Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 11-15-18 Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall November 15,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter, absent—excused Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer Michael Phillips, absent-excused Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kaschmitter and Phillips were excused from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the November 15,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed III. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the October 11,2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he had attended City Council meetings and the human rights task force.He had heard an interesting presentation on the Jonah Project regarding child sex trafficking in Spokane County at the human rights task force meeting. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger informed the Commissioners that the City Council had an administrative report November 20, 2018, regarding the docket for the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Basinger reported on the many economic development efforts his department had been working. Some of the highlighted items were: updating the bike and pedestrian plan, adding annexation goals and policies to the Comprehensive Plan, streamlining and improving the Northeast industrial areas to foster more manufacturing business development,working on a 20-year transportation plan, updating the city newsletter, looking at social media as a way to inform citizens and more. VL PUBLIC COMMENT: Pete Miller, 18124 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Miller stated she felt developers have taken advantage of the City code by developing duplexes in the R-3 single family residential zone. Ms. Miller said there are 16 new developments currently being built or planned in her neighborhood, 14 of them are duplexes developments. Many of these developments, she stated are purchased by out of state developers for investment purposes. Ms. Miller pointed out that she felt this was not a Greenacres problem but a citywide problem,affecting the entire R-3 zone. She pointed out the R-3 zone encompasses most of the city. She said that developers are using the duplex regulations in order to increase the density beyond what is allowed in the R-3 zone. She is very concerned that many of these duplexes are not going to be owner occupied and will be left to fall into disrepair. Ms. Miller supplied a map of the Greenacres neighborhood showing the developments in her area and an article from Realtor.com which states among other things that a high concentration of renters will drag down home values. She is requesting the Commission make a change to the code to restrict duplexes in single family residential zones. Stephanie Woodruff, 17501 E Boone Avenue: Ms. Woodruff stated she had read an article that morning citing Spokane Valley as the second best place to buy instead of rent. She said the rankings were based on a 2017 census bureau ranking. She said she moved to the valley because it was peaceful but three years later all of the new development has brought many duplexes, increased traffic and drug deals to the neighborhood. She feels these duplex developments are ruining the ambiance of the valley. She asked the commissioners if they wanted to live in duplexes. She stated it would ruin the valley if these duplex developments were allowed to continue. 2018-1 l-l5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Nancy Purcell, 2531 S Adams Road: Ms. Purcell stated she agreed with what Ms. Miller and Ms. Woodruff had to say however, driving around a person could see many signs saying for lease or for rent, but not a lot of for sale signs, She said this is not what we want for our valley. The R-3 zone is for single family homes and it needs to be made clear that what that means. After the public testimony,Commissioner Johnson stated home ownership was something the Planning Commission discusses often. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb said staff had made an administrative report to council October 2, 2018, regarding the duplex densities. The direction from council at that time had been to wait and see what changes Spokane County was making to its municipal code before proposing any changes to the City's code. He said he would check with staff to see if they could make the same presentation to the Planning Commission. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: CTA-2018-0004 A city-initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)creating a new chapter 21.60 Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance(PAO) Economic Development Specialist Chaz Bates gave a presentation to the Commission explaining the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 21 by adding a new chapter 21.60 Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). A planned action ordinance is focused environmental analysis, The City's is for the area located in the northeast industrial area of the City located primarily between Hodges Road,Euclid Avenue,Trent Avenue and Flora Road. It is a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The PAO is limited to the specific identified area for limited analyzed projects in that area. It is voluntary to participate in the PAO. This process will reduce the permitting time for applicants. The City has calculated impact fees for participating in the PAO,of$2,831.00 based on per trip basis. This number is based on peak PM hour trips. Mr. Bates covered the elements, which were updated in the supplemental EIS: air quality,surface water,water runoff,historic and cultural preservation,utility provision and supply and transportation. In summary, Mr. Bates stated the amendment applies to a limited area in the northeast portion of the City, for primarily industrial uses. The City has done a traffic study to anticipate future traffic impacts. Participation is voluntary, participants will pay a proportionate share of off-site traffic impacts, it will reduce permit processing times, City has worked with Spokane County to extend sewer to the area,and impacts have been addressed in the supplemental EIS. Commissioner Kelley asked what plans were for the I-90-Barker interchange. Senior Traffic engineer Ray Wright explained the 1-90 Barker interchange was a Washington Department of Transportation project, which is not part of the PAO. The bridge over the freeway is not expected to be replaced until 2027. An interim solution is being developed with a single lane roundabout for the east and westbound on and off ramps. WSDOT believes this would allow seven to eight years lead time, in order to find a funding solution for the bridge replacement. Commissioner Walton clarified the agency commenting time in the presentation. He asked how streamlining the process would allow the agencies to comment in a timely manner. Mr. Basinger stated this process would eliminate the SEPA process for participants.The City would have already completed it ahead of time for the applicant. Agencies would have already commented on future development. However,in 21.60.030(C)(1)(c)(ii)allows for the notification of all utility providers and Spokane Clean Air at the time of development. Commissioner Johnson asked about any other future improvements. Mr. Basinger stated the City would improve Garland Avenue to Barker Road. He also commented the City worked with Centennial properties regarding Boundary Line Adjustments to create 10-acres parcels,but did not see any other future road improvements. Mr. Bates said any other improvements, which are identified in the infrastructure plan, are projects the City is currently perusing grant funding for especially along Barker, because it has been identified as a critical component. Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed the public transportation in the area is virtually non-existent. Commissioner Kelley asked about the classification of the jobs that would be added to the work force. He was thinking the job classification would be entry level positions which would be hired. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Walton noted he had several questions regarding the documents and would like to discuss them. They are as follows: • He did not see any additional projections for housing or population as it relates to additional manufacturing jobs. Mr. Bates noted the Final EIS which was done for the update of the Comprehensive Plan had addressed impacts to housing and population. • Chapter 21.60.030(A)(4) and (5) discuss PM peak trips but other areas discuss AM trips. When discussing impacts why are only the PM trips taken into account? Mr. Wright stated standards use peak PM trips, which usually come in as a higher number. Some people might arrive for work at a different time of day, but generally they leave at the same time. • There is a discussion of AM peak trips impacting schools. Mission would have significant school impact,from the new school, What impacts did school or future schools in the area have on the traffic analysis? Mr. Wright stated the traffic analysis firm Fehr& Peers did an growth projection to the year 2040 to establish a trip count in order to design the mitigation. In the modeling they have projected what the traffic would be for the schools up to 2040. They have accounted for the impacts to the surrounding schools. Mr. Bates offered this analysis is not projecting any new growth, or new development. This is development which had already been analyzed during the Comprehensive Plan horizon. This is simply allowing people to have a more streamlined permitting process within the existing bounds that we have analyzed. • 21.60.060 states the decision for qualifications shall be final. He commented that in other places in the code there is an appeal process. Why was none offered here? Mr. Lamb stated this is a specific area, with specific criteria and the participation in this process is voluntary. If participation is voluntary, there is no appeal to consider. The appeal for the PAO would be when the PAO was adopted. If an applicant did not like the qualification requirements,then they can choose to not participate in the process. • The draft Northeast Industrial Area report,page 8, 6.1. It states it would improve traffic to an acceptable level. He wanted to know what was an acceptable level and how is that defined. Mr. Bates stated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan there stated level of service for traffic intersections. • On page 12 of the same report, it states Spokane Clean Air maintains a list of uses which require permits. He asked if there was going to be a way for people to get the list other than reaching out to Clean Air. Mr. Bates said he would reach out to Clean Air and find out. • On page 15 of the same report, it talks about hydrologic impacts and best management practices that a stormwater facility must be able to treat up to a 10-year 24-hour storm event. He asked why something more catastrophic event was not used. Mr. Bates commented he was not aware, but the information was supplied by one the City's senior hydrologic engineers. The requirement more than likely met the standards in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. Ms.Horton,Certified Floodplain Manager for the City,also commented this area was not located in a FEMA floodplain, so would not be required to meet the standards of a larger event. • On page 19 of the same report,talks about the water system plan and not meeting fire flow in the northeast industrial area. What is being done to address this issue? Mr. Bates stated staff coordinated with Consolidated Water District's water system plan and have spoken to them regarding this issue. He commented on the next page there are improvements necessary to support the growth in this area. Mr. Walton stated there is a mitigation plan and • Please walk through the methodology of the traffic study. Mr. Wright stated the traffic impact analysis was done by the City's traffic consultant Fehr&Peers. It performed based on American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards looking at the intersections, crash data,peak travel times, and traffic counts. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 • Is the suggested rail spur the one which was already been installed? Mr. Bates stated the one suggested in the report is another spur which has been suggested,further north. Would there be a grade separation project for this spur line. None has been considered for this spur. A grade separation project for the spur would have to go to the Utility Trade Commission. • How were costs for the impact fees worked out? Mr. Walton stated he came up with a different number than the report reflects. Mr. Wright stated there were mitigation factors involved, the difference in the cost of a roundabout vs. a signalized intersection over a 4- way stop. It is not a straight-line charge, it is a mitigation fee based on over all impacts to the system. Mr. Basinger and Mr. Lamb explained the process of imposing impact fees in advance of development so everyone coming in pays a portion. Instead of the last person coming in and having to pay for all the improvements when they trigger the need for them. • Appendix A, page 8, why would we allow a system, which might already be broken or strained,to continue to fail. Mr. Lamb stated it was a chicken and the egg problem trying to improve infrastructure. You have to show the system failing before anyone wants to fix it.If the fix comes before the failure,where do you come up with the money when it might be needed somewhere the infrastructure is already failing. • Appendix B, page 3, trip distribution, how was this calculated? Where did they get the methodology?Why do they feel this would impact Trent more than the I-90 corridor? Mr. Wright stated there are several ways to get the information, cell phones, the changes of zoning, WSDOT can track where traffic is going, where the density is, similar land uses, how the industrial park traffic moves, etc. • Appendix B, page 7, it is not recommended to have a left hand turn lane. Why would no one recommend a left hand turn lane in this location for Phase I? Mr.Basinger stated staff communicated with the users. There will only be one property owner on the east side and there would not be a lot of left turn traffic so the need for the left turn lane did not seem necessary. Mr. Basinger commented this is a specialty area. These analyses were vetted by Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC),and Spokane County DOT and they all agree with the results in the study. • Appendix B, page 9, vehicle cueing lengths, is this long enough for turning onto Barker? Mr. Bates explained that after the Barker Grade Separation Project,there will no longer be a road crossing, so this will not be relevant. • Appendix B, page 12, it states changes to the 1-90 interchange would be constructed by 2020, but would occur by 2040. Is that referring to the bridge replacement? Mr. Wright stated the 2040 assumption was with the bridge replacement. The interim solution is two one-lane roundabouts by 2027 and when the bridge is replaced there will be two,two-lane roundabouts. Mr. Walton would like to know the timing of this before the public hearing. • In the memorandum from Fehr & Peers, Page 6, Figure 5, it has assumed truck trips in 2040 would be the same as observed trips in 2017. How is this possible? Mr. Bates responded it would be proportionate. The percent of truck traffic will increase at the same percentage as it was increasing in 2017. The truck traffic will increase, at the same rate it is increasing now. Commissioner Walton stated he understood this concept, however currently there is no truck traffic coming from this area. Commissioner Kelley stated currently Old Dominion is there and many trucks use Euclid to get to Barker instead of trying to use Sullivan. Mr.Bates offered that on Page 12 of the Existing Conditions report accounts for where the truck traffic is currently coming from. • In the memo, page 6,it discusses the realignment of Cataldo and Boone. However,it does not indicate how this would be accomplished, how property would be acquired, or how it would be paid for. Mr. Bates replied there were some assumptions made, but this was considered as part of the fee in the infrastructure plan on page 7, figure 6. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 • Why was Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) used for cost assumptions? Mr.Bates stated that the Engineering department reviewed the costing estimates as to what the City would expect to pay for infrastructure costs. Mr. Wright said that Caltrans was not a standard but since they do so much work, from a unit cost standpoint, there is good uniformity in their numbers. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. to -19 Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed • Deanna Horton, Secretary