :as Otl'ji f'YKCj1iJ^� orrefin V..f, 'lam trx Am% 3,pi,' ssu --•6=iC 4. 1 3 6 • n v ai Qi 024 El. Fan 4t z 28 21122112 2713 Litea 773Li3 e.'t.xr4rs an* N`QZia2.GB$ ; iotru i�io.fa aa' �..•.� WIC ""'W . . 19.146i LIMir f s- 472114 IL,4u,Ai.*6B� r =yam ran m'h¢ 10"n) r ar .a _nus di•ir.Q 1.a 7J 4 � � I +J19411)4 uonsenb g adia Mary Moore From: nancy green <nanclonn2@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 11:12 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: File # CPA -2018-0004 I am writing this e mail to oppose the change of parcel #45212.1349 S.E.corner of University Rd.and 7th. Ave.from single family residential to neighborhood commercial. feel that it will lower my property value and create more traffic and noise than is already present. would rather see new houses built and keep this area residential as it was intended to be. Thank You, Lonny and Nancy Green 10715 E.7th.Ave. 1 Mary Moore From: Mike Irmer <mike@foglepump.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 10:19 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: 7th ave. University project Dear Martin, I am writing you in concern for the seventh ave. and university residential change project. I am not for any changes and do not want multi home dwellings crammed into the small area that is being planned on changing. I was told we were notified 2016 of a sign change on 8th but never saw no such changes. There is a old orchard Platt covenant that I hope you can see and adhere to. I hope this helps with an upcoming decision. I can be contacted by email if you have questions or don't understand my rambles. I am also with Ray Sebert on this issue. Sincerely Mike Irmer 1 Mary Moore From: Scott A. Smith <starlinerscott@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:50 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Cc: rjsebert@q.com Subject: commercial zoning on university I have grown up where 1 now reside, my parents owned the house before I did. I am asking PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE ANY ZONING ON UNIVERSITY ROAD !!!! There are plenty of available commercial spots now that are vacant and creating a commercial zone where there is no need for any is INSANE! Look at all the available spots on Sprague or Appleway or go to Pines or major thru streets and realize we already have plenty of room for commercial and there is no need to create any here. The Zoning on University is residential and should remain that way. I would be happy to petition or sign anything to help let the valley planning know that is what people want here. Scott Smith 10819 E 8th Spokane valley, Wa. 99206 Mary Moore From: CenturyLink Customer <rjsebert@q.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:57 AM To: Martin Palaniuk; Ray Sebert Subject: File No: CPA -2018-0004 To Martin Palaniuk, We are concerned and writing about File No: CPA -2018-0004 by 7th Ave and University Road, where it has been petitioned for a change from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. 1. First of all there is a Protective Covenant in the Neighborhood of Old Orchard Sub, File Number 0183 Recording date 02/23/1954. The Old Orchard Sub is 6th Ave to 9th Ave, and University Road to Pierce Road are included. The area is all residential and we would like it to stay that way. 2. We were told in our meeting with you on Tuesday, Feb. 6th that the lot at 8th and University Road had been changed in 2016. Is that the lot at 8th Ave, East of University or West of University Road? We would like to know how that change happened if East of University because there was never a sign in the lot and there were no letters written to the local land owners. We have checked with quite a few neighbors and none of them saw a sign or received a letter either. 3. We have lived at our address since 1963 and over the years we have seen a great number of accidents, as it is a very dangerous intersection. People speed down 8th Ave past our house at a good speed to make the light. And with the hill at University going South and the obstruction of view going west or east on 8th Ave, and with people trying to make the light, it is so very dangerous. 4. We do not need any more traffic in the area than what Single Family Residents would create. Anything commercial has the opportunity to create a situation for Crime, Theft, and Drugs in our neighborhood. There are plenty of Neighborhood Commercial Business Places within a few blocks of 8th and University. 5. Since the owners of the original plats had the fore sight to create the Protective Covenants, we feel that it is our job to continue on to protect the neighborhood from any Commercial Business. Thank you for your consideration. Ray and Jane Sebert 509-926-7227 10719 E 8th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 EXHIBIT 10 B RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2018 City of Spokane Valley: Attn. Martin Palaniuk. clrr OF SPOKANE VALLEY The signatures below are a list of people that can not make the meeting in regards to File No: CPA -2018-0004. They are against changing the property from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Print Name: kA irCi 30.C-tCSO' l Sign Name: LIA41- Address/Phone Number: j -a 13 6 trim Ave, Print Name: ka. Jt Sign Name: Address/Phone Number: i 6 7,2 3 it :LivFe Print Name: An tC� Sign Name: Address/ Phone Number: to 5 ti £ A& - Print Name: /-- %,*. Sign Name: Address/ Phone Number: /Q 1 Print Name: Sign Name: Address/Phone Number: CAA el c Cu Uri�rnts€, w t iic rets 41., c e L)er44 5 411 /1C -i Jo() () 14° i,5ecT7d11 RECEIVED FEB 222013 _ . 14 , v..: 1 e. i 6ee-A en r-5 tueU vCY. 104` per' oict s �4 r 1 4'en1r ' W G� 4�r W t f 1 (A ciii al- ret .z2,2.oc To coL0 AJC c6iflcrn ; Foo-..- 5(614' fir:, /'./+er t'_di)cpros 4'2- pgrceA cti41 72.1. Soon . - fr) ail ei ler t›,cS-e.fe- an . T r�SC V1P�j 0.0 qC On ‘ver1.1-3 : p6rciA numa-er 115-4.1'2.-, rAys'.,:71 2 -LC 1 DCks:11p+(� V vac Sa\PActufa F -c . SC_I/��1/tC .U`�i -Z 4-ocLaAc� . '+' t. o , n ?. `' C ' 'r -.,5,aper :50\816 - ti,,, l� R .stc�eALc,. j orkr - , C c i ,'�'1 .,0..e 1 U�. iiinke i 1 c9+ o r' car c 5 u L (: 1 u 15, , n C C) V e AC'4 \ n e, ' z �. . SIM- pl CII -es `.* OA L s.LDf1fi� (e.` ' -Dahl t (\i (.0.6k.v, ci (� •I U a')d(r J 1 vat 5-t- or- s'' ec. (1-1/t CO.rrl A ,. ilk S kci\ to 1 -- c ; - -ih , `� O L v S S v L S'1 Pu .Q.,ies ' A) 0 \c3 S u):es5 M ecce 561 C. t, ;,s CO v d•)c:trrci- ' bt c e. r m i fetc) u..A- A iuN --t-Li 5(,Lc \ i sr o NQS V (AA --.6 e; - d '.-e_.0._.i L°f S`j U 9 « os 1, , 884rs 11 t.) t�.6.t ti,,fts --. 'ilk- e;\ s[ ,ce 'i Lien kakiG d U asr-ee_ L'' pp. W*\ e troiesd " ese were L)5 --A en 164) 4 -LC coo (1 6.06\r --s GAL,N4 r ece p cJ( 12(0 +Le, C., S l n;- .0 a e cctiv\o `o i. Ol(11'e.`-` .,e011 V- 0 v l5 ll' C_,), r- t-"(.:. s SA`Cit`Y CR><C e ; W I n o `t' � - cc;,,fin s( irtAot " , j oiyeA :Lop cor-5 4645 c,ii 11 N11/6,5 it, --Ack ;,i. q / , ,qc(1,65,5 ► ,,,,1`e Lo,„,,u) r b s iiia\e.-mi t (. 1100/C5 Lick= I i �'e >v re- _ _Lv e 5 4 -1\a -k- t3.e 'l�' aL' A U e- 4`7 ac -ti I:5 0 dc. 41'h c0- dti't C.t n el ve,`n 1 c_ CAA el c Cu Uri�rnts€, w t iic rets 41., c e L)er44 5 411 /1C -i Jo() () 14° i,5ecT7d11 O'w\ 1 1 r C) 5e aCci05S `/ 11ce 14 , v..: 1 e. i 6ee-A en r-5 tueU vCY. 104` per' oict s �4 r 1 4'en1r ' W G� 4�r W t f 1 (A ciii al- tf 4. V c/l Mo;`e_ 4-- f -f r i c Cool pvn " 0 ,--- Foo-..- 5(614' Le. .06 V'°tG V,\( d1'? l/f\fV&C"-S tri and. 4 `e. 41`6---- Se- co Feer �•1 V1P�j 0.0 qC 19 Arke ectiehalk 4Le. owners (-200tok ksoi\S .50e etiv%11 14.swres keepo cAs),01 44\-.- ot-P-60/01(i1 ateq, t e, klArlaikkAlr,S 6 e 44v6 0 f -ea ii-te !ivy ildwina Act°1— Atto e»1( 0 .:e- a rev 54-0. 1 % s is Ls .4// kkilqq-- /6 FA, Ie 0 itszed . GY -Gtil •=f --t re. 6 ." ebni 61 eP-C\ 9 ( -51-Or-Ss [Awe. triC17.0s6 u ebiwole-r-CIQA Vell‘cl•e,s, ("Vet- sc_L) Vi•ek3. im.4 oec lqiver A JIso,_c e5.5 ifj'A,f' FA -6(y1 ?arku1n )ekt 1/(ql -0 . Q iN. e f (,_16.-iikck±S______eitmpfl Foi\e, il,e.-e., . ck 7 Wild, 03111 et:51 't 7 'iPt"e. itues IS 7 WO 4 c,,,,cts i Lim, i'-oce.o.-- toi'in q 14 ik- .0141 otr-InV-vb Ls 013 OLA -4L1-- G4-0ert pr0'Pes5/01%4 61r-FiceSi 50qs‘_ exte_ ..1A C 4Afve_ i ci --'-- n Is al dwect cA Ak.o(es54//q /0'4 74.i5.. -bp chqoje_ 'Kt, -oiokt\A, LoU44--- we_ (-bA-- o-7:- culf‘c.,A- i.s.i61 4--- iveraso-A 30 nie:ea. N., t‘e,?5e.s 44Actl--- titxis areei co --e_ ivioi-e_ sulk, -V441i1 woo\d Le_ close k) .4e.„.. coiyotei--00. t e_eotki)A, qiorn sr -450 e, 6,4- tat, (.- i\.. a.r\ e-51-0,(d(ts[id I A en i(L af4100a,, (?-3 4-eaCte01141e& 'frb:14, aAck &c\ sk-o t-) e A 7 ' r -r ve 00 e-- ,567-1V--2.--:ZG71 : . • •11,1\ co Stioliane „osOValleyt OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CARY P. DRISKELL - CITY ATTORNEY 10210 East Sprague Avenue $ Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5105 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5095 ♦ eityattomey@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org February 16, 2018 Ray and Jane Sebert 10719 East 8u' Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Letter dated February 13, 2018 regarding restrictive covenants related to CPA -2018- 0004 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sebert: Thank you for providing the above referenced letter to Mr. Driskell. I am responding on behalf of our office. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2018-0004 is a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment and associated zoning change submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Shmautz. They are seeking to amend the land use designation and zoning for the parcel located at 721 South University (parcel no. 45212.1348) from Single Family Residential (with an R-3 zone) to Neighborhood Commercial (with a NC zone). They also own a second southern parcel located at 729 South University (parcel no. 45212.1349) that is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial under the Comprehensive Plan and which has an associated NC zoning designation. CPA -2018-0004 is in the midst of the City's Annual Comprehensive Amendment process and a public hearing with the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 22, 2018, at 6 pm at City Hall. You have indicated that the two subject parcels are located within the Old Orchard Subdivision and that they are subject to numerous "protective covenants," a copy of which was provided with your letter. To date, we have received no information or other evidence that the covenants have been amended other than as outlined in the recorded document that you provided. We have not received any information indicating an agreement to otherwise modify the restrictive covenants at this time. From the outset, it is important for me to convey that the City does not enforce privately enforceable restrictive covenants like those that you have provided. The City has no authority under Washington law to enforce or invalidate restrictive covenants. See Viking Props. Inc. v. Hohn, 155 Wn.2d 112, 130 (2005). Accordingly, the City will not enforce such covenants and they are not part of the criteria for land use decisions such as comprehensive plan amendments or associated zoning changes like CPA -2018-0004. To the extent covenants are valid and enforceable, it is up to private owners within subdivisions, such as yourselves, to enforce those covenants. You may wish to contact • • legal counsel for any legal questions regarding the validity, applicability, and enforceability of the covenants at issue in this case. In your introductory paragraph, you have asserted that the parcel was "removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016." 1 believe there may have been a misunderstanding in your discussions with Mr. Palaniuk, as the City does not have authority to unilaterally remove the parcel from the restrictive covenants. Instead, in 2016, the City adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and associated zoning map through the passage of Ordinance No. 16-018. During that process, 729 South University was designated and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The 2016 Update was required under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) and went through an extensive two year process of review, public input, and Planning Commission and City Council consideration prior to approval. Since it was a Comprehensive Plan update, it was processed pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140, and was not subject to chapter 20.60 SVMC. The City provided all appropriate public noticing and provided ample opportunity for public comment pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.140 for that process. While the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for that parcel was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, no change was made to the restrictive covenants, and neither parcel was "removed from the restrictive covenants." You also explained that any alteration of a subdivision would be subject to chapter 20.60 SVMC and that subdivision alteration applications must be signed by the majority of the owners of property in the subdivision, and in some cases, by all property owners. That is correct as it applies to alterations of subdivisions. However, as 1 indicated above, comprehensive plan amendments and associated changes in zoning are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. See SVMC 17.80.020, Table 17.80-1; SVMC 19.30.010; SVMC 19.30.020. They are not subject to the requirements of chapter 20.60 SVMC because they do not alter the plats for subdivisions. Further, since a comprehensive plan amendment and associated zoning change are not an alteration of a subdivision, they cannot remove or otherwise alter existing privately enforced restrictive covenants. Finally, you have asked for a copy of "the notice of application and the final decision." Further, you requested "a copy of the minutes from that hearing," Pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW), I am treating your request as a public records request. Pursuant to RCW 42.56.520, the City is required to respond to your request within five business days, This letter serves as the City's required response within the five business days. Although you have not specified a particular project for the notice of application and final decision, I will assume based upon the substance of the letter that you are referring to a project application related to alteration of the subdivision. Please provide a written response if this assumption is not correct. As I indicated above, the City has not processed any subdivision alteration for either parcel owned by the Schmautz' that would require a notice of application, and so we have no responsive documents to your request. You may find a copy of Ordinance No. 16-018, which was the final decision with regard to the Comprehensive Plan Update, on the City's website at www.spokanevalley.arg by selecting "Documents" from the top menu and then selecting "Ordinances." With regard to your request for a copy of the minutes from the hearing, it appears that is a request for Page 2 of 3 • • minutes of a hearing removing the parcel from the restrictive covenants. As 1 indicated above, no such action has occurred, there was no hearing on removal of the parcel from the covenants, and thus the City has no responsive documents to that specific request. There were several City Council meetings during which Ordinance No. 16-018, the ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan Update, was considered, and you may find the minutes for all meetings www.spokanevalley.org by selecting "Documents" from the top menu bar and then selecting "Minutes, Council Meetings." With this response, we will consider your public records request closed. Since your letter relates to CPA -2018-0004, we have treated it as public comment for the proposed amendment and included it in the packet provided to the Planning Commission. We will also provide a copy of this response letter to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Thank you again for your questions and please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney cc: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner • Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Heather Bryant/Steve acid Tresa Schmautz Page 3 of 3 (0) L Y WITHERSPOON.KELLEY Attorneys & Counselors itY _E9 `jf$ Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 cit vat torney(aspokanevall ey. org Marty Palaniuk, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 mpalaniuk@spokaneyalley.org SPOKANE 1 COEUR IYALENE Stanley M. Schwartz Admitted in CITY OF SPOKANE VALLWPriail: sms@with aspoonkel eyc om LEGAL DEPARTMENT May 8, 2018 Re: Ray and Jane Seibert Restrictive Covenants Related to CPA -2018-0004 Dear Messrs. Lamb and Palaniuk: I am in receipt of Mr. Lamb's February 16, 2018 letter which states the opinion that the "City does not enforce privately enforceable restrictive covenants" similar to those provided by my clients, Ray and Jane Sebert. I do not take issue with your statement concerning the City's duty to enforce covenants and your citation to Washington law. With respect to CPA -2018-0004, it is acknowledged that the City has the right to change the zoning for parcel no. 45212.1348 as requested by the owner and applicant. However, with respect to any land use action the City elects to take on the subject property, we request the zoning map and associated files contain a notation that states "The parcel identified as no. 45212.1350 is subject to protective covenants filed at Spokane County Auditor's No. 24086613." For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the protective covenants for Old Orchard Subdivision (previously provided February 13, 2018 to City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell). In consideration of this request, I refer you to two Washington cases from Division III: Sunberg v. Evans, 78 Wash. App. 616 (1995) and Rogers v. City of Toppenish, 23 Wash. App. 554 (1979). As you will see, both of these cases create liability when the City fails to disclose or improperly discloses knowledge about real property that affects its use and enjoyment. Based upon correspondence from various parties (including this letter) the City is put on notice of the restrictive covenants. In turn, to avoid a misunderstanding and future claims, please place a notation on the zoning map (and file) as set forth above. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 www.witherspoonkelley.com Tel: 509.624.5265 Fax: 509.450.2728 S1700063.DOCX May 8, 2018 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesies. Very Truly Yours, WITHERSPOON • KELLEY S ley M. Sch artz Enclosure cc: Ray and Jane Sebert V I 44. /• 1� 5F TH1 S DEED U(GAT aON KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THESE PRESENTS, THAT SOREN R. SORENSON, A WIDOWER, A.WADE ADAMS AND JOHANNA A. ADAMS, HES WIFE, DARREL 4. STRAUGHANAND VIRGINIA8.STRAUGHAN,HIS YIIFE,LOUISaSMITH AND ELSIEM.SMITH , HIS WIFE ,PAULR,BATES AND LEONAM.BATES, HIS WIFE, EULA L"PATTERSON, A WIDOW, GLAIN H. COOK AND ELEANOR H. COOK, HIS WIFE, JOHN HAUGAN AND MARGARET HAUGAN, HIS WIFE, HANS HAUGAN AND GUNHI L D HAUGAN,HIS WIFE, ADM MAE RlCEEL, A W1DOW HENRY J.GALES ADO HELEN M.GALES,HIS WIFE THE COLLEGE PLACE COMMUNITY CLUB,A D7RPORATION,GEORGE HARVEY AND HELEN )(.HARVEY1 HIS V1iFE,VlCTOR L. HATFIELD AND 1.FAITH HATFIELD, HIS WIFE, HAVE PLATTED INTO LOTS, BLOCKS AND ROADS THE LAND DESCRIBED AS: ` AND FORRESTRPPAP AND RUTH] .PAA P. HIS WtF£, THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF THE W112 Ei/22THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF THE W I/2 EI/2 E N2,OF TRACT 195 OF OPPORTUNITY; ALLOF TRACT 197, ANO ALL OF TRACT ts8,EXCEPT THE SOUTH 177.5 FEET OF THE EAST 34O FEET THEREOF; THE NORTH 1GO FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET OF THE NE 114 NW 1/4 SWi/4; AND THE NI/2NWI/4NWN4SWIM, EXCEPTTHE EAST3o TFEETOFTHE SOUTH 246.7 FEET, ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 7 FEET THEREOF; OF SECTION 21, T25N,R44EWM,SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON; TO BE KNOWN AS" OLD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION', AND00 HEREBY DEDICATE TOTHE PUBLIC USE FOREVER THE ROADS SHOWN UPON THEACCOMPANYING MAP. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS A. ASA CONDITION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PLAT BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, NO LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SOLD UNTIL SUCH LOT IS FURNISHED A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY. B. ALL LOTS !NTH'S SUBDIVISION SHALL DE CLASSIFIED AND KNOWN AS RESIDENTIA L LOTS. C. NONE BUTNEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE ERECTED UPON ANY 1.01IN THIS SUBDIVISION. D. NOT MORETHAN ONE STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED UPON ANY LOT, EXCEPT THATONE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL SE PERMITTED E. ONLY SINGLE—FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THIS SUBDIVISION.{See Exception Below) R NO RESIDENTIAL STROC TURE SHALL BE ERECTED HAVING LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE UPON THE GROUND FLOOR, EXCLUSiVE OF CAR PORTS,BREEZEWAYS, PATIOS,POR CHES OR OTHER AREA NOT DESIGNED FOR INDOOR LIVING QUARTERS. 6 NO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED NEARER THAN 30 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT, NOR ANY DETACHED - GARAGE NEARER THAN 55 FEET , NOR SHALL ANY RESIDENCE BE NEARER A S IDE PROPERTY LINE THAN 10 FEET, AND ALL OTHER CONSTRUC- TION SHALL CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE BUILDING REGULATIONS OF SPOKANE COUNTY. H. ANY STRUCTURE ERECTED SHALL BE COMPLETE AS TO EXTERNAL APPEARANCE,INCLUDING FINISHED PAINTING,AND SHALL BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC SEWER OR SEPTIC TANK WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. Z. NO BASEMENT, GARAGE,TRAILER ,OROTHER TEMPORARY STRUCTURE, FIXED,MO8!LEOR PORTABLE ,MAY BE OCCUPIED OR USED AS LIVING QUARTERS AT ANY TIME. J. NO ADVERTISING SIGN, BILLBOARD, POSTER OR PUBLIC NOTICE MAY BE ERECTED OR DISPLAYED ON ANY LOTOR ROADSIDE ADJACENT THERETO, EXCEPTING SUCH SIGN OR SIGNS OF MODEST AND REASONABLE SIZE USED ONLY TO OFFER FOR SALE REAL ESTATE LYING WITHIN THIS PLAT. K. IFANY LOT OR LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, REARRANGED,OR PORTION OR PORTIONS THEREOF INCORPORATED WITH ANY OTHER LOT OR LOTS OR FORTION OR PORTIONS THEREOF, SUCH SUBDIVISION OR REARRANGEMENT SHALL NOT RESULT IN ANY PARCEL OF LAND OF LESS THAN 8800 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, AND NOT LESS THAN 70 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A ROAD, REMAINING AFTER SUCH REARRANGE- MENT, NOR SHALL ANY SUCH REARRANGEMENT BE PERMITTEDTTOT WILL LEAVE ANY STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES ON ADJOtN I NG PARCEL OR PARCELS WITH LESS FRONT,SIDE OR REAR CLEARANCE THANADUTLINED ABOVE, L. NO BUSINESS, INDUSTRY OR COMMERCE SHALL PE PERMITTED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. M. ASA CONDITION OF ACCEPTANCE OF TH15 PLAT, NO STRUCTURE SHALL Be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yam: d-7 • 4'221} 4-.1c447z.c= •.1.0 lam. !6V • STATE OF WASHINGTON • f., I 11 1 [ / •'' , iii• .,, r. • ` ACK ©WLED EIM11EN '• Y Cf,e4 { r.� PRES. College ePPlace Camm ityClub '`j�RC 011egeP {iacemu t ty Club COUNTY OF SPOKANE S5 ON THIS j!t DAYOF, 4'A'- v' -j ,1954•BEFOREMEPERSONALLY APPEARED SOREN11SORENSON,A,WADEADAMS,JOHANNAA.ADAMS, DARREL iRAUGHAN,V1RGINIAB.ST>:tAUGHAN,PAUL R.BATES,LEONAM.BATES,I.AUISG.SMITH, ELSIEM.SMITH,RUTHL.PAAP, EULA L.PATTERSON, CLAIN H. COOK, ELEANOR H, COOK,JOHN HAUGAN,MARGARET HAUGAN,HANS HAUGAN,GUNHILD HAUGAN, AOOIE MAE RICKEL, HENRY J. GALES, HELEN M. GALES, GEORGE HARVEY,HELEN K. HARVEY, FORA EST R.PAAP,V1CTOR L. HATFIELD, Z.FAITH HATFIELD, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE IDENTICAL PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO- 61!H KR )ND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES HEREIN MENTIONED.�;� •`. ^.•rye • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED MY OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND THE YEAR FIRST ABOVE MEPFTIONEI70,. f. • y} Q' lla'�+J� LAC') z"'. sr `,0 PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT OPPORTUNITY,WASHINGTON Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, Filed for record February 23, 1953, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11, as follows: PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County Planning Commission, no lot in this subdivision shall be sold until such lot is furnished a domestic water supply. B. All lots in this subdivision shall be classified and known as Residential Lots. C. None but new structures shall be erected upon any lot in this sub- division. D. Not more than one structure shall be erected upon any lot, except that one detached garage shall be permitted. E. Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. (See exception below). F. No residential structure shall be erected having less than 1000 square feet of floor space upon the ground floor, exclusive of car- ports, breezeways, patios, porches or other area not designed for indoor living quarters. G. No residential structure shall be erected nearer than 30 feet to the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than 55 Feet, nor shall any residence'be nearer a side;propety=:line than• 10 feet, and all other construction shall conform in all respects to the building regulations of Spokane County. H. Any structure erected shall be complete as to external appearance, including finished painting, and shall•be connected to public sewer or septic tank within six months from date of commencement of con- struction. I. No basement, garage, trailer, or other temporary structure, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used as living quarters at any time. J. No advertising sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or parcels with less front; side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. As a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. Public Viewer - [Plalt.h'nage Search Results). • e• Help r. File Numbe0783 21-2-44-2 '. ;Reording # 2236978 Recording Ladle 02I23ii 954 eC N me PLUS Ife lumher` 4370 PLk roger �ierrl�er :'92°51732 OLD ORCHARD SUB 75711 C �1. 11 �3. 11d F bet! • Type a question for hek, ige§ found Plat Map Bk: 3 g 11 A1,2EIM I wM t:2 El s vz9 zo �r 24137 15, a•tl'-aE lrr c;. I Ua7a i a.sas: .i :G7 A': # w.+.13'.5 v e7iN 1— Ir:a•ar G1 F3C.flc 1 l"1 -1 iisA�l4� TS NS.LR O �• ci o L'1 r`T i oat 3, I 2 I a k E 0 z q, 61 BJ.+p,z19.1 T^oEr 1 954.®Ickj , /r i{d 15 6�n 126 73.34 IA h 7L4* o n I0 K 13 t fiL 19 IE 4. PO _ 11 Et i i L1 113 - r _..... i-. C 22 u L. vaa< 9 h 7 e1541.65a 6 e' I n' T' *x!1 7� '], 6 `•,7 4. *" syr' r7t. Stk ., I 4 « .:1 f5 r zl' y} 3 1.. Z r�a �, rai'j rr m ' o at. z SE$2._.,_. m 177 o j.2 . o 31 X1. C. 2 ': n 70197 { ; 2I.4 Nt, 3..23J22721 ei 25 7'7.75 ". 2?�y 26 ' - 29 Ii s'.........I:C„.„.... c, ,g Y 17 c `7857., 1: N IV.I.LAT.93i1 .143 L13sty re F. _7TH.. ,_.,1r.:tt(LI: 60.r!r.2. ,,.. g _ .4'"<< ......--.... r __ _ 3 r .' 7V 1 1 ' 4 eb T' ' ' ' j - f .3q4, IM' - • -1 / 7T1 2r.' 9t1 Q 1I1 u a ▪ r g 7 3 1 4� _ az1 ” if a 4 F • .. :\: tt .......IC1. • - I v 3 WG' C. Ic F 4K �` a 57.W _ „1„.. . I% u ,.,M:. 9.P.-„,.4..,_. ”" 4II,.,,,!1,,a„,„..1`:.........,4 � !yb'r1 I �r]VQ B 1. 0 c K' - 4 I . IT.. j a - dN �"E � 3aa.rr� till' :A; lin 9 - _ . , t.: '.13 hi+� ;L- .,. IN .r, ry ▪ T, �� •_, IQ 12 t3 '14;q' /,r J.4 amt- \ - ' ' 171 r Ahf,] i CMG!. i�1G]�n • E=h- y':y'^2W' fr c'� \ .-..S. ..._. 3_: • •r .11.`3 4.._.,_�•5'i' t= ._...-11.17------1,-...' . �y�"S ,_]rRJrc1r. ;511 3�A ... .-----NO o 1116 cCR. •�? ». ° F,- f , , •cg• 2y A+35T4 ` tt CF lllFt.4 cµ.t �N•r 4i 'ev._SYJ 'i' lov rcou a.i4a id 69'?,7'4Q'E Y5 4 I a n n 'I '.T.E] a+ 2^i C? la, .1; .. �- 707.7-., �..- .._ 11. a '15' .4.1x sJ•,4.11..5.17 Ir nes .'1!10'P Gr:YSn4,. 7. f-' iff 7a ls.• rrti. Utl o 4 a r 1E. • 7 'i 1 Ar i tat Ia s Q1 571 • P j-- _ r^'T'-41 '-. ..J.. •(�A=A. [�F ... �.�':fit:. f�rrri:�ie�v:z tum.m. G] 1'1 las trr,7.e'a GF ta9'2 4 E 1Cc4.5p 1. • .7577 p? ?3-66 tir-.rc� •- 'I,3T7t;11 3^53r37Y 41Pa.L •j ' , „ •; ''ale ..ate lirm.c. op 1'10 fQ1E11.1h7L 1p1,11,0:• '7' "%:i lj !�� '•i i ; 1 " .i- z of •t - 1 temp £Nplorer.. :r43 Citrix'ICk IiF' �!o>Jrappbc�soR tT Lid;'It 6Lo oFF 014 rndav f?rt 7d 9n rig no•r,A R1dA .r_ ATTACHM E N T 5 Spokane ��Va11ey COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: Non -project action to correet a map error on the Land Use Designation Map due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. CPA -2018-0005 CPA -20180006 Expand NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Owner: Five Fifty, LLC MPR Spokane LLC Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General. Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6: DNS Determination DNS Determination Exhibit 7: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Agency Comments Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a City initiated request to correct a mapping error. The following amendments are bisected with two different land use designations and zoning: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels are currently designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR). 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel is currently designated Industrial Mixed Use (MJ) and Single Family Residential (SFR). PROPERTY INFORMATION: 1. Page 2 of 10 CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Size and Characteristics: The area is approximately 10 acres in size. The site has had earth disturbance over the years. Located in the NW corner of parcel 46351.9049 is a Type F stream. Currently, the entire area is located in a 100 -year floodplain. However, FEMA is reviewing a CLOMR application to modify the boundaries. Approval of the CLOMR is anticipated in the near future. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has an overhead powerline and easement of 500 feet running through the subject area. The site is 0.83 of an acre is size. The site is fully developed with structures, pavement, stormwater facilities and landscaping. Comprehensive Plan: SFR and NC SFR and IMU Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and NC Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and IMU Existing Land Use: Vacant Office/warehouse building Page 2 of 10 CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006: North Spokane County C: Rural Conservation Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) LU: Single family residences C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences South C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C:Industrial (1) Z: Industrial(I) LU: Offices and warehouses East Spokane County C: Rural Conservation & Urban Reserve Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) & Urban Reserve (UR) LU: Single family residences and vacant land C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences Page 2 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 West C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C: IM[ 7 Z: IMU LU: Offices and warehouses 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Date of Complete Determination: N/A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Comment and Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2017 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that neither proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for either proposal under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for each proposal on February 2, 2018. The determinations were made after review of a completed environmental checklist for each proposal, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment for each proposal, public and agency comments, and other information on file for each proposal with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled for each proposal. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two dfferent sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two dfferent sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Page 3 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMUwas created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. (3) (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are designated critical areas such as a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049. Parcels are located within a 100 year floodplain. FEMA is currently reviewing a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) application which will modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA -2018-0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects minor mapping errors to eliminate split zoned parcels. The corrections are both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The existing land use designations of IMUfor the proposed amendments were evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. Page 5 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood - scale commercial development is limited in Spokane Valley. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. (7) Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the _IMUdesignation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. Page 6 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(11). 2. Compliance with Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations a. Findings: Either proposal corrects a land use designation mapping error. While portions of the properties described below will receive a new zoning district as the current zoning extends to the property boundaries, this is not a site specific rezone, and therefore the criteria associated with SVMC 19.30.030(B) is not applicable. Comp Plan amendments and area -wide rezones are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, 19.30.010 and 19.30.020. CPA -2018-0005: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. CPA -2018-0006: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation with an Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning classification. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.010(B) and 17.80.140(H), Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria, annual amendments may be completed to correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment is consistent with Title 19 SVMC and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. See Section C(1) above. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: CPA -20184005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designates areas for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should not be larger than two acres in size, and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial developments. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Page 7of10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU P1 Enable neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and lighter industrial types of uses such as contractor yards. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. L U -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. L U -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. CPA -2018-0006: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date for either proposal. This will be updated once the comment period has expired. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns for either proposal are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received the following agency comments to date for both CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018- 0006. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated Avista No Central Valley School District #356 No CentutyLink No S.okane Valley Police De artment No Washington State Department of Ecology No City of Liberty Lake No City of Spokane No City of Spokane Valley Building Division No City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes I-8-18 City of Spokane Valley Parks Department No City of Spokane Valley Traffic Yes 1-22-18 City of Millwood No Comcast No Consolidated Irrigation District #19 No East Spokane Water District #1 No East Valley School District #361 No Inland Power & Light No Model Irrigation District #18 No Modern Electric Water Company No Washington State Parks Department No Spokane Aquifer Joint Board No Spokane County Fire District #8 No Spokane County Planning & Building No Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 1-16-18 Spokane County Water District #3 No Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane Regional Health District No Spokane Regional Transportation Council No Spokane Transit Authority No Spokane Tribe of Indians No Spokane Valley Fire Department #1 No Trentwood Irrigation District No Vera Water & Power No Washington State Department of Commerce No Page 9 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Washington State Department of Arch and Historic Preservation No Washington State Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Natural Resources No Washington State Transportation No 'West Valley School District #363 No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted for either proposal. All comments are reflective of at the time of future development. F. Conclusion: CPA -2018-0005: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of NC and SFR, and the associated zoning of NC and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. CPA -201.8-0006: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the 1MU designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of 1TVIU and SFR, and the associated zoning of 1MU and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 10 of 10 I�N��V1111�i '1115 �1m ,Hvil 11 lu 1111 1 111 11 I) 11111 11,11, 11 III II 111 VIII , 11 1 11 u�II 11 m II 111111111111° 11 II 111 111111111111 1 i1 U JI II J U Ili r 111 1111 11 1111J1 ,1 111r� o x 1 II 11.11.1 11 111111111 1 111111111111 II 11 11u, — 1 11 1111111111111 11 1.1 Q 111 11111111 111111111111 "�1IIIPV'11mii 4 �1luuil�:: Irr ..ten idou oil mm 11„iiN u lm: V 171./111LLJ 1YAE..11-, 1._1 L'J VVl/✓ E Francis Ave E Sanson Ln E Sanson Ave a 0 0 z E &ere :kVA -111N • 1 I ro Grown -Ave," W M%, ■I1iil1f=i' -'_Q 1 • Q °T i e.Ave ■gt irlu����' Wabash �111111i�,\ hill ■11L��1inuIL' I u. E-Wabast E D ween E Heroy Ave p East c..; Valley Egad S Middle Ave Trentwood ■l . � ■11�j��� Elementary E Broad i i 1PN111k eray Ave ME !�!!�� ELon aellow� �■ "Lon ellow Lugs / _- �'flil r!1tuuu!Elll 1 111 ■_:rNMIii ERich Ave :Rockvv_el Ave M Lflh1111I Ci.: ■L.1Ir.rt Et til N Robbins Rd Antoine Pea eon se 0 East Valley Senior E 1 High.11vave Y sc1oot m E E Olympic •4',a w■. tom • �►11111�:� E Wellesley, E Longellow Ave ■u.. iiW■ RichAv_ E-Rockwell ' E 3loekwell ■��9�,`41 MA1m g Mi" iz Ave nL � r E Lonafel ew Herd} _flt&fel. owe. EXHIBIT 2 Comprehensive Plan Map X46362190521 1P6.1i00:14141 Study Area 46352.9052 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 0 z 46354.9127 0 UNKNOWN ADDRESS 114 E Ol inpic Ave46 a l E -Wabash Ave Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel EXHIBIT 3 Zoning Map i Evei e t Ave —E -(queen -Ave' —E-Oi5 mpic.Axl z 46352.9052 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN opgy.,, 91Y.46)76y _I �UNR q 3r19-�, V,y,rNS I N Study Area 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46354.9127 0 UNKNOWN ADDRESS E -Wabash -Ave z 0 z Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel EXHIBIT4 Legend BPA Easement FEMA 2010 Flood_Zone 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD fO A AE 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46354:99.27 UNKNOWN ADDRESS ri *Mime Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 5 rnrne SEPA CHECKLIST 1� SVMC 21.20 1eV R 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ perinitcenterAspokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 12-18-17 Received by: Fee: N/A PLUS #: File #: CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006 & CPA -2018-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL *"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8h/21 by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRVCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS, This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively, A. BACKGROUND 1 Name of proposed project, if applicable City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption in May/June of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental impact Statement was completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No. If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Spokane Valley Council approval. 11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) These are non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City is initiating three comprehensive plan amendments.. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/05). The Spokane Conservation District recently purchased the property and intends to keep it as natural area, with the exception of their offices. The proposal brings the designation in line with the Conservation District's intentions to conserve the land for public use as open space. SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. CPA -2018-0005: 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354,9127 (Parcel numbers were updated). Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0007: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505; addressed as 4418 East 8th Avenue; located at the SE corner of 8th Avenue and Havana Street; further located in the north half of the SW quarter of Section 23, Township 25, Range 43, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane r�Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. a. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential im after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2. pacts. Not applicable. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 2) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):E flat,❑ rolling, ['hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Each amendment site has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percentslope)? Unknown. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland, Not applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not PL -22 V1.o applicable. Page 4 of *Wane alley PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST Page 5 of *lime _ ."1FValley. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 3) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 4) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a Type F stream located northwest of the proposed amendment CPA -2018- 0005. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR. AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of *Wane .000%Iley. SEPA CHECKLIST Standards 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location (SVSS). on the site plan. 6) Yes, CPA -2018-0005. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. Yes, CPA -2018-0007. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0563D and 53063C0564D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. 7) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Not applicable. Will this water flow into other waters? Not applicable. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of SO'lane �Valley� EVALUATION FOR 5) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ® pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, miifoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 6) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1-1 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: n fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of Sifoikane VaHey. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Not applicable. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST° EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 vi .o Page 9 of *Wane 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. CPA -2018-0007: The property has an office building and several warehouse buildings with the majority of the area vacant. The site is owned by the Spokane Conservation District and currently not occupied. Surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family and multifamily uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Unknown. If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. CPA -2018-0005: None. CPA -2018-0006: 9,375 square foot commercial structure built for office and warehouse use. CPA -2018-0007: Approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial buildings built in 2003 according to the Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel data. d. Will any structures be demolished? Unknown. If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0006: industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of Spokane ,000V.11ey, g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None of the proposals are located within the shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. CPA -2018-0007 is located within a 100 year Floodplain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Not applicable. Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Stamm �alley� 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no designated or informal recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity of each amendment. CPA -2018- 0007 will designate additional parks and open space for recreation uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? None known. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. CPA -2018-0005: Is located adjacent to Progress Road. CPA -2018-0006: Is located adjacent to Trent Avenue (SR -290). CPA -2018-0007: Is located adjacent to 8t'' Avenue. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLLST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 11 of 15 Shane ey. b. Is site currently served by public transit? Yes. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: At the time of future development transportation will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SUSS). 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? The CPA is a non -project action. There are services in the vicinity and anticipated to be available at the time of development. if so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, gas, water, n refuse service, n telephon , sanitary septic system, ' tither - describe natural wer, b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 12 of 15 Spokane ..•.'d1ey SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: cia (-7 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is anticipated as the sites develop impacts will be mitigated through the City's regulations and outside entities with jurisdiction. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To be determined at time of development. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? It is not anticipated any site development will affect vegetation or habitats of any kind. Specifically CPA -2018-0008 intent for a zoning designation of parks and open space JP/OS) is to preserve and protect vegetation and animal habitats. b. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: To be determined at time of development. 2. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It is not anticipated development of any kind would be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: To be determined at time of development. 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, tloodplains, or prime farmlands? it is not anticipated development would affect environmental sensitive areas, however protect and follow established critical area regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. PL -22 V1.o Page 13 of 15 S ik. ne ley. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: To be determined at time of development. SEPA CHECKLIST 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? It is not anticipated development would affect land and shoreline uses, however protect and follow established regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It is not anticipated development would increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Any impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon the regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: To be determined at time of development. 6. Identify, If possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated the proposal will conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Karen Kendall. Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Address: 10210 East Spra iue Avenue: Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5026 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City inadvertently bisected various parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update; the CPA action will correct the error as follows: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel and 2. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPOSAL LOCATION: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) ofthe SVMC, the lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5026/FX (509) 720-5075, kkendall@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720- 5335/FX (509) 720-5075, Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2 DATE ISSUED: February 2, 201$ SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 ntr Spa�k�ane ,.Valley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Building and Planning Division 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 1 Fax: 509.720.5075 ♦ cityhall tr,spokanevallev.nrg LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: February 2, 2018 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (CPA -2018-0007 -- withdrawn) 2. DESCRIPTION: Non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City initiated three comprehensive plan amendments. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The remaining amendment was to designate Conservation District Owned properties as parks and open space. (See below): CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel; and CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). Withdrawn by the City - not included in Environmental Review 3. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 5. OWNER: CPA -2018-0005: Five Fifty, LLC CPA -2018-0006: MPR Spokane LLC 6. LOCATION: CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4 REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire City of Spokane Valley lies in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- specific ite- specifc comprehensive plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The topography at each of the sites has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. All future development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Regional Stormwater Manual and any relevant critical areas regulations. No concerns noted. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and consistent with Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. 3. WATER Surface The SEPA Checklist states CPA -2018-0005 has a Type F stream located in the northwest portion of the site. Additionally, CPA -2018-0005 is located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). CPA -2018-0006 is not located near a surface water nor located in a 100 -year floodplain. All conditions currently exist on the site. The designations proposed to be expanded to eliminate the bisected zoning will not create additional impacts. No concerns noted. Ground The non -project action has no impact on ground water; future development consistent with the zoning will adhere to regulations. No concerns noted. Water Runoff No future impacts are anticipated as a result of this non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing plants. Any impacts associated with future development proposals will be reviewed to identify site conditions and appropriately mitigated. No concerns noted. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing fish and wildlife conditions. Future development will be reviewed for potential impacts on wildlife habitat and mitigated as necessary. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are anticipated as a result of the land use designation amendment or with future development. No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE The Checklist states this is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. Future development will adhere to applicable zoning regulations ensuring compatibility with the existing land use. No concerns noted 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION The slight adjustment to the land use designation is not expected to have any impacts on existing recreational facilities or future needs.. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No historic or cultural sites are known to be in the vicinity of the subject areas. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. CPA -2018-0005 is adjacent to Progress Road, CPA -2018-0006 is adjacent to Trent Avenue. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. All properties included in the city initiated map amendment are located within the boundaries of the East Valley School District 4361. Adequate services are available to all sites. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4 The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services and Trent Wood Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 .00Valley® COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners withm 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 Application Description: This is a non -project action associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) cycle. This City initiated non - project action is due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The proposal is to expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Five Fifty, LLC Tupper Inc Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner (509) 7205026 kkendall(a7spokanevalley.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 720-5000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the 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 Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan Map ij z E E' er eft ,Hv E Crown Ave SFR etClu e[.'fli1oti ., a Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Request: Owner: Five Fifty, LLC & Tupper Inc City initiated proposal to expand Parcel #: 46352.9052, 2.9014, 1.9049, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 1.9005, 4.9127 designation and zoning to Address: Unknown eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 8 Karen Kendall From: Chad Riggs Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 7:33 AM To: Karen Kendall • Subject: RE: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 Karen, DE does not have any comments for the CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 SEPA. Please check with Ray to verify he is ok with traffic review to be completed at time of development. Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. I Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggs(a}.spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:04 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <jrowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Chris Johnston' <crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>;'Chris Knudson' <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake' <atainio@libertylakewa.gov>; 'City of Spokane Tirrell Black' <tblack@spokanecity.org>;'Colin Depner' <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; 'Comcast'<bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>;'Consolidated Irrigation District #19' <consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; Doug Powell <dpowell@spokanevalley.org>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <distl@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>; 'Environmental Services Judy Green' <jagreen@spokanecounty.org>; 'Inland Power & Light' <connien@inlandpower.com>; 'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <imca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Mary Moore<mmoore@spokanevalley.org>;'Mike Makela' <MakelaM@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Mike Stone <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Model Irrigation District #18' <jim@modirr.org>;'Modern Electric Water Company' <modern@mewco.com>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; 'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistacorp.com>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>;'Spokane County Fire District #8' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane County Planning & Building'<jpederson@spokanecounty.org>;'Spokane County Utilities' <jred@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanedeanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority' <kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.com>;'Tom Richardson City of Millwood' <tom.richardson@millwoodwa.us>;'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1' <HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@verawaterandpower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>;'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Parks' <Chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg@wvsd.org>; Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org>;'planning@miliwoodwa.us' 1 <planning@millwoodwa.us>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 All, .Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following_ project: Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0005 Parcels: 46351.9049; 46351.9005 and 46352.9027 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0006 Parcel: 45015.1409 Project Name: City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0007 Parcels: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505 Please submit written comments to me via email, or mail, by January 19, 2018 @ 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and noted on the attached documents. Thank you. Karen Kendall I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5026 1 kkendall@spokanevalley.org Spam' e Valls This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 Karen Kendall From: Ray Wright Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:34 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: CPA -2018-0005 & 0006 Karen: Traffic has reviewed CPA -2018-0005 and 0006 and determined that no traffic analysis is required for these proposed changes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Ray Wright, PE Senior Engineer, Traffic 4.0001;Mlley. 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 rwright@spokanevallev. orq (509) 720-5019 1 Karen Kendall From: Red, Jim <JRed@spokanecounty.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:58 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: Project: CPA -2018-0005 Attachments: r_PA_Comments.rtf 1 To: Karen Kendall (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0005 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Expand NC desigl Elimate split parcel Address: AO01 Parcels are curently vacant. Sewer requrirements will be addressed as the property is developed. ATTACHMENT 6 �Okan!` s �%1�� COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO '1111, PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: Non -project action to correct a map error on the Land Use Designation Map due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Expand NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Owner: Five Fifty, LLC MPR Spokane LLC Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTA CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6: DNS Determination DNS Determination Exhibit 7: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Agency Comments Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 A. BACKGROUNDINFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a City initiated request to correct a mapping error. The following amendments are bisected with two different land use designations and zoning: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels are currently designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR). 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel is currently designated Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR). PROPERTY INFORMATION: 1. V ___v V A CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Size and Characteristics: The area is approximately 10 acres in size. The site has had earth disturbance over the years. Located in the NW corner of parcel 46351.9049 is a Type F stream. Currently, the entire area is located in a 100 -year floodplain. However, FEMA is reviewing a CLOMR application to modify the boundaries. Approval of the CLOMR is anticipated in the near future, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has an overhead powerline and easement of 500 feet running through the subject area. The site is 0.83 of an acre is size. The site is fully developed with structures, pavement, stormwater facilities and landscaping. Comprehensive Plan: SFR and NC SFR and IMO Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and NC Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and IMU Existing Land Use: Vacant Office/warehouse building V ___v V A CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006: North Spokane County C: Rural Conservation Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) LU: Single family residences C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences South C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C:Industrial (1) Z: Industrial(I) LU: Offices and warehouses East Spokane County C: Rural Conservation & Urban Reserve Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) & Urban Reserve (UR) LU: Single family residences and vacant land C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences Page 2 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 West C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C: IMU Z: IMU LU: Offices and warehouses 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Date of Complete Determination: N/A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Comment and Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2017 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that neither proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for either proposal under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for each proposal on February 2, 2018. The determinations were made after review of a completed environmental checklist for each proposal, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment for each proposal, public and agency comments, and other information on file for each proposal with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled for each proposal. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Page 3 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation JMUwas created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known physical characteristics that would create d faculties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are designated critical areas such as a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049. Parcels are located within a 100 year floodplain. FEMA is currently reviewing a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) application which will modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA -2018-0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects minor mapping errors to eliminate split zoned parcels. The corrections are both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. Analysis CPA -2018.0006: The existing land use designations oflMUfor the proposed amendments were evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. Page 5 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. (5) Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood - scale commercial development is limited in Spokane Valley. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the .IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. Page 6 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018.0006: The insignfcant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Compliance with Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations a. Findings: Either proposal corrects a land use designation mapping error. While portions of the properties described below will receive a new zoning district as the current zoning extends to the property boundaries, this is not a site specific rezone, and therefore the criteria associated with SVMC 19.30.030(B) is not applicable. Comp Plan amendments and area -wide rezones are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, 19.30.010 and 19.30.020. CPA -2018-0005: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. CPA -2018-0006: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation with an Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning classification. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.010(B) and 17.80.140(H), Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria, annual amendments may be completed to correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment is consistent with Title 19 SVMC and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. See Section C(1) above. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designates areas for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should not be larger than two acres in size, and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial developments. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Page 7 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. L U -P1 Enable neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. L U -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. L U -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and lighter industrial types of uses such as contractor yards. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. CPA -2018-0006: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date for either proposal. This will be updated once the comment period has expired. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns for either proposal are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received the following agency comments to date for both CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018- 0006. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated Avista No Central Valley School District #356 No CenturyLink No Spokane Valley Police Department No Washington State Department of Ecology No City of Liberty Lake No City of Spokane No City of Spokane Valley Building Division No City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes 1-8-18 City of Spokane Valley Parks Depaitinent No City of Spokane Valley Traffic Yes 1-22-18 City of Millwood No Comcast No Consolidated Irrigation District #19 No East Spokane Water District #1 No East Valley School District #361 No Inland Power & Light No Model Irrigation District #18 No Modern Electric Water Company No Washington State Parks Department No Spokane Aquifer Joint Board No Spokane County Fire District #8 No Spokane County Planning & Building No Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 1-16-18 Spokane County Water District #3 No Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane Regional Health District No Spokane Regional Transportation Connell No Spokane Transit Authority No Spokane Tribe of Indians No Spokane Valley Fire Department #1 No Trentwood Irrigation District No Vera Water & Power No Washington State Department of Commerce No Page 9 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Washington State Department of Arch and Historic Preservation No Washington State Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Natural Resources No Washington State Transportation No 'West Valley School District #363 No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted for either proposal. All comments are reflective of at the time of future development. F. Conclusion: CPA -2018-0005: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of NC and SFR, and the associated zoning of NC and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the IMU designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of IMU and SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(11) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 1 V IV 1111icyiV1U•kf V1 i ha 1 V—VVVV IE Wabasb.Ct E Broad p Ave i Trentwood Elementary IHeroy L East Valley Senior E East r High Valleys b School 0 0 Wellesley Ave 4 1. .....111 Ki ii i■ i 111 Heroy Min E.lteroy_ i� i Aye MMI ii fella;"" Long. if�111k6 Ave iIa a ■ 1w►t 111i�� F 1iI n EXHIBIT 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane —.0 Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Rpt' City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 3 Zoning Map 45015 T 1409 RENT 11 Study Area Spolkane .. Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLG Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 4 *Mune Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 5 spci d ;x Kane SEPA CHECKLIST 1 SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter(rrispokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 12-18-17 Received by: Fee: NIA PLUS #: File #: CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006 & CPA -2018-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED`*` ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. ,INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations, Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane 401,01rValley. SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption in May/June of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental Impact Statement was completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No. If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Spokane Valley Council approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) These are non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City is initiating three comprehensive plan amendments.. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane ..ley, from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). The Spokane Conservation District recently purchased the property and intends to keep it as natural area, with the exception of their offices. The proposal brings the designation in line with the Conservation District's intentions to conserve the land for public use as open space. SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. CPA -2018-0005: 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127 (Parcel numbers were updated). Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; Located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0007: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505; addressed as 4418 East 8" Avenue; located at the SE corner of 8' Avenue and Havana Street; further located in the north half of the SW quarter of Section 23, Township 25, Range 43, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. PL -22 V1,0 Page 3 of Spokane �,.�Va11ey• SEPA CHECKLIST 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. a. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential im after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2. pacts. Not applicable. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 2) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):❑ flat, I 1 rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Each amendment site has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Unknown. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not PL -22 V1.o applicable. Page 4 of Spokane ���a11ey� PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA CIIECKLIST Page 5 of Spokane 40,00Valley` h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 3) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 4) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a Type F stream located northwest of the proposed amendment CPA -2018- 0005. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Standards 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location (SVSS). on the site plan. 6) Yes, CPA -2018-0005. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. Yes, CPA -2018-0007. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0563D and 53063C0564D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. 7) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Not applicable. Will this water flow into other waters? Not applicable. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of Spokane .0100Valley. EVALUATION FOR 5) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass • pasture — crop or grain - wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 6) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Hmammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. SD1ARPFIEWPii� F EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of pakane valley. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Not applicable. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 9 of 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. CPA -2018-0007: The property has an office building and several warehouse buildings with the majority of the area vacant. The site is owned by the Spokane Conservation District and currently not occupied. Surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family and multifamily uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Unknown. If so, describe c. Describe any structures on the site. CPA -2018-0005: None. CPA -2018-0006: 9,375 square foot commercial structure built for office and warehouse use. CPA -2018-0007: Approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial buildings built in 2003 according to the Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel data. d. Will any structures be demolished? Unknown. If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None of the proposals are located within the shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. CPA -2018-0007 is located within a 100 year Floodplain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and pians, if any: Not applicable. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Not applicable. Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 S bkane ..0. Va11ey 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no designated or informal recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity of each amendment. CPA -2018- 0007 will designate additional parks and open space for recreation uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? None known. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. CPA -2018-0005: Is located adjacent to Progress Road. CPA -2018-0006: Is located adjacent to Trent Avenue (SR -290). CPA -2018-0007: Is located adjacent to 8x" Avenue. PL22V1.0 SEPA CIECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 11 of 15 Spokane b. Is site currently served by public transit? Yes. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d, Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: At the time of future development transportation will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? The CPA is a non -project action. There are services in the vicinity and anticipated to be available at the time of development. If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: nn electricity, natural gas, water, n refuse service, ® telephon'D sanitary wer, ❑ septic stem, ❑' dither - describe . b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 12 of 15 Spokane .'cele. SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make Its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for proiect actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is anticipated as the sites develop impacts will be mitigated through the City's regulations and outside entities with jurisdiction. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To be determined at time of development. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marinelife? It is not anticipated any site development will affect vegetation or habitats of any kind. Specifically CPA -2018-0008 intent for a zoning designation of parks and open space AP/OS) is to preserve and protect vegetation and animal habitats. b. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: To be determined at time of development. 2. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It is not anticipated development of any kind would be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: To be determined at time of development. 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? It is not anticipated development would affect environmental sensitive areas, however protect and follow established critical area regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 15 S�" okay P 'galley. rie a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: To be determined at time of development. SEPA CHECKLIST 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? It is not anticipated development would affect land and shoreline uses, however protect and follow established regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It Is not anticipated development would increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Any impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon the regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: To be determined at time of development. 6. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated the proposal will conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: \'l -� 1 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Address: 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5026 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.o Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT I��IW�I�I III 411 VIVI � W ul�� IIII I WPI 11 I uluVlul '���mul Vlli a Iilml I�u01�ulu 911 I16uumuw rI( FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City inadvertently bisected various parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update; the CPA action will correct the error as follows: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel and 2. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPOSAL LOCATION: 1 CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 463529052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC, the lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5026/FX (509) 720-5075, kkendall@spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720- 5335/FX (509) 720-5075, Lbarlow0,,spokanevallev.org City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2 DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination_ City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 crtr /� Spokane lley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Building and Planning Division 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720,5000 ♦ Fax: 509320,5075 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: February 2, 2018 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (CPA -2018-0007 — withdrawn) 2. DESCRIPTION: Non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City initiated three comprehensive plan amendments. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The remaining amendment was to designate Conservation District Owned properties as parks and open space. (See below): CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel; and CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). Withdrawn by the City - not included in Environmental Review 3. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 5. OWNER: CPA -2018-0005: Five Fifty, LLC CPA -2018-000G: MPR Spokane LLC 6. LOCATION: CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4 REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire City of Spokane Valley lies in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- specific comprehensive plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The topography at each of the sites has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. All future development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Regional Stormwater Manual and any relevant critical areas regulations. No concerns noted. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and consistent with Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. 3. WATER Surface The SETA Checklist states CPA -2018-0005 has a Type F stream located in the northwest portion of the site. Additionally, CPA -2018-0005 is located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). CPA -2018-0006 is not located near a surface water nor located in a 100 -year floodplain. All conditions currently exist on the site. The designations proposed to be expanded to eliminate the bisected zoning will not create additional impacts. No concerns noted. Ground The non -project action has no impact on ground water; future development consistent with the zoning will adhere to regulations. No concerns noted. Water Runoff No future impacts are anticipated as a result of this non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing plants. Any impacts associated with future development proposals will be reviewed to identify site conditions and appropriately mitigated. No concerns noted. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing fish and wildlife conditions. Future development will be reviewed for potential impacts on wildlife habitat and mitigated as necessary. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are anticipated as a result of the land use designation amendment or with future development. No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE The Checklist states this is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. Future development will adhere to applicable zoning regulations ensuring compatibility with the existing land use. No concerns noted 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION The slight adjustment to the land use designation is not expected to have any impacts on existing recreational facilities or future needs.. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No historic or cultural sites are known to be in the vicinity of the subject areas. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. CPA -2018-0005 is adjacent to Progress Road, CPA -2018-0006 is adjacent to Trent Avenue. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. All properties included in the city initiated map amendment are located within the boundaries of the East Valley School District #361. Adequate services are available to all sites. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4 The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services and Trent Wood Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendrnents. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. City of Spokane Valley Determination ofNon-Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 00°°\.. Si%lime Hey - COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Dearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: This is a non -project action associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) cycle. This City initiated non - project action is due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update, and the CPA action will correct the error. The proposal is to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcel currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): MPR Spokane LLC Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner (509) 720-5026 kkendall�}a,spokanevallev.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the 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 request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 720-5000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the 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 Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan. Map alow".%� Sioliane 40000 Valle Y CPA -2018-0006 Recluest: Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMO designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 8 Karen Kendall From: Chad Riggs Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 7:33 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 Karen, DE does not have any comments for the CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 SEPA. Please check with Ray to verify he is ok with traffic review to be completed at time of development. Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggs(a,spokanevalley.org KW Valley - 4,0,00 This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:04 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <jrowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink'<Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Chris Johnston' <crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; 'Chris Knudson' <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake' <atainio@libertylakewa.gov>; 'City of Spokane Tirrell Black' <tblack@spokanecity.org>; 'Colin Depner' <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; 'Comcast` <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; 'Consolidated Irrigation District #19' <consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; Doug Powell <dpowell@spokanevalley.org>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <distl@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>; 'Environmental Services Judy Green' <jagreen@spokanecounty.org>;'Inland Power & Light'<connien@inlandpower.com>;'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Mary Moore <mmoore@spokanevalley.org>; 'Mike Makela' <MakelaM@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Mike Stone <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Model irrigation District #18' <jim@modirr.org>; 'Modern Electric Water Company' <modern@mewco.com>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; 'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistacorp.com>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>; 'Spokane County Fire District #8' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane County Planning & Building' <jpederson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Utilities' <jred@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanecleanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>;'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.com>; 'Tom Richardson City of Millwood' <tom.richardson@millwoodwa.us>; 'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1'<HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@verawaterandpower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>;'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Parks' <Chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg@wvsd.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; 'planning@millwoodwa.us' 1 <planning@millwoodwa.us>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevailey.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 All, Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following: project: Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0005 Parcels: 46351.9049; 46351.9005 and 46352.9027 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0006 Parcel: 45015.1409 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0007 Parcels: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505 Please submit written comments to me via email, or mail, by January 19, 2018 @ 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and noted on the attached documents. Thank you. Karen Kendall 1 Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5026 1 kkendali@spokanevalley.org SiMane .0001;Val1m This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 Karen Kendall From: Ray Wright Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:34 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: CPA -201 8-0005 & 0006 Karen: Traffic has reviewed CPA -2018-0005 and 0006 and determined that no traffic analysis is required for these proposed changes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Ray Wright, PE Senior Engineer, Traffic Wiane .000*Valley. 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 rwright@spokarre valley. orq (509) 720-5019 1 Karen Kendall From: Red, Jim <JRed©spokanecounty.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:06 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: Project: CPA -2018-0006 Attachments: r PA Comments.rtf 1 To: Karen Kendall (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0006 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Expand NC desig/ Ellmate split parcel Address: AO01 Sewer requrirements will be addressed as the property is developed. ATTACHMENT 7-10 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall February 8, 2018 L Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna 1 -Horton took roil and the following member's and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschtnitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen, absent— excused Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Larnb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Commissioner Walton moved to excuse Commissioner Rasmussen from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed_ ll. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the February 08, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in fervor, zero against and ihe motion passed IH. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the January 11, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this notion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed, Commission Walton moved to approve the January. 25, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this notion was six in favor, zero c;gainst and this motion passed IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT; There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Continued Public Hearing, CTA -2017-2005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the public rights-of-way, Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission continued the hearing from January 25, 2018. Mr. l.arnb answered some of the questions raised at that meeting: • Can the City require a specific distance between new poles? Mr. Lamb said this was feasible. The industry suggested this could prove problematic the more people who entered the market. The industry said the distance requirement could make it difficult to find a location which worked with the technology. • Can the City require the providers to co -locate? Mr. Lamb said legally the City could require co -location however some of the utility companies do not allow it. He noted some of the technology doesn't work if there is more than one provider on the same pole • Can the City require a minimum height for equipment location? Mr. l.atnb said to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the technology. A minimum height of 20 feet would not pose a problem, but a higher level, above 60-80 feet, may cause issues from a technology standpoint. • Can the City require the ground base facilities to be buried? Mr. Larnb stated legally the City could require it, although there a practical considerations. The industry provided a significant number of comments regarding how detrimental to the equipment ungrounding can be. 21118.02-08 Planning commission hair s Page 2 o4'5 • Can the City require providers to transmit from the small cell to the macro cell via fiber? Mr. Lamb said the City cannot regulate the technology. By requiring (he method of transmission, we would be regulating their technology. • There were questions regarding radiation levels, type of bandwidth, possible impacts on people, Mr. Lamb said under federal law we cannot regulate based on type of signal, which would he regulating the technology. He said these items are regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and as long as the equipment meets FCC criteria the City cannot regulate them. • The Commission requested crime statistics on ground based facilities, Mr. Lamb saki according to the industry comments these structures do not have an impact on crime. • Could the City tax wireless facilities? Mr. Lamb saki the City already has a tax on telephone/wireless. Ile said cities can do this under federal law, however we cannot tax the data. • Could the City require the provider to submit an engineering certification of the pole structures`? Mr. Lamb said the City could require this. Ile said this relates to the public safety of facilities placed in the right-of-way. While the City does not have any pole standards, the utility companies do. The providers would already be supplying this information to the utility providers so it would not hurt to ask for a copy of it with the application. • Who is responsible for the cost of relocation of poles with small cell facilities on them? Mr. Lamb staled the cost of relocation is the responsibility of the party making the request. Relocation costs are the responsibility of the utility company if it a capital project. Relocations cost are the responsibility of the developer when it is a private development, • is line of site a problem? Mr. Lamb said according to testimony at the last meeting, line of site was not an issue, I le said in Spokane Valley the topography does not pose a problem because of the nature of the valley. The City does not have issues similar to downtown Seattle with all the hillsides and buildings. Industry has representatives who can provide more clarification. Mr. Lamb said staff and the Commission received comments at the last meeting from the industry providers. He has reviewed them and offered comments on some of the topics which were brought up. • The industry requested to have the undergroundiing facilities requirement removed. Mr. Lamb said legally the City can require it. However, there are considerations due to the size of the vaults, vault safety and location, as pictures supplied by the vendors showed. • The industry requested removing the requirement for co-location or a minimum distance between new poles. Mr. Larnb said staff does not see an issue with those requirements. The industry commented it would hinder the last company into the market, The Commissioners expressed concern someone's house may have 3, 4 or 5 poles placed in front of it, Mr. Lamb offered that in front of city hall there is a pole on the edge of-City lall property and another existing pole 20-30 feet away, • The industry requested shortening (he permit processing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr. Lamb said 60 days is required under state and federal law. The City's permit processing time is much shorter than that, however he recommends keeping 60 days. • T-Mobile requested the City allow a unified camouflage design, Mr. Lamb said this would be facility that houses both the antenna and control equipment in one enclosure. T-Mobile has suggested a unit which would not be bigger than six cubic feet. This is smaller in size than the size of the antenna and control box together. Mr. Lamb said this was a reasonable request and the Commission could consider this, however staff suggested a name change to limit confusion. • The industry requested allowing small eel' facilities within oily parks. Mr. Lamb said given the size of our parks and their proximity the right-of-way there k no need for a facility in the park. The City has been working to clean up the overhead in its parks. Il would be inappropriate to allow small cell facilities within the boundaries of the park. 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minulca Page 3 of 5 • The industry requested increasing the height of the electric transmissions structure from 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Lamb stated this related to the large macro -poles and he recommended not making this change. • The industry requested increasing the allowable deviation before an action is viewed as a substantial change. Mr. Lamb said this is the amount of deviation allowed before a Conditional Use Permit is required. He said the City regulations are relatively flexible and open, he would not recommend this change, Commissioner Johnson and Phillips expressed concerns regarding the requirement for private developer paying to move of the utility pole when there is a private development. Commissioner Johnson shared his fear that line of site could pose a problem when a new building is erected. Mr. Lamb saki it is the responsibility the carriers to determine if their equipment was able to communicate. Vice -chair Johnson asked for public comment Joel Aro, Links Consulting for Verizon. Mr. Aro said he was addressing a couple of questions which arose. I le stated there are naturally occurring gases in an underground vault. The equipment contained in the vault does not emit any kind of gas. He commented how damaged the equipment becomes if it is required to be buried. He requests the City eliminate this requirement. Commissioner Walton askedfor the size of the ground cabinet Verizon uses. Mr. Aro said he did not have the specifications with him. Mr. Aro said it would be the responsibility of the carrier for making sure that they have communication with their own facilities. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Verizon prefers fiber and that extensive damage, as shown in Verizon's comment is caused by putting the equipment underground. Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke said he felt the legal department had done a good job with the regulations and he wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to forward them to the City Council. He stated Mobilitie has a contained antenna and control equipment in one unit. He said crime will be difficult stating that Arista and CcnturyLink require equipment to be ten feet off the ground. Mr. Burke said with enough notice his company would move their own equipment. City Attorney Cary Driskoll clarified how Washington stale statutes regulates who pays to move a utility pole located in the right-of-way. He said under the statute if the City is doing a capital project and utility pole needs to be moved, the cost is on the utility company. It is being moved for the public benefit. The utility Trade Commission (UTC) has imposed tariff on utility rates which pays for these moves. The UTC determined that the person making the request pays for the movement. If it is a private development, then the developer pays. Commissioner Walton asked how many sites each of the carriers present were looking to deploy, Steven Burke for Mobilitie stated they had six, Mr. Aro stated Verizon was looking at three at this lime. Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment would be labeled for safety as required Dennis Crapo, Spokane VriIley: Mr. Crapo stated he wanted the Commission to be aware attic: unintended consequences of allowing more poles in the right-of-way. He said it would set a precedence, and could keep someone from being able to develop a property. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Vice -Choir Johnson closed the public haying at 6:54 Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission begin with the proposed amendments which were presented at the January 25 meeting. Then move to the proposed changes to that proposal: • the 20 foot minimum height requirement, • the facilities must be buried in the ground unless technically infeasible, 2018-112-08 Planning Commission Minutes Pit ,e 4 o15 • not located within a certain number of feet (currently bracketed with 250 in this holding spot) of other small cell facilities unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location can accommodate or is sufficient to (meet the wireless service needs, • if the provider cannot meet the 250-foot distance, then they must make an attempt to co- locate unless they demonstrate a reason why it is not possible. Mr. Lamb addressed the public. comment which said that this could set a precedence. He said cities, under state and federal law, are required to allow facilities to locate within the right-of-way. The City cannot preclude them, which was die reason for the amendment, Mr. Lamb confirmed facilities can locate on private property, but it requires an agreement with that private property owner allowing a recorded easement.. The Commission began deliberations of the issues which had been presented for change to the proposed amendment. Commissioners agreed to add a 250-foot distance requirement between facilities. They felt if the industry could demonstrate the problem of locating at this distance, they can change it. The Commissioners agreed to add the requirement for co-location, if it was at all feasible, The Commissioners discussed requiring a 20-foot height minimum and agreed to this addition, Then the Commissioners moved to the requirement of undergrounding the control equipment. After their discussion the Commissioners agreed to adding this language as well. There was a consensus that requiring transmission by fiber would not be added, because the City cannot regulate the technology. Commissioners agreed to adding the requirement of engineering certification for the pole. Commissioner Johnson felt parcels with a 50-foot frontage should be exempt from new poles. ConunissioncrPhillips said he feels the carrier should have to pay to move any utilities. Mr. Lamb said from practical standpoint he was not sure how the City would he male to enforce it. Commissioner Walton confirmed there is no public comment or noticing regarding installation of a new utility pole. Mr. Lamb asked how the Commission felt about reducing the permit processing timeline from 60-days. The Commissioners agreed to leave the 60-day time line. The Commissioners agreed to allow for a combined enclosure which might be a bit bigger than the allowable size for the antenna alone. The Commissioners agreed they did not want to allow small cell facilities in City parks. The Commissioners agreed not to change the height limitations on electrical transmission towers. The Commissioners agreed to not change the deviation standards, Mr. Lamb said the Commission should make a motion to approve the changes presented on January 25 along with the changes whicb were discussed tonight which include: a 250-foot separation along with the co-location requirement, a minimum height of20-feet, retain the existing language on the ground vaults, addition of a structural engineer certification with the application, and allowing unified camouflage facility with a different term as pari of those changes. Commissioner Walton moved to recd amend to the City Council the proposed amendment with the changes which had been had been recorded by the Deputy City Attorney. The vote on the notion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested changing the agenda to move the Comprehensive Plan study session ahead of the Open Space discussion due to the number of people in attendance who were interested in the topics. Commission gave consensus to proceed. Study Session — 21118 Comprehensive Plan amendments: Ms. Barlow presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process. She explained there were originally four privately initiated requests and three City initiated amendments. She explained after the docket was approved, one of the privately initiated amendments was withdrawn, One City initiated amendments was also withdrawn. After conversations with the property owner they requested the City hold off making the proposed change while they develop their plan for the property. Planner Micki Harnois explained CPA-2018-0001. The property is located approximately 300 feet east of Pines Road on Vaileyway Ave. The request is the change three parcels of approximately two acres from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Multifamily Comprehensive Plan designation and toning. 'l'he site is surrounded by multifamily designation to the north and south and Corridor Mixed Use to the west of the property. There have been no comments received for this amendment. 20111-02.08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ms. Harnnis reminded the Commissioners that CPA -2018-0002 had been withdrawn by the property owner. Planner Marty Palaniuk explained CPA -2018-0003 is located atRowdish and Sands Roads. The request is to change the Single Family designation and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CMU designation located across the railroad tracks and Dishman Mica Road. He said the lot was created after a subdivision of the property in 2010, which divided the properly for several single family lots on the south side orthe original lot. This lot was created as a drainage casement which has been dedicated to the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by a single family residential and the railroad tracks to the north. The property borders Chester Creek, is located in a tloodplain, has a Type F stream, a biologist has reported there are no wetlands on the site. Commissioner Walton asked if the properly would have been allowed to be divided if the drainage easement had not been a part of it. Mr. Palaniuk stated he would have to defer to engineers an answer. Mr. Palaniuk stated the Commissioners already had any comment which was provided up to the time of mailing the packet. Any comments received since then had been provided to the Commissioners that evening. Mr. Palaniuk discussed CPA -2018-0004 is located at the corner of 7th Avenue and University Road. The request is to change the designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Neighborhood Cornmercial. He explained the subject parcel abutted another property owned by the same properly owner, which was changed to Neighborhood Commercial during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Palaniuk said the property was surrounded on other sides by single family. The site is bordered by University Road which is a minor arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said the Commissioners had any comments staff have received. Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CPA -2018-0005, when Commissioner Phillips recused himself regarding this amendment, and left the council chambers. The City initiated amendments are both correcting snapping errors. The property for CPA -2018-0005 is located at the corner of Progress and Porker Road. 'I'hc parcels are split. between Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family Residential. The amendment is to designate the north and east edge of one parcel as Neighborhood Commercial and another along the BPA easement. Commissioner Stathos commented the area could not handle any more traffic if it was developed. Ms. Kendall explained the change proposed for CPA -2018-0006. The property is located on Trent Avenue approximately one and one half mile east of Sullivan. The parcel is developed and there is a stonnwater swale along the 15 feet to be rezoned. The parcel is split zoned with the 15 feet on the east side of this parcel is zoned Single Family Residential while the rest is Industrial Mixed Use. The proposed change is to zone the easterly side industrial Mixed Use. The next step is the public hearing which is scheduled for February 22, 2018. iii. Study Session, Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. The Commission agreed to postpone the discussion of open space requirements to another meeting. VIII. GOOD OF TIIE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting al 8:35 p.m. The vow on the motion was unanimous in favor, the 'notion passed Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed t A AI) _k6/61-1,4-0 Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall February 22, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood lbr the. Pledge of Allegiance. Secretary Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschm itter Timothy Kelley Michelle Rasmussen Matthew Walton Suzanne Stathos, absent Mike Phillips, absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnais, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Chair Rasmussen moved to eXc115e Commissioner Stathos and Commissioner Phillips frotn the meeting. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IT. Agenda: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to approve the February 22, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote waS five in favor, zero against and the !motion passed. III. Minutes: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to strike the February 8, 2018 minutes from tonight's agenda. The tote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: 'There were no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REIL'OW1': There was no report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: '1' here was no comment, VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact CTA -2017-01)1)5 — Wireless Telecommunications Amendment Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb presented the Findings of Faets specifically identifying the modifications requested by Planning Commission for their approval as follows: a) Maintain a requirement for a separation for 250 ft. between small cell facilities. b) Maintain the requirement that if the separation is not possible, for applicants to make a good faith attempt to co -locate on the same pole. If co -location is not possible, new facilities within the 250 feet would be allowed. c) Maintain requirement that small cell facilities be located at least 20 ft. above grade unless technically infeasible. d) Maintain requirement for providers to bury or integrate facilities into surrounding unless technically unfeasible. e) Add a requirement that the applicant provide evidence that the small cell facility design will not impaet the structural integrity of the utility pole on which it is placed f) Add allowance for "unified design enclosure" to allow combined antenna and equipment enclosure of up to six cubic feet in volume in lieu of separate antenna and equipment enclosures. Make such other minor grammatical and minor corrections recommended from the public eotnancnts. ;) Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Pact fin. CTA -2017-0005, The vote on this motion was five in, favor, zero against and the 1710li071 passed. ii. Public Hearing: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 Senior .Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation) t0 the Commission and audience, which introduced the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. She explained this meeting is for the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to take public comments on the proposals. Ms. Barlow explained the findings of facts had been scheduled for March 8 but have been deferred because of an appeal filed on the SE1'A decision for CPA -2018-0001 She stated all Comprehensive Plan amendments are required to submit a SI3PA review, and a Determination of Non -Significance was issued for all with a comment and appeal period. During the lit -day appeal period, an appeal was received for CPA -2018-0003, A hearing on the CTA -2018-0003 appeal is set for March 15, 2018 in font of the !leaving Examiner and a decision is expected within a couple weeks thereafter. a. CPA -2018-1)U01 A privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning. Chair Michelle Ra.snrlrssen read the public hearing miles and opened the public hearing al 6:28 A 111. Planner Micki I larnnis introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2018-0001. This project site is 300 feet east of Valleyway and fines Road. The applicant for this project is Robin Petrie who requests to change existing land use designation from Single Family Residential to Multifamily Residential and the zoning from R-3 to Multifamily Residential, Ms. 11arnois explained the differences between the two zones taking into consideration the land use and the zoning that exist near the sites and in this area. Ms. Harnois said one comment had been received from the City's traffic engineer depending on future development, it would require atrip generation letter, The traftic engineer also stated that the capacity on the existing road would not be an issue. No public: comments were received regarding this site. There were no questions from Commissioners Chair Rasmussen opened the floor for public testimony: Sarah Neelan, 12420 E Mansfield Ave. Apt 5.: Ms. Neelan said she was representing Steven Arsey who resides at 12522 l s Valleyway. She said the arca is an open space for ail sorts of wildlife and to take that into account; and to please keep it rural and not urban. Muss Peterson 12525 E Olive Ave.: Mr. Peterson described the area as single family homes and he feels the zoning being proposed is out of character. There were nof Ther public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPA 2018- °001 at 6:37 pm. b. CPA -2018-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) Chair Rasnnusserl opened the public hearing at 6:38p,m, for CTA -2018-0005 Planner Karen Kendall explained CPA -2018-0005 is a City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment correcting a mapping error on the hand use designations and zoning maps from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update which split the zoning. The site is located in the Northeast comer of the City and is bordered to the north by Porker Road and Progress Road, which are both urban minor arterials. Ms. Kendall explained that the need to correct this mapping error is to expand the Neighborhood Commercial Designation and Zoning to eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. The eurrent site is in a 100 year floodplain and there is a Conditional Letter of Map Revision application in the final review stages with FEMA to modify the boundaries of the floodplain. There is an 500 foot wide easement in the corner of the property that runs north/south and a Type F stream. in the Northwest corner of the property. The correction will result in more appropriate boundaries of the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation and zoning and Single Family Residential land 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of8 use designation and R-3 zoning. The City received continents from Public Works and the Spokane County Environmental Setvices, but no public comments. There were no questions from Commissioners Chair Rasmussen invited public testimony; there were no comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public testimony for CPA 2018-0005 at 6:43 p.m. b. CPA -2018-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR) and the associated zoning of 1MU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m, for CPA -2018-1)006 Planner Karen Kendall explained that CTA -2018-0006 corrects a mapping error that took place during the 2016 Annual Comprehensive Plan update. This site is located east of the intersection of Trent Ave, and Sullivan Rd. The proposal is to expand the Industrial Mixed use designation and zoning which would eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. The area is 15 feet wide along the easterly side of the site. The 15 feet wide area to be included in the Industrial Mixed Use designation contains stormwater facilities that serve the existing development. The site is currently zoned Industrial Mixed Use and R-3. The amendment will correct a mapping error and will eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. There were no public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPI1 2016-0005 at 6;45 p.m. c. CPA -2018-0004 A Privately initiated Amendment request to change the Comprehensive Flan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:•46 p.m, for CPA -2018-0004 Planner Marty Palaniuk presented CPA -2018-0004, explaining this is a privately initiated amendment to change the land use designation from Single Fancily Residential and R-3 zoning to Neighborhood Commercial, The Neighborhood Commercial designation is to provide neighborhood scale commercial development such as offices and retail that serve a neighborhood. This site is on the southeast corner of University Road and 7th Avenue. University is an arterial street surrounded by Single Family Residential uses. The parcel adjacent to the proposed site was changed in 2016 during the legislative Comprehensive Plan update to Neighborhood Commercial. If the amendment is approved it would also be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. During the legislative update, the City evaluated intersections along some of the arterials south of Sprague, and various parcels were re -designated in those neighborhoods as Neighborhood Commercial. Staff received comments from the City's Senior. Traffic Engineer who evaluated the intersections at 811' Avenue and University Road as well as 4t'1 Avenue and University Road and he stated if intense development occurred, it would meet the level of service requirements. Staff received public comments regarding traffic in and out of the site as well as traffic along 7t't and 8th Avenues - This property is part of a plat from 1954 and some of the comments received have mentioned there were some covenants that could apply to the plat. Mr. Lamb explained the City Attorney's office received a letter regarding the covenants. The covenants would preclude business, commerce and industrial uses from operating on the site. However, with regard to restricted covenants, those are privately enforceable under Washington law. The Supreme Court has agreed that cities do not have authority to enforce private covenants. Citizens could seek a private action to preclude commercial, industrial or any other development. We do allow single family residential under the neighborhood commercial so there is not a conflict. Commissioner Walton Neighborhood Commercial zones are in Spokane Valley, Mr. Palaniuk responded that stall' evaluated the area or the City south of Sprague and at most of the arterial intersections of 8th, 16th, 32nd Avenues, University, Evergreen and Sullivan Roads and designated 02-22-2018 Planting Colainission Minutes Page 4 era those as Neighborhood Commercial. This was done during the legislative update. Commissioner Johnson asked for some examples of a commercial business that would be allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, Mr. Palaniuk responded some of the things the Permitted Use Matrix allows include retail, gas stations, medical office, and kennels. The intent. is to provide neighborhood scale coiimieroial uses to serve the neighborhood, Commissioner Rasmussen asked how the City mitigates traffic problems. Mr. 1'alaniuk replied that any time development occurs; the City evaluates the traffic itnpact and may require a traffic impact analysis to identify, improvements or restrictions to the proposed development. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing on (.7'A- 2018-0004 at 6:58 pin. Ray Siebert, 10714 E. 8tl` Avenue: Mr. Siebert said that he is against changing the land east of University On 7th Avenue from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. We have a protective covenant on the old Orchard Subdivision, which has been in effect since 1954. We want to keep the covenant and keep this being a nice place to raise a family. The City illegally changed the property east. of University on 8n'Avenue to commercial when there was a protective covenant. Mr. Siebert stated the neighborhood had hired a lawyer to protect them if this change goes into effect. Jane Siebert, 10719 E 8t'' Avenue: Ms. Siebert said site is against the land change at 7111 Avenue and University Road. She said the property has a covenant and the municipal code states the City is supposed to follow thein. She said she received a letter from the City Attorney stating the City has no authority under the Washington law to entoree or validate restricted covenants. By not enforcing the covenant, she said the City is definitely invalidating them. The covenant is binding unless by the majority of the residence owners agree to change them. There was a traffic- analysis from the Senior. Raffle Engineer, which showed that there would be an additional 208 trips a day with this change. This much traffic would affect their neighborhood, property values will go down and it will increase crime. Ms. Seibert stated she does not feel the neighborhood was informed well enough when the change to the parcel at 8th Avenue and University Road occurred in 2016. City Attorney Cary Driskoll suggested changing the time Iimits from three minutes to one and one half minutes in order accommodate everyone in the room who wished to testily this evening. The Commissioners agreed to this change. Mike Fritter, 10806 E 8'i' Avenue: Mr. 1:rmer shared his concern about crime, traffic and more people; he said the covenant was important in the 1950's so please leave it alone. Mark Conrad, 10804 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Conrad shared he is opposed to change because the- property heproperty values will decrease and traffic will increase; it does not tit the form or area. Lacey Zieler, 10811 It 7"' Avenue: Ms, Zieler shared her concerned for the children's safety and more traffic. William Braid, 11216 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Braid said he is concerned for the children in the area and putting commercial in will increase traffic and crime, and he asked the Commission please do not approve this, ICen Iloftinan, 10719 E 7th Avenue: Mr. 1 lotf'inan shared his concern about traffic, the value of property; said he bought in under the covenants and he is opposed to this change. Lonny Green, 10715 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Green shares his concerti this will lower property values, and increase crime and traffic. Jim Brown, 10714 E 6'h Avenue: Mr. Brown shared he is opposed to the plan and concerned about traffic. 1 -le said University is a racetrack. Andrew '4'Va11,10723 E 7t'' Avenue: Mr. Wall said he is concealed for children, more traffic and property values. Candice Wall,10723 E 7th Ave. Ms. Wall said she is concerned about more crime, foot traffic and children safety. 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 Shcret*Tucker, 11372 E 7{'' Ave. Ms, Tucker said she is concerned with traffic, crime and safely of children. Heather Bryant, Schmautz family representative: Ms. Bryant shared in 2016 the corner of W' and University, was changed to Neighborhood Commercial. Currently the family has no plans to develop the properly and the site would slay the sonic. There is a blind spot at 8'i` Avenue and University Road and by expanding onto 7th, it would eliminate the blind spot. If rezoned the covenant would take precedence. Al Merkel, 3927 S Sunderland Drive: Mr. Merkel shared he is opposed to thisamendment because the covenants are in place. He said he knows the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, hut when you see neighbors like this coming out, the City should take note and let the neighbors resolve these issues in a non -adversarial way. Kurt Campbell, 10714 E 8"' Ave. Mr. Campbell shared his concern about more traffic. Scott Smith, 10819 E 8'6 Ave. Mr. Smith shared his concern about more traffic and cutting between streets to get to the businesses. Seeing Mere, was no *thee comment on CPA -.2011E-0004 Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing for CPA 2018-0004 at 7:21 pm. d. CPA -2018-0003 A Privately Initiated Amendment request to ehnnge the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R- 2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearingfor CPA -2018-0003 at 7:22 pnr. Mr. Palaniuk explained CPA -2018.0003 is a privately initiated amendment to change the parcel from Single Family Residential and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use which allows commercial, light manufacturing, retail and office uses. This site is in the Ponderosa neighborhood along Dishman-Mica, south of the railroad tracks, along l3owdish and Sands Roads. The SEPA determination was appealed. The majority of this site is in the 100 -year floodplain. There was a subdivision in 2010 and the entirety of this lot was designated as an easement for stormwater treatment. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision was approved by FEMA to raise the level of lots one through six of the short plat and remove them from the floodplain. Chester Creek runs north of the site in a channel which is south of the railroad tracks. The stream is a'1'ype F', which means fish could be in the stream. It requires buffering if development should occur. This site also has alluvium soils, which are soils deposited from water action made of granulated silt and they do not drain well. The Comprehensive Land Use designation is Single 1-4unily Residential with a designated density of one unit per acre up to six units per acres. The area is single family. Corridor Mix Use allows commercial uses along transit corridors. Corridor Mixed lise is located along Sprague and Argonne, Mullen, Evergreen, Sullivan and Dishman-Mica. The R-2 zone height limit is 35 feet. Corridor Mixed Use has an unlimited height limit but transitional regulations would be applied to any development and would serve to limit the height adjacent to residential uses. The site would have a limit in height since it is next to residential uses. Staff received comments from Dept. of Fish and Wildlife who commented they were concerned about the Type F stream and said it would require buffering if development occurs. Staff received comments from the public regarding traffic, access in and out of site, access for fire safety, that the development docs not fit and concerns about the floodplain, and crowding in schools. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was at minimum setback for access onto Bowdish and how far off the intersection would the access have to be toward the south. Senior Traffic Engineer, Ray Wright explained at that location there would need to be a minimum of 60 feet of separation from the intersection, Currently staff is looking at the infrastructure to sec if the streets can accommodate the growth. 02-22-2018 Planning Cuntrnission Minutes Pstge 6 era Commissioner Kelley said there were concerns about escaping a forest fire in that area and traffic issues. Mr. Wright stated he did not believe a second access is required. With the rezoning, there would be an additional 800 trips over a 24-hour period; and peak traffic would be 10% of that. This does not address the fire but it would handle that volume easily. Chair Rasmussen asked about a couple of parcels which appeared to be land locked and how would rezoning effect those Mr. Palaniuk replied they are City owned parcels and are not developed. Ms. Barlow stated those properties are partly encumbered for drainage purposes by the City. Chair Rasmussen asked if they are zoned R-2 and Ms. Barlow confirmed they were. Commissioner Johnson asked does that extend all the way to University. Mr. Lamb replied that a change in zoning would not change access because they are privately owned and would remain so. If there were any access issues, those would be addressed at the time of development. Commissioner Johnson said the background information stated there were 24 acres available for commercial mixed use. Ile asked if this was before the nearby IGA planned project. Mr. Palaniuk responded this reference docs include the TGA project. Chair Rasmussen invited public comment. Mr. Todd 'Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant: Mr. Whipple explained his firm looked at the zoning code and get out the Comprehensive Plan and they toy to be consistent with the existing land use and future land use and what is adjacent to the property. The site has a railroad track and Chester Creek so from a development perspective they assume that since Corridor Mixed Use is adjacent to the property there is no reason to not to change the land use. As the applicant, he requested the Commission to leave the hearing open for addition& testimony after the SEPA appeal hearing and before the Commission issues its findings. Al Merkel, 2925 S. Sunderland Drive: Mr. Merkel stated the property is a flood zone and shared concerns about wildlife. Heidi Workman, 11406 E 44' Avenue: Ms, Workman shared concerns of tire evacuations and the overcrowding of school. Christian Workman, 11496 e 44th, Avenue: Mr. Workman shared that any kind of sail contamination from a flood can contaminate the stream. Rebecca Readiner, 11321 E 42". Court: Ms, Rcadiner shared concerns about the flooding and traffic. Megan Williams, 11401 E Sundown Drive Ms. Williams voiced her concern about fire, safety and traffic. Dave West, 4007 S Forest Meadow Dr. Mr. West requested the Commission look at the letter and attached picture he submitted as he is concerned about the flood encroaching on his property. As more and more development occurs upstream the flood will continue to encroach more onto his properly. Darrell Thom, 4409 S Hollow Court. Mr. Thom shared concerti about access and fire evacuations. I le said he has been promised an extra access point for fire access. Bev Thorn, 4499 S Hollow Court. Ms. Thom said she is concerned property values will decrease. She saki have been told there would never be any development because it is a floodplain. John Grevner, 3907 S Sunderland Drive. Mr. Grevner shared he is a wildland fire investigator and the last tire was a nightmare; and said he agrees with all that has been said. Steve McNulty, 4106 S Hollow Court. Mr. McNulty is concerned about reducing property values, traffic, access to the property, traffic accidents, and that it will be harder for emergency response and evacuation, I le said he is a geologist and the semi silty sands do not drain well and then ponding oceurs, Lot 7 is platted as a blanket drainage easement, We agree with staff report. Annette Conrad, 10920 E 4e Avenue: Ms. Conrad shared concerns about t access, flooding, bald eagles that come every year and the wildlife. 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 Dave Johnson, 11307 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Johnson concurs that the Commission has to oppose this. It is a single family residential and we do not want anything else. Mark Broder, 4105 S Hollow Court; Mr. Broader shared that any time modifications are made to the land the flooding gets worse, and said he opposed this John Boyd, 4024 .S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr, Boyd expressed his thoughts for lot. 7 explaining if we planted obscuring trees, the trees would suck up the water, giving great access for the water to drain down through the silt soil and it would make an exquisite site or riding arca. Robert O'Dell, 11425E 441h Avenue: Mr. O'Dell shared he is opposed to the development and concerned about drainage and the disruption of the wildlife corridor. Jerry Johnson, 4506 8 Skipworth Road: Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about the property values dropping, Shawn Johnson, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Ms. Johnson expressed concerti chat property values will drop, wildlife concerns and she will have more water in her yard. She said there was a sign, which said there would be one home on the proposed lot, and if there is more, it will only raise the water on her lot, which is ankle deep now. Galen Pavliska, 11321 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Pavliska shared the property is a flood zone and in his backyard. I le is concerned his property value will drop; he said he is opposed to this. Kent Mayer, 4308 S Locust: Mr. Mayer shared the Comprehensive Plan was done Tess than two years ago and he thinks we need to stick to the plan. He said this is not an hnprovement. He asked if the 150 homes that are not built yet at the other end of 446 Avenue were included in the traffic analysis. Keith Cohen,12216 E 376 Court: Mr. Cohen shared concern that bringing in multifamily homes will bring in crime. Renee Porter, 3515 8 Woodward Road: Ms. Porter expressed this does not fit this property and runs along railroad tracks and a two-lane residential road. This property is over a mile away from a transit stop. Barney's I Iarvest foods, just right up the road, is planning to put that exact plan into place and not infringing on anybody's property or property values. Paul Henderson, 11303 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Henderson explained he was the first to buy in front of the subject parcel and his back yard is pure mush and he opposes the amendment. Oliva Brookshire, 4520 8 Skipworth Road: Ms. Brookshire is concerned when bringing in multifamily homes that it will bring in renters, which brings in more crime. Barbara Roads, 11315 E 46th Avenue: Ms. Roads explained this is a floodplain, and on the wrong side of the railroad tracks for commercial development and concerned for the impact on schools. Vicki Moore, 4215 S Forest Meadow Drive: Ms. Moore is concerned for the safety of her special needs child who walks to the bus every day in front of the driveway that would be built. She has safety, traffic and wildlife concerns. Denise Shnaugel, 10613 E 46'1' Avenue: Ms. Shnaugel is concerned about dealing with Diamond Rock, The property is a floodplain, there are only two exits - fowdish and -Schafer, and that will limit getting out. Megan Knolls, 11406 E 481' Avenue: Ms. Knolls is concerned about traffic accidents will occur, and she opposes the amendment. Heather Harvego, 401.5 S Forest Meadow Drive: Ms. Harvego is concerned about flooding and traffic. More traffic noise. She said we do not want it. It will not help the neighborhood it will only hurt. the neighborhood. Caleb Collier, 11307 E 42" Court: Mr. Collier shared he served on council and suggests a good solution with this vacant land would he a park, I le said a number of neighbors would contribute to the cost of purchasing this land, and the City might ,mediate some of the costs with it. 02-224018 Planning Commission Minutes Pup 8 of 8 Sandra Bright, 11024 E 43'"' Avenue: M. Bright is concerned for the safety of the children near the railroad, wetlands, wildlife and traffic concerns. Patrick Miller, 11302 E Sandstone Lane: Mr, Miller shared he is not against people coming into our neighborhood but in the right way, and he wants to keep R-2 zoning. Debbie Plant, 4318 S Forest Meadows Drive: Ms. Plant shared we are a single family residential development and that it should slay an R-2. Logan Crunihorg, 4311 S Hollow Street: Mr. Logan explained that between fire hazards, the railroad and wildlife, this plan is ludicrous. John Pierce, 4027 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr. Pierce concurs. AI Mollya, 4224 S University Road: Mr. Mollya said he thought this area was a protected wetland area. He shared thea: is not enough technology to protect all the water movement and he is against it. Troy Hoffman, 11308 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Hoffman requested we go visit the site and Then sec that the development will not fit. This development is not necessary, and it will only benefit the developer. Rudy Worley, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Mr, Worley shared that his property abuts this project and his home has water damage, and he is opposed. Last summer it was truck atter truck of fill material. Everyone is excited about the development at Harvest Foods. As this fill continues to go into this spot, our homes are continuing to be damaged, He is in favor of R-2 zoning. Wayne Gruver,11404 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Gruver shared this site is a swamp. Ile is concerned for the children who ride bikes to go get ice cream. He said there are only two exits Schafer and Bowdish acid the engineer needs to have a real traffic study. Jacques Plant, 4318 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr, Plant shared that his home does not have adequate water pressure and with construction and development, he will have even less water pressure. Les Baker, 11413 E 45°1i Avenue: Mr. Baker is concerned about the disruption of wildlife and said the coyotes will move into the residential areas. Seeing no one else who wished to test, Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing at 8:32 pm Ms. Barlow informed the audience that public comment is closed as far as the Planning Commission however, written comments will be provided to the City Council. She wanted to remind the Commission about the appeal. The 1learing Examiner will be Bearing the March 15, 2018 and a couple weeks later, we will have a decision on the appeal. 'Iiie matter will not be in front of the Planning Commission, until the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. It will be brought back at a typical meeting, without further noticing to the property owners. She advised the audience to check the City's website and/or go to the Planning Commission page and see the agenda, or sign up for the mailing list to he notified. VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: 7'he Commissioners thanked everyone for their participation. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn at 8:48 p.m, The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair trallek_C4‘)*(1' Mary Moore, Secretary (i7 Date signed APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning.Commmission Council Chambers — City Hall May 10, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschinitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner Michelle Rasmussen Mieki Harnois, Planner Suzanne Stathos, arrived at 6:04 p.m. Karen Kendall, Planner Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Hearing no objections the Commission excused Commissioner Stathos II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the May 10, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the city of Millwood is holding a Planning Short Course May 23, 2018 and suggested anyone who had not attended one previously should consider attending. This Short Course is produced by the Washington State Department of Commerce and provides good information. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA -2018-0002, a privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Coale 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact for CTA -2018- 0002, a privately initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to allow hotels/motels in the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained the Findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council: to allow hotels/motels with a building footprint of 25,000 square feet or less in the Industrial zone, a building footprint of more than 25,000 square feet, would need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Also adopted were minor language changes recommended by staff, to bring the original amendment language in line with the way the rest of the SVMC code is written. Commissioner Johnson clarified the 25,000 square foot footprint only referred to the building size on the ground and did not dictate the overall size the building could be. Commissioner Kelley moved to accept the Findings for CTA -2018-0002 as presented Commissioner Walton stated he was still strongly opposed to the language allowing a structure with a building footprint larger than 25,000 square feet. He said the applicant was not seeking anything larger and it would be a mistake to allow larger structures to take up more Industrial zoned land. Commissioner Kelley confirmed Mr. Walton is comfortable with a structure which has a 25,000 square feet or smaller footprint. Commissioner Walton noted he had moved to adopt language which excluded a larger structure but that motion had died for lack of a second. Comrnissioner Kelley renewed his support of the hotels/motels for what they can bring into the City by means of tax base, employment, other services, retail sales, business sales. Commissioner Johnson agreed the amendment was a good idea but feels the CUP process was extra regulation which was unnecessary, and felt this part of the atnendrent needed further discussion and should 2018-05-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 have been removed from the proposal. He also felt that the Location of the project should be closer to the arterial, and that not adding language to the amendment to require it lacked proper prudence. The motion passed, by a show of hands, with four in favor and three against, with Commissioners Johnson, Stathos and Walton dissenting. ii. Deliberations: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA -2018-0001 Planner Micki Harnois reminded the Commission that CPA -2018-0001 is located approximately 300 east of Pines on Valleyway. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and from R-3 to Multifamily zoning. The property is bordered to the north and south by MFR and to the west by Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Commissioner Johnson said he sympathized with people who did not want to have development intrude into their neighborhood but this was only a few hunched feet from the corridor and nothing stays the same forever. Commissioner Walton stated he felt it would match the rest of the surrounding areas, Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0001. Commissioner Stathos asked where the line is drawn in order to stop development from encroaching into the neighborhoods. Commissioner Walton said he sympathized with Commissioner Stathos' comment and felt the Planning Commission exists to determine where change was appropriate, and he felt this change was appropriate in this area. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor, one against with Commissioner Stathos dissenting. CPA -2018-0003 Mr. Palaniuk reminded the Commission that CPA -2018-0003 was located on Bowdish Road just north of the intersection with Sands Road. The request is to change the designation from SFR to CMU and the zoning from R-2 to CMU. Mr. Palaniuk said this parcel is located in a floodplain, has alluvium soils, has a fish -bearing stream running through it and is south of the railroad tracks. The contiguous parcels which meet the criteria to snake the request for the change are across the railroad right-of-way to the north, which is designated CMU. Commissioner Kelley discussed many of the objections which had been raised during the public hearing, schools would be over crowded, the traffic would increase, property values would decrease, there was not enough notice given and crime would increase. He noted that these issues are often brought up when a multifamily project is proposed. He commented that rarely do any of these things actually happen. He noted Ms. Barlow said there was plenty of notice given. Commissioner Walton said the request was to change from SFR to CMU has more uses than just multifamily which need to be considered when before allowing the change. Commissioner Johnson said when he visited the site in February and the homes in the front of the site are an extension of the surrounding neighborhood. He felt the transition between those homes and Dishman-Mica needed to be preserved, and this is not the right change for this area. Commissioner Phillips said he does not feel the CMU should reach across the railroad tracks to the south into the residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Stathos said she was concerned about the floodplain on the property and comments the citizens had made. Commissioner I(aschmitter said she had concerns regarding the floodplain, fire evacuations, soil contamination and the outpouring of people who were against the change, Commissioner Walton said he noted all of the citizen comments, but in the staff report it noted that the request was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The allowable uses for the CMU designation were not appropriate for the area and the requested change was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Rasmussen said she was concerned about neighbors who. live next to the request stating they have had water in their backyards and not allowing the CMU to encroach past the logical division of the railroad tracks. Cominiss•ioner Johnson moved to recommend denial of CPA -2018-0003 to the City Council, The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting. 2018-05-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 CPA -2018-0004 Mr. Palaniuk said CPA -2018-0004 was located at the corner of 7'r' Avenue and University Road. The request is to change the designation from SFR to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and the zoning from R-3 to NC. The applicant owns an adjacent parcel which was designated NC during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. During the public hearing, several citizens had commented that language on the subdivision plat could prohibit commercial development on any property located within the subdivision without a vote of the subdivision members. The Commissioners asked City Attorney Cary Driskell to opine on how this covenant would affect the property change. Mr. Driskell stated that covenants are a civil matter between parties and does not affect any decision that the Commission would make. The City has the legal right to rezone the property. The covenants could affect development in the future; however, a single-family residence is still an allowed use on the property. Commissioner Johnson said he understood the comments regarding increased in traffic in the neighborhood as was suggested by many who testified, but there was also a need for more NC in many areas. He also confirmed a Councilmember had requested that staff add more areas of NC in the City during the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Walton said he understood the objections but since both parcels were owned by the same person, he felt it placed the property owner at a disadvantage when the parcels were zoned differently. Commissioner Kelley said the Commission had discussions during the Comprehensive Plan Update about having more services in the neighborhoods. The two parcels are right on University Road and fit all the criteria discussed for the NC during the Update. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CPA -2018-0004 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of seven in favor, and zero against. CPA -2018-000S Commissioner Phillips recused hiniselfFromm this amendment and left the room. Planner Karen Kendall reminded the Commission this amendment was correcting a mapping error where several parcels were split zoned during the Comprehensive Plan Update. The parcels are located at the apex of Progress and Forker Roads. The City is proposing to correct the zoning by having the NC zone along the north and east portion above the Bonneville Power Easement and south and west of the easement changed to SFR, . The Commissioners had rio concerns regarding this amendment. CommtissionerJohnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0005 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and zero against. CPA -2018-0006 Commissioner Phillips returned to the room. Ms. Kendall explained the parcel for this amendment is located on Trent Road just east of Sullivan, and the easterly 15 feet of the parcel is designated as SFR and the remainder of the parcel is designated Industrial Mixed Use (IMU). The proposal is to designate the entire parcel as EMU. The Commissioners had no concerns regarding this correction. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0006 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of seven in favor and zero against. iii. Discussion to Rescind CTA -2018-0002 Commissioner Walton moved to rescind the motion regarding CTA -2018-0002 due to a procedural error. Commissioner Walton stated he felt the topic needed more discussion, especially since the vote to approve the findings was four to three. He also felt there had been an error in parliamentary procedure during the April 26, 2018 meeting while recommending approval of the amendment, a privately initiated code text amendment to allow hotels/motels in the Industrial zone. The vote on the motion to recommend approval of the amendment as submitted with minor changes passed with 2018-05-10 Planning Conunission Minutes Page 4 of 5 a vote of five in favor, two against. Although the Commissioners had discussed the merits of the amendment under small board rules, when the adopted motion was put to the floor, there was no discussion on the merits of the main motion itself before the Commission voted on it, which Commissioner Walton felt was in error. There was discussion as to whether the motion to rescind was the proper main motion and the Commission took a break for staff to research the topic. After review of Roberts Rules of Order, it was determined the motion to rescind was in order, however it would have been more timely had it been made prior to the Findings of Fact supporting the Planning Commission's decision on CTA -2018-0002. If the motion to rescind passes, then there will need to be extra work to reconsider the Findings since they currently support CTA -2018- 0002 as it passed. Commissioner Walton stated he felt the Commission moved too quickly to take the vote on the adopted motion and Commissioners should have been given an opportunity to discuss the merits of the main motion on the floor. He feels that were several strong viewpoints that could have changed minds, there could have been amendments to the motion had the opportunity been there. However in moving to vote right after the motion was made, did not allow for the proper discussion of the merits of the motion itself. Commissioner Kelley said there is a proper procedure but many times based on small board rules all the elements are there, but not necessarily in the correct order, While he agrees there should be discussion every time, it does not always happen with this group and up until now, no one has had an issue with this process. He believes the topic was thoroughly discussed before it was voted on. Commissioners Stathos and Kasohmitter had no comment. Commissioner Johnson said he remembered Commissioner Kelley making a motion without the 25,000 square foot requirement with the CUP requirement but the motion was not very clear to him. After some conversation, Mr. Kelley made a motion to accept the amendment as it was written. Commissioner Johnson said it seemed the motion was unclear, and then all of the sudden there was a vote on it. Commissioner Kelley said his only confusion was when Ms. Barlow interjected that he adopted staff's proposed language changes, otherwise he said he was aware of what his motion was. Commissioner Walton added he understands that while at times the Commission does follow small board rules, it does not relinquish its right to follow the proper procedures when adopting a motion for Commission business. He also said to Commissioner Johnson's point, he was confused about what the actual motion before he was asked to vote on it. Commissioner Phillips stated he seconded the motion made by Commissioner Kelley and he understood the motion, whether it was understood by anyone else, five people voted in favor of it. Someone understood it enough to vote on it. Commissioner Walton said he was going to make one more plea that there is order and procedure for a reason. If they are not followed, there has to be a remedy for it, especially if there was an opportunity to seek clarification or to add additional clarification. He appreciates the extensive discussion prior to the motion being made, but after the motion is made there needs to be opportunity offer amendments and additional discussion based on the language of the motion itself before there is a vote. This did not occur during the vote of CTA -2018-0002, which violated proper procedure; he encourages the Commission to consider this when voting on the motion to rescind the motion. The motion failed with a vote of three in favor and four against with Commissioners Kaschmilter, Kelley, Phillips and Rasmussen dissenting. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Thanks to staff and Commission members for discussion on parliamentary procedure. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. 2018-05-10 Plannin ission Minute 2 ,5.-*//ff Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed ,04 Deanna Horton, Secretary Page 5 or 5 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall 05/24/2018 I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Moore took roll and the following members present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Matt Walton Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant audience stood and staff were Hearing no objections the Commission excused Chair Rasmussen and Commissioner Stathos. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the agenda to include the May 10, 2018 minutes to the agenda. The vote was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 26, 2018 minutes and the May 10th, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Kelley and Johnson reported they attended the city of Millwood Planning Short Course. Commissioner Johnson shared it was very informative and educational. Commissioners Walton and Kelley reported they attended the State of the City. Commissioner Walton was happy to see the mayor move the City forward in a positive manner and looking forward to continued support of the council. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained the Findings of Facts are the last phase of the Commissioner's process, which formalize their decisions moving forward to the City Council. Staff suggests the Commission approve the findings for each request individually. When the recommendation moves forward to the City Council staff will wrap the individual findings into one document so that they are considered as a group. CPA -2018-0001 — Micki Harnois, Planner presented CPA -2018-0001 which is Located 300 feet east of Pines and Valleyway. It is R-3 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential. The proposal is to change the zoning to Multifamily Residential and the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Multifamily Residential. The vote was six in favor and zero against to recommend approval. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0001 Findings of Fact as submitted. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0003 — Marty Palaniuk, Planner presented CPA -2018-0003 to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use and the zoning from R-2 to Corridor Mixed Use. The vote was six to one to deny the request. 05/24/2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0003 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0004 -- Mr. Palaniuk presented CPA -2018-0004 located on University Road and 7th Avenue. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning from R-3 to Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-00004 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0005— Commissioner Philips recused himself from the meeting regarding CPA -2018- 0005, and left the room. Karen Kendall, Planner presented CPA -2018-005 a City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and is corrected a mapping error and expanding Neighborhood Commercial designation on property located at the corner of Progress Road and Forker Road. The decision to recommend approval six to zero in favor. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0005 as presented. The vote on this motion was four in favor zero against, and the nlotlon passed. Commissioner Phillips returned to meeting. CPA -2018-0006 ---- Ms. Kendall presented CPA -2018-0006 a City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment correcting a mapping error to expand the Industrial Mixed Use designation on property east of Sullivan on Trent Avenue. The vote was seven to zero to recommend approval. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing — CTA -2018-0001 — A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65.020 Agriculture and Animal keeping Ms. Harnois presented CTA -2018-0001 and shared some historical background. The proposal will change the minimum square footage required to have animals in SVMC 19.65.020(A)(1)(a) from one acre to 40,000 square feet. This is the same amount of ►ninimum square footage required prior to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and development regulations update. The proposal will return the minimum square footage to the amount before the update. Ms. Harnois also outlined the steps involved in the process. This amendment to SVMC 19.65.020 revising the minimum lot requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet will be consistent with the R-1 zone and eliminate the creation of non- conforming uses. The Commissioners discussed the difference between the minimum lot size and how many animals are allowed per acre. Chickens are in a different section and swine are not allowed. Commissioner Kelley clarified chickens are allowed with a lower minimum square footage of 2,000 square feet per chicken. Vice -Chair Johnson opened public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Seeing no who wished to testify the Vice - Chair closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Commissioner Walton said he thought there would be the potential for confusion for the public regarding minimum square footage and how many animals are allowed per acre but he is in favor of the change. Commission Phillips confirmed large animals keeping was based on a gross acre. Ms. Barlow explained first staff confirms the amount of square feet the customers has. If they have more than 40,000 square feet, they can have animals, and how many and of what type of animals are calculated on the lot size. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kelley supports people raising animals and is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kaschmitter shared this will allow people to be in conformance and is in favor. Commissioner Johnson agrees with the need to be standardized and returning back to 40,000 square feet is appropriate and is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2018-0001 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. 05/24/201S Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 p.rn. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Name, Chair Date signed Name, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-015: 2018 Official Zoning Map Amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin. Report — July 17, 2018 BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1 st to October 31' of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications during the following spring, with a decision by City Council generally occurring in late spring/early summer. The Community and Public Works Department received four privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City proposed two site specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 2018. The public hearing was closed at that time. On February 16, 2018 an appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued for CPA - 2018 -0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC appeals related to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to a public hearing. Due to the SEPA appeal it was determined that the public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018 in front of the Planning Commission would be conducted, but that deliberations or further action would be deferred until such time as the HEX ruled on the SEPA appeal. On March 27, 2018 the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. On April 17, 2018 the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. At the May 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. The following recommendations to the City Council were voted on: CPA -2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0001. CPA -2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2018-0003. CPA -2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0004. 1 of 2 CPA -2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0005. Note: Commissioner Phillips recused himself due to a conflict of interest. CPA -2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0006. An Administrative Report was presented to City Council on July 17th. No public comment was taken at that time. The Council agreed by consensus to accept the Planning Commission Recommendation on each of the proposed amendments. CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018-0006 have been placed in the draft ordinance for adoption. CPA -2018-0003 is included in the ordinance stating that it will be denied. At this time the Council will consider the consolidated proposed zoning map amendments in one ordinance for final adoption at first and second readings with appropriate findings included. OPTIONS: Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading, with or without amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 18-015, Official Zoning Map Amendments, to a second reading STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 18-015( for attachments 2 through 10, please see Agenda Item #2, RCA for Ordinance 18-014) 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS DESCRBIED IN CPA - 2018 -0001, 2018-0004, 2018-0005, and 2018-0006; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Official City Zoning Map pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-018, on December 13, 2016 (the Official City Zoning Map); and WHEREAS, the SVMC and Official City Zoning Map became effective on December 28, 2016; and WHEREAS, comprehensive plans may be amended annually pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Public Works Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of all properties in the City that are consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner, or by City staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for each of the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 1 of 11 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018 notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on all the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to chapter 17.90 SVMC, appeals related to SEPA decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to an appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial with written findings of fact setting forth the bases for such recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, CPA -2018-0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the Council concurred to place CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA - 2018 -0005, and CPA -2018-0006 in an ordinance for consideration of approval and to place CPA -2018- 0003 in the ordinance for consideration of denial; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Council considered a first ordinance reading to approve CPA -2018- 0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2018, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments for CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official City Zoning Map as described in CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Official City Zoning Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 2 of 11 DRAFT Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendments to the Official Zoning Map. with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, which is denied. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. Council's findings specific to each proposed amendment are contained in Section 4 below. The Council hereby makes the following general findings applicable to all proposed amendments: General Findings: 1. Pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 2. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On February 2, 2018, Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. On February 2, 2018, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, pursuant to chapter 21.20 SVMC. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On February 7, 2018, individual notices of public hearing for the proposed site-specific map amendments were, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of each affected site. 7. On February 7, 2018 each site subject to a proposed site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 8. On February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald 9. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 11. On February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2108-0003 was received by the City. 12. On February 22, 2018, the Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony the public hearing was closed. 13. On March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. 14. On April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. 15. On May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA - 2018 -0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval, and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 3 of 11 DRAFT 16. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2018-0001 and CPA -2018-0003 through CPA - 2018 -0006. Such findings were presented to Council. Specific findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment request are contained in Section 4, below. 17. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 18. The proposed amendments to the Official City Zoning Map with the exception of CPA -2018- 0003, are consistent with GMA and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (2018 Official City Zoning Amendment Maps). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Official City Zoning Map as adopted through Ordinance No. 16-018 is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (Maps). The Zoning Map amendments are generally described as follows: Map Amendments: File No. CPA -2018-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single -Family Residential (SFR) with a Single -Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. Applicant: Robin R & Lori R Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- 0928. Amendment Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Valleyway Avenue and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities. b. Creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The properties on Pines Road were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU, which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would allow for a Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 4 of 11 DRAFT range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, and would allow office uses consistent with the existing uses. 5. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. 8. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. 9. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The City addressed adequacy of community facilities through capital facilities planning The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum level of service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. At the time of development, a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required, and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. Currently, the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 11. The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential, and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. A higher density of residential housing near retail areas will support retail uses. 12. The subject property would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SF and MFR and/or the potential population increase. 13. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone, a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed, with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the proposed amendment area. Considering the existing development of two single family residences, and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. 14. The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan since the property will remain residential is use. 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the zoning designation for parcel numbers 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836 to Multifamily Residential (MFR). File No. CPA -2018-0003: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Amendment Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located west of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 5 of 11 DRAFT Council Findings: 1. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 18-014, CPA -2018-0003 was denied by Council and no subsequent change to the Official City Zoning map shall occur. Council Decision: Deny the request to change the zoning for parcel number 45333.1807 to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). File No. CPA -2018-0004: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201. Amendment Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the 2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the amendment site. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 5. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone. 6. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. 7. The site does not contain any streams, rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on the open space areas. 8. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. 9. Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. No impacts are anticipated. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 6 of 11 DRAFT 10. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. 11. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. 12. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. 13. The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the zoning for parcel number 45212.1348 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). File No. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: As modified by City Council, parcels 46353.9035 and 46355.9038; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 7 of 11 DRAFT 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049, and parcels are located within a 100 -year floodplain. FEMA has accepted the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood -scale commercial development is limited in the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. 14. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the owner sought and received a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for the five parcels affected by the amendment. The BLA changes the impact of the amendment from affecting five parcels to affecting two parcels, although the total area affected remains the same: parcel no. 46353.9035 and 46355.9038. The two parcels reflect the same area previously affected. The Council hereby finds that modifying the proposed amendment to accurately reflect the new parcel numbers is appropriate. Further, the Council finds that the modification is not a substantial modification since the amendment remains the same except for the change in parcel numbers and no further action is required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1)(3). 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 8 of 11 DRAFT 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: : Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning on Parcel numbers 46353.9035 and 46355.9038 to eliminate the split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). The Council approves modifying the proposed amendment from parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, and 46354.9127 to parcels 46353.9035 46355.9038 due to a BLA that occurred during the Comprehensive Amendment process. File No. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA - 2018 -0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 9 of 11 DRAFT 8. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning on parcel number 45015.1409. Section 5. Zoning Map/Official Controls. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100, for the purpose of regulating the use of land and to implement and give effect to the Comprehensive Plan, the City hereby amends the Official City Zoning Map as set forth in Attachment "A". Section 6. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 7. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Public Works. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 10 of 11 DRAFT Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2018. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 11 of 11 Zoning Map Spokane ...•s Valley (' TA -2018-0001 Owner _ Parcel#:. Address: Petrie, Robin & Lori Green, Audrey See Map See Map Request: Citizen initiated proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan mapfrom SFR to MFR; subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Zoning Map Spokane CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map ood Zoning A-1ap amendment requesting ra change the Comprehensive Plan Lanc, Use Designation from Lor Density Residential (LDR) with a Single firmly Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (ChM) zoning classification 721 S' UNIVERSIiTY,RD' 452/21348 Zoning Map E 7th Ave, Study Area 1:SthAvc Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map �ry 1 nnitelr iniriata'd .vric-�1�re:flr ('ninl�r.laensir� JSC(I..CSt• Han Afipand 7aning;Yfop anentinnanregi,esfing !a ehaugr the Cbtnprehensirr Man I and Use Designation livor Siuglc Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-litruila Residential lit ban District (R-3) :tatting classificattan !o Neighborhood Commercial (Nr Jr.+it=„nriatr with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC:) zoning classification Zoning Map fr11lF pokane dl Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Parcels: Address: Five Fifty, LLC 46353.9035, 46355.90313, Unknown Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Conanrercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel Zoning Map Spokane dll Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcef#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMO designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 24, 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: First reading, proposed Ordinance 18-016 — ExteNet Systems, Inc. — wireless telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, chapter 22.121 SVMC regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only report July 17, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by ExteNet Systems, Inc. (Extenet), regarding new wireless facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a wireless franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of ExteNet. We used the standard telecommunications franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and ExteNet have agreed on the proposed terms for a wireless franchise agreement, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-016. OPTIONS: Place on agenda for an ordinance second reading, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we advance proposed Ordinance 18-016 granting a wireless telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc., to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-016 — ExteNet Systems, Inc., wireless telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO EXTENET SYSTEMS, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "Common costs" shall include necessary costs not specifically attributable to the undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common trenching and utility vaults. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 1 of 16 DRAFT "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the number of conduits of Grantee's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number of conduits of all other utility facilities being undergrounded. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing, or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "rights-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley, or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean, collectively or individually, any and all equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, receivers, equipment boxes, backup power supplies, power transfer switches, cut-off switches, electric meters, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables, telcom demarcation boxes and related materials and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto ExteNet Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, repair, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 2 of 16 DRAFT facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain facilities on, over, or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its facilities on, under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third -party without such written approval of the third -party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications (excluding modifications necessitated by replacement or repair) or relocation of any of the facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise, or pursuant to a permit issued by the City. Placement of all telecommunication facilities in the rights-of-way shall be pursuant to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, including applicable zoning requirements. Grantee shall be permitted to install, operate, maintain, upgrade, remove, replace, repair and/or restore its telecommunications facilities within the rights- of