Loading...
2018, 07-31 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (with some action items) Tuesday, July 31, 2018 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 18-014 Comp Plan Amendment — Lori Barlow [public comment] 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-015 Comp Plan Amendment, Zoning Map — Lori Barlow [public comment] 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Second Reading Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Council Goals/Priorities For Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor [public comment] DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. Mike Basinger, and Scott VonCannon of Retail Strategies 7. Bill Helbig 8. Inspector Lyons 9. Councilmembers Wick and Peetz 10. Mayor Higgins Retail Recruitment Plan Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition (Barker Road) Quarterly Police Department Report Recap of Association of Washington Cities Yakima Conference Advance Agenda Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information 11. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): Growth Management Planning Report 12. Mayor Higgins 13. Mark Calhoun Council Check in Discussion/Information City Manager Comments Discussion/Information 14. Executive Session: Review the Performance of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, July 31, 2018 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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; Ordinance first reading — July 24, 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 approve the ordinance with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 18-014, Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 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 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 Spokane j�alley 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments City Council Meeting July 31, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process IN ■ a Environmental Determination Notice of Public 0) 0 1 Planning Commission 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 C 0 O Ordinance 1St 0 Reading 7-24-18 U Ordinance 2n Reading 7-31-18 Today Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0001 Micki Harnois, Planner The Planning Commission voted six to one to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 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 The Planning Commission voted six to one to recommend denial. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 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 The Planning Commission voted seven to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 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 The Planning Commission voted six to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 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 1 City Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0006 Karen Kendall, Planner The Planning Commission voted seven to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 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 NIIwA, 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 .roor cao r► AO. .iro► .ura .iron► .room... .o.ro..► .00noru MO, .000rnoo\r ouo► .00r0000rr MOW .rorr000000rr r 11111111W .�00000uror.rr o. -. osis.n: ioo or. inoororronr.. .__.. oo.. rioou.ou. =: aoo o oo roorn. rir.mrmormrmrr. u00000rumuouomn Front L Left *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Back SOINENIMMISIMONVinirallOOSISAMVAMINIMMIII Nwrvuswn+'sair++sa.-. Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor: 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Right Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace =1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 2 0 N W of 6 SHP-09-1 '` UO cr rA) em fst V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 2.0 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor a Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Furnace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space =1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 Gonerele Patio 45 35 I' .6. 4--6.4' ( 6' 6 7.11 6' 2-60505L F145L46010 Temoms Above 6066511 g6lau Deer } '¢ Lu, Fm Ba S. a n 1= ... a 11./b010 re mom Above Neck 2 X10 Fluor legs t Gmet Room ®16•es. 47 NH Yddl — '1 F 8t16'XT618 !*i:1 t5D c6n r6^ 3'0' 76. 1 1 -' rtla Um 501100 variable c — „ _J rpt ti✓ ! o� Electric ea Heat i Famed Air Yieler Femme H Pump X •—•—•10.."1" OInINT speed whole house m exhaust 6n 6 - 1 . 60101 - —Nave -T_ 20 min. rated doff i 3'0• m 340565H wt2010 3 c uA seIFO 5419 hinges i r Transoms Above ^ � y> o m Fd 51J6•X176LB Bottom of beam on bedma0 Garege Gaveled Concrete Porch '^ :g I I G.xVOHD I 2.202 HeaderI '1----- r 1 1 I I 16'x 0. OHO 6 I 2.702 Header 10' 20' 4 11 45 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor a Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Furnace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space =1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 ••••••••,.• • •••••*..., • -'•-•••:•:.. „ • • • 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 .111111511MIW AMMO. AMMO,' AMMOSOMOMMEMMS ./uov ./luuorru/u!. .u//MM, iOrrOO!!!/rr/r/O. uuu► .///uouuuo/uuo. mu► .uouuuruuuuonr igallk. nom rrrrMEMS. �.iurrurumurrrrrOSrm Front sewrwssa 11111.11.1111� ri_1ibI = • Left *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. m N . wrwww wwa ,1111/41 met-, ..saswrrWV MOO I MVP • fir. n. rawaseermaararnmars snsssaCass- aasaswssrwwa2r wwwr�nwwnsr��wr Back Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor: 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Right Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 0 0 w EikilMIUMMC 6/29/2017 SCALE: Vs" = 1' 2.0 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor 10+ Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4, Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 �1V0� 0 it ,ES, .:p 444 in If 'Z 0 V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 Concrete Patio 45' 2 35 b 1 6 t'r 6 9.11 6 1 24 0 2b605031.Mc SLm o < u96010Treoms Above : 606853 Gies Boor . §f 111 g 1 A F 1 m9 1 o w/6010 ransom Above Nook s3X 10 tie= Joists 1 6reatRoom i ®ib'me. 442. HI c Steil 4 ?Ft a m �'/ E § 2 2111'X1' MB 3'.1' A��VVV �,�II c a E m E 5.3•sra 0. en MCIOnT of al Plates intu' 10' �' aan ! b.-6. .. a �'n� si 70 5. INGO ��� {IIIIII m 521 � 111 3'0' 5'0' 25. 1 104i' I 501100 drnvartobk 1121 Meet= LmHtPun= t Forged Nr Pinter Nina= Hen =rang t e speed whole house ! �\IF _ m ?v exhouelfan 6 _' A \1'a 3'P I�i o1Br. 20 =tune= door I1t 3'0' �I m 5-20565Hw1010 o ug slid sing hinges i Transoms Above ^ y y C aee — — = a 5 1i X1T0LB Bottom of beam on by of wall Garage m l i _ Govm= Gomel. Porch 'n 1 Nk Cx B. OHO I 2-2412Heed= 12 r I I 16'x 8.OHD I_._1 Zr �I 2O42 Hea4m 0 20' 4 11' 45 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor 10+ Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4, Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 �1V0� 0 it ,ES, .:p 444 in If 'Z 0 V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 . \ • 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 7 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. 111111111 001111111111.111.000 1„(11,1,1„11' 111101,0111111101, e.4,1 01, rr II : U W �VN: lul III,. 1,111,114 00000 , .. l~'ui51 l a •<<.. � n , Illi, j ar lr�o ) lIN ii 1} l� Iill � i 111111111 l UU 111 Illll 111 ml 111111111111"1111 11111. . Ill �m�l qIlPuS lmnuIII11�1�jm1����UlUl�ui�Iaim OIL 1� lm 4[!).}.), 1 1V 1 1.!J130 I�r��uUI�I�li0mm l ��°JJ(j�iISfNI ���uu�5m�55�'io m m0I�isIrYi th W�uuu�u u.. u III iU„tUu�o:�d�"uu4111' 1111 11111111 1.111 mm ui o em41Juii '110111111,1,Imm 1111111111".. Imlu�' l�_l� hiulu— lmliul l� i �m'mol _Im �uVll���o�omp l Ylb���w�iu Im lu mu IIII 1111111111111 NNuu lu uu1[1111111111m1111 I l Im t 1111 N l l I1111II IIII �mlm 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. Public Viewer - [Mat Image Search Results] 7171 r, __ 1 : • 1 •;, • •~Vita 21-25-44-2 Type a question For help 1 • • OLD ORCHARD SUB . nit.,Lt?k1.. 11!. „•r.:.st�.: sfli,trFi: 0.112 En x'4.2 EY Albs 2.2:2cs.p' ta.” a- BCs9 _ 1 R•r71[s = . 1 a' 2 E ` 1 e2 40 e1.3+ a sat 2O % w ags nr.�v� wFOR t Sy1r - 8 I n LYM4G i— a• sarrar20`Y1agTmb tr ariz9.64,8! )1..... '2......,,,...- , . � .. 6 T 11 ....r .21346115 AOT 128 ARE. = rr, • • • ta.14 /°47l . ' . i 7411 222t 2019,4f 19 i t-0 13 I 12 It E6 8 t i d, r\\ 6 3 i s 3 1 g '� m . 4 f �� . lie _ 3 T t i r # S'1TtI n� g 46 ...,.?A° • *k t..4. -�w.. A is7it j , - � r° gn C.w r \ • RP r4FR g .,P 8 1, a 0! F zf `g t !: 3 ( FS' yi lc� ht n t r V 1t a 1a r 19 2n 2] E2 Ra - 21C E6 26 �28 29 t nn!t �V.97} �. •. - 97 7_10.T3R7 77::5 c • •.....¢ 1 t 7TH ptv.7a .. T.H. 41 a 4 3 StiMe. a, s }fit Y 3 2� 1 •BLbClc 3 ?D . ..,.,.2y \ tt99 22 coq 4 34c.1 o 2i:r2c 1>1 iA 32 .restr P .�1 a • not its.ta3 nit 70391dIDDE c2004). .42.411 • FRAC? t9R 342 .602r28- NOaldlt,RmOF t 1i .504 AF MD t:99i2u40FE 203.42 wawa• WFIt�}.0¢ 0_,,•„.. 9 n:?..g-sx'4'L ...,.,.a.; ,A_t.r•, Y. '2cyt4,11w.i.,4,,.Com:.;I<14. 121.;:tE •--�-- PLATTE= 7PI1lLa1Y LIHES • �THTS=•.t "Nb i'tY,F W\'ha �•f.'�'t �f�, .. - ` . •Y .. _ • Al.! •-• c4■ • . . i7 R.Cc%ae ne.maxims itti KIRED ROME SKILL apmx 12.21.2eac: PLAT. cpca • l 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 i81' 011 ddIvil II ,1 11 II lu 0-0 00 II 1) 1111 II II 11 1 dr, J11 1 I 1'11111111111111111 1111111 III 011 r 111 VIII , I 11 411 II iW'i 1111 d' 4 I n mf 11 11 1 111li 1 11 III 11 If I II 1111111111111 II LI 111 11111111 111111111 1 111111111111 11 11 111111111111 111 I II u I"^I IIII''11 oil I Irr ..ten mm',,,iiN u im 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 31, 2018 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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; Ordinance first reading — July 24, 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 approve the ordinance with or without amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 18-015, Official Zoning Map Amendments. 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 #1, 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 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 31, 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: Second 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; first reading July 24, 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: Approve ordinance 18-016, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve proposed Ordinance 18-016 granting a wireless telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc. 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-way in order to provide telecommunication services to its customers. A) Grantee shall be permitted to erect or replace poles within the rights-of-way only as permitted and pursuant to applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("City Code") sections. Grantee shall be responsible for providing an alternate site analysis together with Grantee's initial request for approvals. Such report shall be paid for by Grantee, and may be prepared either by a third party consultant/engineer agreed to by the Parties. B) The maximum height of any structure placed within the rights-of-way shall be 90 feet. C) Any cabinet, cabling, or other accessory equipment which can be placed underground shall be undergrounded as provided in Section 14. Other cabling or electrical equipment shall either be placed within the supporting pole or structure, or concealed from view in accordance with applicable sections from the City Code. D) Any above -ground electrical equipment placed upon a utility pole or structure shall be operated in a manner which permits it to be deactivated during maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of other utility equipment located on the utility pole or structure. Any above -ground telecommunications facilities, including any electrical facilities necessary to the operation of the telecommunications facilities, shall be co -located with the facilities of another utility provider whenever commercially reasonable. E) To the extent that such facilities are personal wireless services, Grantee and the City will subsequently enter into a site-specific agreement, including the payment of a site specific charge, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.21.860, in a form to be mutually agreed upon. F) The facilities shall not be used for cable internet services or Cable Services as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). G) Grantee shall have the right, without prior City approval, to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to its customers consistent with this franchise provided: (a) Grantee retains exclusive control over its telecommunications system, facilities, and services, and remains responsible for constructing, installing, and maintaining its facilities pursuant to the terms and conditions of this franchise; Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 3 of 16 DRAFT (b) Grantee may not grant rights to any customer or lessee that are materially greater than any rights franchisee has pursuant to this franchise; (c) Such customer or lessee or Grantee shall not be construed to be a third -party beneficiary under this franchise; and (d) No such customer or lessee may use Grantee's telecommunications system or services for any purpose not authorized by this franchise, nor to sell or offer for sale any service to the citizens of the City without all required federal approvals Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to Grantee's use of the rights-of-way, the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (two pair) along the route as mutually approved by both parties at a later date, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost, pursuant to Section 4(D), below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. City and Grantee shall execute a Dark Fiber IRU Agreement to outline the terms for the fiber dedication prior to the time the City wants use the dark fiber. C) In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle, then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers, then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers, the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2, immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 4 of 16 DRAFT Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way, so long as any subsequent franchise or permit does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use of the right-of- way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights- of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to unreasonably interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or unreasonably interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 5 of 16 DRAFT shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One - Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. If the City does not require the undergrounding of Grantee's facilities at the time of a permit application, the City may, at any time in the future, require the conversion of Grantee's aerial facilities to underground installation at Grantee's expense at such time as the City requires all other utilities, except electrical utilities, with aerial facilities in the area to convert them to underground installation. Unless otherwise permitted by the City, Grantee shall underground its facilities in all new developments and subdivisions where other utilities are to be constructed underground, and any development or subdivision where utilities are currently underground. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 6 of 16 DRAFT Section 14 shall not apply to facilities that are required to remain above ground in order to be functional; provided, however, all other facilities and equipment capable of being installed underground shall be undergrounded by Grantee. Grantee may install a new pole to support antennas or other facilities that must be above ground to function with written approval from the City, and pursuant to adopted City code at the time any new pole is installed. In the event the City requires the undergrounding of the aerial utilities in any area of the City, Grantee shall underground its aerial facilities concurrently with and in the area of the other affected utilities. The location of any relocated and underground utilities shall be approved by the City. Where other utilities are present and involved in the undergrounding project, Grantee shall only be required to pay its fair share of common costs borne by all utilities, in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of Grantee's own facilities. Grantee shall be entitled to reasonable access to open utility trenches, provided that such access does not interfere with the City's placement of utilities or increase the City's costs. Grantee shall pay the City the City's actual additional cost to the City resulting from providing Grantee access to an open trench, including without limitation the pro rata share of the costs of access to an open trench and any costs associated with the delay of the completion of a public works project. Nothing in Section 14 shall be construed as requiring the City to pay any costs of undergrounding any of Grantee's facilities, except as may otherwise be required by Washington State law. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, Grantee shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice by the third party to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take reasonable actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent the emergency condition was caused by Grantee's use of the Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 7 of 16 DRAFT right-of-way. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation, and Grantor will make reasonable efforts to provide at least 90 days' advance notice; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section or may terminate the site-specific agreement associated with Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 8 of 16 DRAFT the affected installation. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated, or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A. Underground facilities: The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights- of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B. Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 9 of 16 DRAFT B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public, including but not limited to the Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 10 of 16 DRAFT currently adopted Spokane Regional Pavement Cut Policy. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 11 of 16 DRAFT C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 12 of 16 DRAFT accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of $25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 13 of 16 DRAFT Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, then the City shall notify Grantee in writing, stating with reasonable specificity the nature of the alleged default. Grantee shall cure any alleged default within 30 days after receipt of the notice. If Grantee fails to cure the default within such 30 -day period, and the City and Grantee do not otherwise reach an agreement with regard to such default, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Use of Grantee's telecommunication facilities by Grantee's customers or attachment of third -party owned telecommunication facilities shall not constitute an assignment under this Agreement. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 14 of 16 DRAFT Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: CFO 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 With a copy to: ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: General Counsel 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this 31st day of July, 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Accepted by ExteNet Systems, Inc.: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, ExteNet Systems, Inc., for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DuPAGE ) Before me, , on this day personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the of ExteNet Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of , 2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Second reading of proposed Ordinance 18-017 — ExteNet Systems, Inc. — fiber 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; first reading July 24, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by ExteNet Systems, Inc. (Extenet), regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a fiber 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 fiber franchise, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-017. OPTIONS: Approve proposed Ordinance 18-017, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve proposed Ordinance 18-017 granting a fiber telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc.. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-017 — ExteNet Systems, Inc., fiber telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-017 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 FIBEROPTIC 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. "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. "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). Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "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. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "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. "right-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" or "highways" 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 any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, 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, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) City may request that Grantee provide one or more strands (two pair) of dark fiber for City to use solely for City government administration purposes. Upon receipt of such request, City and Grantee shall meet as soon as practicable to determine whether Grantee has dark fiber available in the locations requested by City, and if Grantee has dark fiber available, City and Grantee will engage in good faith discussions to develop mutually agreeable terms for provision of such dark fiber. City and Grantee shall execute a Dark Fiber IRU Agreement to outline the terms for the fiber dedication. B) Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 and Grantee has not experienced a force majeure or event beyond its control, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days' prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Grantee shall not be responsible for delay damages if Grantee's delay is the result of a force majeure or event beyond Grantee's control. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities consistent with applicable federal and Washington state law. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City Manager that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance carrier or Grantee shall provide 30 days' prior written notice to the City of insurance cancellation. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Use of Grantee's telecommunication facilities by Grantee's customers or attachment of third -party owned telecommunication facilities shall not constitute an assignment under this Agreement. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: CFO 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 With a copy to: ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: General Counsel 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this 31' day of July, 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Accepted by ExteNet Systems, Inc.: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, ExteNet Systems, Inc., for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DuPAGE ) Before me, , on this day personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the of ExteNet Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of , 2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Motion Consideration: Council Goals and Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax Revenues. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253 in 2013; and Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An administrative report was delivered to Council on this topic on July 17, 2018. BACKGROUND: On July 17, 2018 an administrative report was delivered to Council that addressed the process leading to the annual award of lodging tax proceeds to applying organizations. Topics in the report included a discussion on the tax itself as well as the roles of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and City Council. At the conclusion of the discussion Council asked that staff refine the City Council's goals and priorities in consideration of Council discussion on July 17th with the intent of ultimately delivering these to the LTAC in order to inform that body of what Council will consider when it ultimately makes the 2019 awards. Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities for how it would distribute lodging tax revenues and that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award recommendations. Based upon subsequent discussion between Council and staff in 2014 through 2018, these have evolved as proposed below: 1. Council desires to direct awards toward funding new and innovative projects, activities, events or festivals that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism destination and result in increases to Spokane Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in State law, which include: a. Tourism marketing b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2. Council will emphasize the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley as a means of drawing additional visitors to the City (recognizing that this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). Council would like to move in the direction of allocating a majority of lodging taxes toward this purpose. 3. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or marketing program and will place higher consideration on events or programs with a demonstrable history of increasing overnight stays. Council may also take into consideration 1 to a lesser degree the economic impact of all major components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits. 4. Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District. 5. An award to any particular applicant cannot be greater than the dollar amount requested in that applicant's application. 6. Council wishes to establish a future plan for the City to best utilize the 1.3% lodging tax that is accounted for in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104. 2017 Timeline Leading to 2018 Awards of the Initial 2.0% Lodging Tax The calendar we plan to follow in 2017 for 2018 lodging tax awards is as follows: Tues 7/17/2018 Admin Report - Review Council goals and priorities for use of lodging tax proceeds. Tues 7/31/2018 Motion seeking Council consensus on Council goals and priorities for use of lodging tax proceeds. Tues 8/21/2018 Joint meeting between Council and LTAC at City Hall -review application -review Council Goals & Priorities for use of lodging tax Wed 8/31/2018 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to 2017 award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed interest. Fri 10/5/2018 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be accepted). Fri 10/12/2018 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review. Thurs 10/18/2018 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee. Tues 11/13/2018 Formal Council Meeting Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council Tues 12/11/2018 Formal Council Meeting City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2019 RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC meeting before action can be taken by the City Council. 12/11/2018 Council Action 10/18/2018 LTAC meeting 54 days OPTIONS: Approve Council goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues with or without modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the Council goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues as written. 2 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In 2019 the 2% portion of the lodging tax is currently anticipated to generate approximately $600,000. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Evolution of Council Goals and Priorities in track changes format • 2017 Lodging Tax Reports o JLARC 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update o JLARC 2017 Report — Municipal Summary o JLARC 2017 Report — Activity Specific 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1201812018, 07-3111tem 5 evolution of council goals and priorities v2.docx Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award recommendations. Based upon subsequent discussions between Council and Staff in the years c: 2014_, 2015, 2016, andthrough 2017- , these have evolved as follows: 1. Council desires to direct awards toward funding new and innovative projects, activities, events or festivals that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism destination and result in Council will focus on using lodging taxcs to crctiatc distinct and idcntifiablc increases Spokane Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in State law, which include: a. Tourism marketing b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2. Council desires that 20% of total grant monies awarded be directed towards funding new and innovativc projccts, activitics, cvcnts or fcstivals that will distinguish Spokanc Vallcy as a tourism destination. Council will emphasize the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley as a means of drawing additional visitors to the City (recognizing that this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). Council would like to move in the direction of allocating a majority of lodging taxes toward this purpose. 4.3. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or marketing program and will place higher consideration on events or programs with a demonstrable history of increasing overnight stays. Council may also take into consideration to a lesser degree the economic impact of all major components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits. 5- Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District. 5. An award to any particular applicant cannot be greater than the dollar amount requested in that applicant's application. 6. Council wishes to establish a future plan for the City to best utilize the 1.3% lodging tax that is accounted for in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104. LODGING TAX REPORT: 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS About the Report Report presents data from municipalities about use of lodging tax revenue This report summarizes data for calendar years 2014 through 2017, as reported by cities, towns, and counties that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue. JLARC compiles but does not verify expenditure reports from municipalities In 2013, the Legislature directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to collect and report local use of lodging tax revenues for tourism purposes (Ch. 196, Laws of 2013). JLARC staff establishes a reporting system, provides and compiles the reports each year. Municipalities are responsible for the accuracy of their data, and JLARC staff do not independently verify the information. Department of Revenue identifies municipalities receiving distributions of lodging tax revenue Municipalities report data to JLARC JLARC staff compiles and presents data as reported Municipalities collect and use lodging tax revenues for tourism activities Municipalities (cities, towns, and counties) may levy sales taxes on lodging in two ways: 1. Collect a lodging tax of up to 2 percent that is taken as a credit against the state sales tax due on lodging. 2. Collect an additional sales tax of up to 2 percent on lodging stays. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 1 Municipalities may use lodging tax revenues for these tourism -related activities: • Tourism marketing. • Operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. • Capital expenditures for tourism -related facilities owned by the municipality. The municipality may spend the funds directly or award the funds to a convention and visitors bureau or destination marketing organization. With the exception of King County, any municipality that receives a distribution of lodging tax revenue must report information to JLARC (1, 67.28.1816). Questions about the reported information should be directed to the individual municipality. To learn more about the reporting process, please visit J LARC's Lodging Tax Data Collection page. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Statewide Summary 97% of municipalities reported in 2017 The Department of Revenue identified 198 municipalities that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue in 2017. Of these, 192 (97 percent) reported information to JLARC. An additional four municipalities reported information to JLARC. The Reporting Compliance tab includes more details. Received funds (report required) 2014 195 2015 195 2016 202 2017 198 Reported lodging tax expenditures 152 180 184 180 Reported no expenditures 13 12 14 12 Did not report 30 3 4 6 Did not receive funds, but filed a report* 4 * These municipalities may have received a distribution of lodging tax revenue in previous years. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 2 Statewide: Municipalities reported $55.5 million awarded, 60.4 million attendees, 26.3 million paid lodging nights The following table summarizes the data statewide. You can find additional detail on the Municipal Summaries and Activity -Specific Data tabs. Our i'y defines each term. 2014 2015 2016 2017 Funding Funds requested for activities $57,418,410 $44,201,383 $49,778,123 $56,394,096 Funds awarded by municipalities $37,134,016 $40,413,415 $46,908,930 $55,531,303 Total activity cost (including other funds) $142,352,632 $147,828,485 $162,993,138 $173,449,450 Attendance at activities funded by lodging tax revenue (actual) Overall attendance 35,425,504 54,877,411 56,921,660 60,400,053 Attendees who traveled 50+ miles 17,627,699 24,353,595 25,114,620 69,141,685 Attendees from out of state or country 5,150,003 8,765,332 8,697,034 32,261,190 Lodging Paid lodging nights 7,015,259 6,995,235 8,529,793 26,274,706 Attendees who did not pay for overnight lodging 4,327,691 9,852,330 14,286,640 50,853,067 Attendees who paid for overnight lodging 8,858,370 10,234,630 13,239,848 19,326,094 Note: Municipalities did not always report complete data to JLARC, so attendance and lodging totals may not equal the overall attendance. Source: Reports provided by municipalities that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue during 2014 - 2017, as identified by the Department of Revenue. Statute exempts King County from the reporting requirement. Some municipalities did not spend lodging tax revenues or submit reports. JLARC staff report but do not verify the information. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 3 JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Municipal Summary View each municipality's annual funding, attendance, and lodging data This table presents annual totals for activities funded by lodging tax revenues in each municipality. Data includes projected and actual figures for attendance and lodging nights. • Scroll the spreadsheet window to the right to view all data columns. Our glossary defines each term. • Use the buttons on the left or the column filter to filter data by year, activity type, and municipality. • Highlighted fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. If you choose "activity type," the table will show the totals for all activities within the type. You can find data about individual activities (e.g., a community festival) on the Activity -Specific Data tab. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Activity -Specific Data View the funding, attendance, and lodging data for each activity This table provides funding, attendance, and lodging data for over 5,800 discrete activities funded by lodging tax revenues. • Scroll the spreadsheet window to the right to view all data columns. Our each term. defines • Use the buttons on the left or the column filter to filter data by year, activity type, and municipality. • Highlighted fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Reporting Compliance Reporting is required by state Law RCW 6%.28,1816 requires local governments to report expenditures of lodging tax revenue. Statute exempts Icing County from the reporting requirement. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 4 JLARC staff summarized compliance into four categories: 1. Did not report: the municipality received a distribution of lodging tax revenue during the year but failed to report expenditures to JLARC. 2. No state distribution: the municipality did not receive lodging tax revenues during this year and did not report expenditures to JLARC. 3. Reported: the municipality reported lodging tax expenditures to JLARC. 4. Reported no expenditures: the municipality received a distribution of lodging tax revenue and reported to JLARC that they did not expend any lodging tax revenue Use the buttons on the left or the column filters to filter data by year and municipality. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Download the Data You can view or save the data The Excel files linked below contain complete lodging tax data reported to JLARC for 2014 - 2017. • Please note that JLARC staff do not independently verify the data in these files. • Blank fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. To download the data, click the Save As button and save to your computer. Municipal Sulnmaiy Activity -Specific Data Reporting Compliance Complete 2014 - 2017 Data Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee 106 11th Avenue SW, Suite 2500 PO Box 40910 Olympia, WA 98504-0910 Phone: 360-786-5171 Fax: 360-786-5180 Email: JLARC@Ieg.wa.gov 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 5 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 Activity Type Event/Festival Facility Marketing Municipality Aberdeen Adams County Airway heights Anacortes Arlington Asotin Asotin County Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Blaine Rothe!! Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport 2017 Aberdeen Airway Heights Anacortes Arlington Asot3 Asotin County Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Blaine Bothell Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport Buckley Burlington Camas Cashmere Castle Rock Centralia Chehalis Chelan Chelan County Cheney Chewelah Clallam County Clark County Clarkston Cle Elum Colfax Colville Conconully Cannell Coulee City Coutee Dam Coupeville Cowlitz County Davenport Dayton Deer Park Des Moines Dupont East Wenatchee Eatonville Edmonds Electric City Ellensburg El ma Entiat Enumclaw Ephrata $56,394,096 555,531,303 517.3,449,450 589,001 563,500 5140,727 59,500 531,000 $31,000 5411,973 5291,000 5960,608 5155,528 5155,476 $427,564 $0 5124 51,497 $75,000 572,505 575,000 521,000 510,000 51,288,600 $303,746 5200,000 5398,985 534,033 534,033 $36,033 $0 50 59,698,177 55,155,425 $1,435,720 5579,077 5211,061 5183,051 5395,979 5335,200 5335,200 5283,630 5515,200 5506,200 52,534,578 538,180 536,546 $36,546 $191 5191 5191 515,203 515,203 514,268 5255,550 $256,550 5695,723 511,796 511,352 565,218 54,286 54,285 5113,201 514,558 514,558 527,283 5272,058 5211,058 5359,046 5214,935 5214,935 5843,398 51,014,963 51,015,540 52,485,006 5182,42 $148,500 51,360,735 525,260 515,940 5124,327 514,600 59,800 5105,564 5825,334 5825,3 5455,539 5455,639 $88,750 594,61 $20,315 $140,217 $28,934 528,93 5321,415 5144,828 54,500 54,500 514,140 513,005 55,938 585,58 530,000 522,00 5324,54 5772,44 541,50 5120,18 53,00 54,520,8 5239,08 5140,1 55,18 5528,86 5124,2 5513,96 5182,02 51,19 512,50 $71,295 540,000 5205,50 5828,334 $455,539 588,750 520,315 534,100 5351,478 54,500 515,240 $6,300 515,291 $447,555 56,500 50 53,000 5111,227 5252,868 5114,200 510,183 5131,167 573,000 5553,047 581,004 515,291 5388,155 $6,500 566,733 53,000 5111,227 5203,008 $114,200 $10,183 5130,467 573,000 5493,663 $78,936 512,500 512,500 OutafState/ Overnight Overall 50,- Miles Country Paid Lodging Unpaid Attendance Attendance Attendance Nights Attendance Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 34 4 4 8 0 6 6 0 4 1Z 7 13 3 2 44 Z 4 6 0 0 Out of State/ Overnight Overall 50-- Wes Country Unpaid Attendance Attendance Attendance Paid Lodging Attendance Actual Actual _ Actual Nights Actual Actual 80,574,819 65,776,392 27,123,255 23,935,929 43,412,451 60,400,053 64,141,685 32,261,190 26,274,706 50,853,067 9,750 4,375 4,175 2,560 6,100 14,040 5,445 6,045 3,215 8,000 1,000 50 20 5 1,000 900 42 12 - 900 628,100 264,476 85,263 11,695 41,990 578,249 375,895 90,690 26,550 71,291 113,100 28,940 5,907 1,545 97,886 92,374 18,731 6,798 752 82,546 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25,000 25,000 20,000 23,000 6,000 24,465 24,455 17,553 20,285 5,500 52,000 14,700 3,200 1,280 1,820 50,672 11,218 2,677 1,196 1,554 51,100 24,340 19,825 4,950 1,544 56,216 26,795 20,950 4,052 2,059 350 60 110 50 250 250 38 72 60 194 183,918 45,895 27,179 38,714 3,498 179,708 47,037 27,655 39,677 3,585 76,523 21,419 1,608 5,427 2,915 73,737 20,274 1,796 3,796 2,373 235,760 147,245 55,030 5,510 4,990 36,895 7,331 4,889 4,107 4,355 3,200 1 1 1 1 2,550 1 1 1 196,700 54,690 16,505 17,792 4,520 188,979 57,919 22,355 14,533 5,678 I I 1 - - - - - - 901 67 20 14 887 574,342 202,556 13,245 37,680 39,295 451,375 229,799 4,766 23,248 19,533 77 0, 000 1 1 1 1 769,000 I 1 1 1 4,400 1,250 155 1,340 3,040 4,639 1,371 156 1,357 3,262 1 1 1 1 5,000 538 360 42 2,950 56,007 37,732 4,360 14,011 10,695 62,422 36,851 6,977 13,533 10,930 37,887 8,175 2,277 3,481 943 29,966 12,966 2,570 3,335 9,764 I 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 I 186,695 102,501 17,819 54,378 28,827 1,013,153 108,754 18,809 49,341 26,283 9,750 1,650 810 50 50 8,862 1,848 932 51 50 102,180 56,005 10,241 515 2,787 71,554 50,313 8,118 346 1,106 923,744 799,893 391,835 221,849 94,502 955,063 819,946 401,040 232,697 110,717 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I _ 25,150 25,070 20,025 23,050 6,020 24,587 24,503 17,565 20,303 5,503 1,985 815 80 200 230 1,907 750 98 317 300 10,825 25 25 25 1,800 4,272 1,505 627 1,991 1,558 51,216 18,133 17,511 10,410 8,697 33,839 6,372 2,596 2,509 1,501 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8,975 1,150 75 80 850 2,140 650 50 25 800 5,000 2,000 800 _ 200 1,000 4,600 4,000 1,400 500 500 50,000 40,000 15,000 40,000 55,759 48,657 _ 15,874 39,557 1 1 27,397 20,130 7,490 81,350 15,100 12,540 3,785 615 1 1,500 30 10 5 3 1,200 26 6 2 3 25,000 10,500 17,000 4,800 36,722 13,299 27,648 9,111 535,756 508,958 254,484 30,000 541,462 514,389 257,194 39,125 9,820 2,275 765 591 428 5,797 1,029 539 428 347 15,000 440 60 353 190 25,700 8,628 385 7,359 1,335 5,500 50 10 40 4,020 8,250 75 15 50 5,790 270,342 59,324 29,687 5,255 135,600 270,951 40,104 15,501 3,432 147,487 27,445 7,905 8,053 840 7,725 37,093 13,123 3,323 5,736 7,939 73,220 16,955 4,562 356,323 52,397 61,555 17,546 8,951 387,988 46,251 45,500 2,725 2,161 309 44,971 49,000 3,409 2,003 331 45,169 1 1 1 50,000 10,00094,510 81,447 138,500 30,200 25,400 26,600 21,700 169,500 30,100 25,400 26,700 21,800 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Everett Federal Way Ferndale Ferry County Fife Forks Friday Harbor Gig Harbor Goldendale Grand Coulee Grandview Grant County Grays Harbor County Ilwaco lone Island County Issaquah Jefferson County Kalama Kelso Kennewick Kent Kettle Falls Kirkland Kitsap County Kittites County Klickitat County La Conner Lacey Lakewood Langley Leavenworth Lewis County Liberty Lake Lincoln County Long Beach Longview Lyndon Lynnwood Marysville Mason County Monroe Montesano Moses Lake Mount Vernon Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo 5551,795 575,600 560,000 532,214 5657,050 5158,040 5505,058 5337,700 588,650 522,800 $7,938 5155,249 $246,453 $31,500 5500 5285,094 514,093 5482,886 510,408 $253,169 51,146,500 5277,535 51,000 5384,950 $632,565 5730,269 $65,500 5108,805 $535,940 51,041,150 5134,283 $1,621,674 5395,010 573,169 515,000 5437,344 571,2_00 $51,325 5484,412 5105,355 5372,546 579,839 59,682 5210,200 5225,215 536,621 5335,179 Newport $10,500 North Bend 514,000 North Bonneville 526,500 Northport 5800 Oak Harbor 5339,775 Ocean Shores 51,446,820 Okanogan 517,553 5574,181 553,325 552,000 525,100 5667,050 5148,679 5430,457 5337,700 584,250 520,922 51,774 594,001 $982,687 530,500 $500 5294,694 514,093 5445,000 59,981 $234,112 51,135,516 5277,535 51,000 5289,147 5418,000 5480,302 565,500 569,500 52,550,422 5917,441 5138,171 51,603,174 5381,500 561,000 515,000 5437,344 575,130 561,325 5714,262 $75,550 $326,700 579,334 58,042 5250,700 5197,300 $25,325 $309,030 510,500 514,000 526,500 5840 5250,000 51,010,541 1. 53,533,852 5273,002 5187,500 522,599 5811,854 $363,052 5610,760 5331,177 $227,456 5116,000 $7,938 51,369,318 $385,635 5741,871 $10,500 51,705,485 514,093 5497,011 518,505 51,478,520 55,400,319 5470,320 517,446 51,518,834 53,504,617 5710,698 565,500 5298,524 53,772,192 5709,556 5256,642 51,540,283 5812,492 5472,068 512,965 5999,737 5345,579 $60,037 5714,262 5207,147 5133,564 5129,187 $54,700 $1,274,557 52,593,575 5241,104 5680,539 5200,323 5200,960 526,500 5800 51,577,859 51,010,541 517,282 Overall 50+ Miles Attendance Attendance Projected Projected Out of State/ Country Attendance Projected Paid Lodging Nights Projected Overnight Unpaid Attendance Projected Overall Attendance Actual 50+ Miles Attendance Actual Out of State/ Country Attendance Paid Lodging Actual Nights Actual Overnight Unpaid Attendance Actual 201,120 24,142 6,603 10,506 130,570 527,518 34,146 7,167 14,145 123,279 39,901 11,600 54 23,794 - 45,135 15,541 11,008 848 - 11,300 850 520 1,125 1,500 13,892 858 599 1,200 1,753 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 967,128 57,436 13,065 45,765 10,370 1,099,923 73,938 24,937 60,908 10,580 55,841 61,788 42,389 18,683 1,850 70,182 66,471 45,313 25,347 5,997 701,649 496,011 171,264 391,832 121,002 715,112 545,381 208,320 407,893 127,982 1 1 1 18,100 4,581 5,112 3,411 3,093 316,000 205,500 202,500 17,500 20,000 305,125 175,082 284,353 11,705 18,007 �- - 1 1 I 534 20 - - 534 178,095 17,700 3,910 17,625 106,640 432,733 214,784 62,828 144,886 247,783 1,067,073 1,015,904 5,458 5,687 50,080 1,067,922 1,015,543 14,251 5,702 52,502 85,650 65,550 37,750 56,550 19,600 85,481 65,319 40,698 55,102 20,203 10,000 9,300 110 9,190 9,300 9,300 110 9,190 230,190 101,297 39,364 38,080 53,498 799,557 349,417 118,773 296,021 3,057,521 175 75 50 25 75 155 75 50 25 75 24,296,948 494,031 32,647 467,705 14,045 800,125 522,250 36,371 491,807 15,399 3,100 150 50 20 800 1,900 125 25 - 200 110,150 101,790 29,010 10,050 109,450 110,308 17,835 10,071 7,795 2,567 3424,333 629,497 128,111 1,184,494 1,473,176 3,068,923 654,571 109,548 1,201,316 1,468,989 248,200 64,120 17,000 17,135 221,580 308,795 87,386 15,445 17,003 283,025 1 1 1 1 709 149 58 121 582 1,261,467 557,245 144,400 239,999 305,142 1,354,222 603,171 185,945 289,665 564,357 1 1 1 1 1,534,143 158,787 - 9,641 210,015 150,007 65,792 7,873 539,706 82,787 133,038 63,627 13,511 636,976 75,540 9,000 1,850 3,100 3,300 600 6,234 2,651 3,846 3,335 502 512,710 225,571 132,950 71,591 52,521 422,664 285,384 119,054 64,379 42,924 3,023,250 1,215,365 476,286 85,198 56,925 3,297,273 1,331,902 518,854 65,749 62,534 329,000 80,891 37,560 69,425 47,945 304,755 102,149 56,616 90,852 89,106 17,000 1,300 560 750 2.50 33,432 14,572 2,141 8,549 4,556 3,172,840 3,013,368 1,506,029 1,808,561 1,363,429 2,497 1,515 95 1,438 140 54,100 17,950 8,220 10,150 15,100 59,790 24,202 10,573 12,567 14,907 189480 41,925 20,444 47,647 41,455 288,515 125,917 45,511 49,339 45,509 1 1 1 1 1- r 1 1 _ 1200,000 609,000 2440,900 300,000 245,000 1,433,488 771,649 328,632 411,575 316,187 64,950 3,637 2,350 1,788 23,997 76,423 4,132 2,461 1,982 30,713 200,925 80,200 40,550 40,100 30,000 200,919 90,119 50,085 55,100 30,068 121,595 r 1 1 1 119,679 1 1 1 169,859 22,921 10,043 3,128 1,831 42,656 3,131 13,354 1,873 930 18,763 13,134 14,072 9,381 4,128 246,843 132,413 18,834 120,899 71,131 21,100 8,804 5,045 4,786 16,614 21,763 7,371 5,287 2,122 8,133 5,650 1 1 1 1 7,984 1 1 _ 1 8,500 - - 100 3,500 153,991 104,987 20,764 24,385 27,248 779,477 316,025 149,357 130,355 55,795 776,634 315,972 150,078 132,181 55,728 113,692 33,251 28,453 230 1,142 120,948 20,229 14,083 283 1,207 401,220 193,250 8,275 25,955 335,035 1,124,592 84,076 9,278 10,304 1,213,424 22,646 8,354 2,104 1,052 1 23,575 10,030 1,614 504 13,951 2,700 1,250 550 50 2,150 2,190 1,226 834 143 1,925 2,500 1,450 500 200 1,500 2,230 1,348 614 325 1,224 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53,306 21,085 6,579 5,801 4,333 53,306 21,085 6,579 5,801 4,333 195,550 1 56,772 138,788 234,056 1 60,892 173,164 15,131 6,449 1,704 2,095 14,699 6,222 1,694 2,093 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Okanogan County Olympia Omak Orav!Ile Othello Pacific Pacific County Pasco Pateros Pend Oreille County Pierce County Port Angeles Port Orchard Part Townsend Paulsbo Prosser Pullman Puyallup Quincy Raymond Redmond Renton Republic Richland Rittville San Juan County SeaTac Sethra-Woolley Selah Sequim Shelton Skagit County 5kamanie County Snohomish Snohomish County Snoqualmie Soap lake South Bend Spokane Spokane County Spokane Valley Sprague Stevens County Stevenson Sumas Sunnyside Tacoma Thurston County Toledo Tonasket Toppenish Tukwila Tumwater Twisp $436,015 $695,460 5109,000 $25,475 $108,915 5412,421 $4[10,34$ 5521,200 58,105,452 5108,500 $108,300 $23,875 520,343 $56,635 5180,963 55,291 55,291 $682,128 $582,910 5399,884 52,500 53,107,774 513,000 $37,800 5197,960 51,563,000 55,015,030 5797,910 52,512,548 591,855 5167,851 5385,926 5376,116 5137,245 598,500 $297,567 5891,826 5136,688 594,759 5529,898 54,707,782 $39,600 $4,912 575,029 52,770 5386,686 52,040,262 $293,901 5292,901 $12,636 5212,325 5714,809 54,603,946 580,100 1,037,858 5120,683 $3,560,007 51476,180 56,205,912 522,100 55,500 5251,205 $43,550 5177,133 55,500 5726,105 5234,851 5313,900 581,500 53,004,480 5778,499 537,000 1,938,454 537,000 56,184,34 $45,000 538,525 5100,050 58,940 591,406 58,94 584,800 51,592,82 5303,193 $612,7 $351,230 53,432,65 5113 511 536,237 5463,350 52,000 5106,081 54,560,097 5203,23 5856,22 59,00 5291,49 54,560,09 5522,47 $77 510 59,550 57,70 577,20.5 576,39 5545,101 58,201,56 5309,445 54,495,20 525,251 $31,25 50 530,000 5690,790 5524,000 52,500 550,113 51,795,200 5857,410 5117,928 5386,226 5167,245 5100,300 5347472 5952,163 539,600 $4,S00 5475,500 5312,643 513,000 5947,809 5105,300 $1,096,859 $1,177,030 $ 51,045 55,500 5271,246 543,550 5467,206 586,603 55,203 52,277452 545,000 5100,050 58,940 $185,000 5303,193 $785,330 $113 552,902 5478,615 52,000 5156,410 F $37,500 5100 510,600 5129,661 $582,800 5515,500 525,251 Overall Attendance Projected 6 0 D z9 8 3 1 7 0 1 7 0 0 9 1 5 7 1 Out of State/ Overnight 50*- Miles Country Paid lodging Unpaid Attendance Attendance Nights Attendance Projected Projected Projected Projected Overall Attendance Actual Out of State/ 50+Miles Country Attendance Attendance Paid Lodging Actual Actual Nights Actual Overnight Unpaid Attendance Actual 1,379,993 519,242 292,865 720,911 149,214 1,343,036 827,254 551,357 888,032 256,481 543,483 108,937 29,672 1,198,913 361,959 173,490 44,577 16,955 1,315,252 412,970 59,400 32,228 8,865 17,660 12,980 515,253 315,987 318,099 383,465 46,588 19,521 11,997 4,741 3,079 40 20,550 12,150 2,831 1,666 50 39,290 5,118 1,882 4,520 5,725 34,256 7,058 1,245 4,635 4,229 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1,866,639 1,545,106 880,361 '92,898 26,818 1,885,681 1,545,182 884,998 94,219 26,975 313,839 51,364 8,330 43,177 3,712 295,572 54,263 8,708 44,391 4,226 900 175 - 65 740 900 160 - 55 710 47,300 22,000 16,000 21,245 4,490 23,500 10,400 175 8 3,992 3,528,247 2,313,794 635,296 386,578 56,253 3,338,207 2,075,467 556,714 430,241 92,524 552,645 401,992 50,903 57,077 4,016 713,556 507,927 83,482 94,608 42,927 176,200 86,030 34,153 2,770 8,351 328,272 67,856 18,052 29,694 7,106 269,458 129,160 30,970 9,417 I 266,253 118,885 26,620 9,539 125,050 28,510 1,225 1,560 72,040 154,676 25,925 1,235 1,504 72,649 32,100 14,900 1,835 9,960 8,750 30,287 14,111 2,519 13,224 7,388 45,680