Loading...
2020-01-09 PC APPROVED SIGNED minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall January 9,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Deanna Horton called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Bill Helbig, City Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the amended January 9, 2020 agenda. The election of officers had been added after the agenda was published. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the December 12,2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended a Spokane County Human Rights task force meeting and the January 7, 2020 meeting. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to suspend the rules and postpone the election of officers to a time when the full Commission has been appointed. Commissioner Kelley stated that newly appointed members would not necessarily know the people they were voting for if the elections were postponed. Commissioner Johnson stated it was possible that some previously appointed members could be reappointed, and therefore would already be aware of whom they were electing. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that four votes are necessary to be elected to each position. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. ii. Finding Fact: CTA-2019-0004, a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)22.70.020 Fencing, fence heights in residential zones. Building Official Jenny Nickerson presented to the Commission the Findings of Fact for CTA-2019-0004 which summaries the decision the Commission made during the public hearing for the code text amendment regarding fence heights in residential zones. Ms. Nickerson reminded the Commissioners the proposed amendment to the municipal code is to change where a fence is measured from, which would allow for a six foot high fence 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 measured from where the bottom of the fence hits the ground, regardless of where the ground is located. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that if there were a dirt barrier, the fence would be measured from the top of an earthen berm. The change to the code moves the measuring of the fence from the lowest point within six feet of the fence to the bottom of the fence regardless of where the fence is built. Commissioners discussed the proposed change,then moved to approve the findings. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations regarding CTA-2019-0004. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. iii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of portions of 12th and 13th Avenues, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues and a portion of Chronicle Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated street vacation for a portion of 12th Avenue, a portion of 13th Avenue, the alleyway in-between 12th and 13th, and a portion of Chronicle Road south of 12th Avenue and north of 14th Avenue. Ms. Barlow explained the request is located in the southwest portion of the City near the intersection of 12th Avenue and Carnahan Road. Ms. Barlow provided the Commissioners with additional items for their consideration during the public hearing. She explained the items were comments from the City of Spokane, one new slide for the PowerPoint presentation, and updated recommendations to the staff report based on the new comments received. Ms. Barlow stated a review of the water district service areas indicated that the area was outside of an identified service area, but that the City of Spokane had reached out to let staff know that Spokane Water District #3 considers it to be in their"retail water service area." These properties are in Spokane's Comprehensive Water System Plan and therefore are considered part of the Spokane system for now. There is also a Spokane sewer line located in the parcels which Spokane is requesting an easement for. She stated she had corrected the parcel numbers on the recommendation, and added a new condition based on the received comments from the City of Spokane. Ms. Barlow explained some of the potential issues with the vacation. The zoning to the south and west is single family residential, (R-3), while the rest of the parcels and area to the north is zoned multifamily residential,(MFR). Two of the parcels would be land locked if the whole request was permitted. There is a stormwater piping system which currently is located in the right-of-way (ROW) and on private property which the City needs easements to access. City staff is currently working to obtain the easements for this stormwater system, and it is possible that the system could be moved to accommodate development. The City of Spokane has a sewer main going through the properties and has requested a 30 foot wide easement if any portion of the sewer line is located outside of an easement on the subject properties. Ms. Barlow stated the City's recommendation is to maintain 12th Avenue ROW,but allow the vacation of the rest of the requested ROWs. The reason 12th Avenue should be retained, is all of the properties to the north of 12th Avenue are zoned MFR and this would allow adequate access to the property. While it is only a half ROW at this time, through the 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 development process further ROW could be obtained if it is needed for development of the property(s). Ms.Barlow stated the approval criteria was in the staff report,however she wanted to cover a question from the study session. The question was what would the difference in allowed density on the affected properties be if the ROW is retained over vacating it. Currently the properties involved in the request equal 6.82 acres, which would allow for 41 dwelling units; if the ROW were vacated the area would increase to 8.39 acres, and allow 50 dwelling units. This is a gross calculation and there is a difference when development actually occurs. If an applicant applied for a planned residential development or cottage development which could increase the density depending on existing zoning. These calculations were not figured with the wetland or the floodplain considerations taken into account. Commissioner Johnson confiimed that this would be the facts in any other zoning district. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that a boundary line adjustment of the two parcels owned by the same property owner could prevent the three parcels on the west side of Chronicle Road from becoming land locked. Ms. Barlow stated the conditions of the vacation state there should be a boundary line adjustment or elimination for the parcels. Commissioner Kelley asked if the applicant's development plans suggested that 12th Avenue could function better for them in another place, would it make sense to vacate 12th Avenue now and allow the applicant to offer a suggestion for an alternative later. Ms. Barlow responded it was possible,but at this time there is no development plan which suggests that possibility. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that should the applicant want to change the zoning on the properties they own to the south of the vacation requests,they would need to go through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, as well as a zoning change. Ms. Barlow shared that the applicants had made a request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on the parcels to the south, which are currently designated as Low Density Residential, and the City Council made the decision to remove the request from the docket. Commissioner Johnson stated he was concerned that no water district was taking responsibility for water service on the property. Ms. Barlow stated when staff determined which agencies staff should contact regarding this proposal, there was no specific water district providing service to the parcels. This information came from Spokane County records.Both adjacent water districts stated they were not responsible,but recently the City of Spokane had reached out and stated they considered the area to be within their retail water service area. This means that while the area is not specifically in their service area, they can petition to service the area based on their Comprehensive Water Plan. It is in an area where they are allowed to grow based on their service plan. City Engineer Bill Helbig also commented that the City was responsible for the stormwater and surface water and had conditions for these waters in the findings. Commission accepted public testimony. Brad Sharp,Spokane,WA: Mr. Sharp stated he was appearing on behalf of legal council, Taudd Hume for the applicant. Mr. Sharp stated he was in support of the vacation in its entirety. Mr. Sharp said the conditions in the staff report are appropriate for the project. The boundary line elimination is one of the conditions which the applicant is currently working on now. He said after consulting with the lead attorney, the consulting engineer and the owner, they are looking at providing connectivity to those parcels in question through the project so that the concerns raised in the staff report are addressed, which included increased traffic and general access to the property. Mr. Sharp stated that he felt those concerns would be addressed with adequate or equal access, either through 12th 01-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Avenue, through the aggregated parcel as an easement, or dedication, to mitigate the concerns. The applicant would be agreeable to final plat approval be conditioned ensure connectivity being provided through 12th Avenue or another adequate ROW. Susan Moss, Whipple Consulting Engineers, Spokane Valley, WA: Ms. Moss stated she agreed with everything in the staff report, except for the removal of 12th Avenue from the request. She offered that the applicant would be agreeable to conditions in order to meet accessibility for the multifamily property. She felt conditions could be added to the approval of the vacation in order to allow the vacation of 12th Avenue. Roger Repp, Spokane Valley, WA: Mr. Repp stated his concern was the pond on the property. He said he thought that the water in the pond is aquifer water,and he is concerned about protecting the water and the aquifer. He said that when Target developed on the south hill, they built on what he thought was a wetland that could not be developed. He said they took a bulldozer and filled in the wetlands and it would not take much for someone to do the same thing to the pond on this property. He is concerned about the water quality. He said as an individual,he can't fight the developer's attorney. He was surprised someone was trying to develop it. Matt Walton, Spokane Valley, WA: Mr. Walton stated he was not an opponent or proponent, but wanted to bring up several items for consideration. He said that the proponents offer to do something after an action had taken place does not guarantee they would follow through with it. The City recommendation to retain 12th Avenue seemed to be in good character with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Walton also suggested the City retain Chronicle Road as well. Commissioner Johnson clarified the properties to the north are not landlocked. The reason to retain 12th Avenue is not connectivity for the Low Density Residential properties, it is to support the land use designation of High Density Residential which the right-of-way abuts. Commissioner McKinley asked if the pond was aquifer water. Ms. Barlow did not know the answer, however she stated that at the time of development, the plans will be routed to the appropriate agencies with jurisdiction, including the Aquifer Board, and staff would take the necessary steps at that time. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Johnson moved the Planning Commission approve the recommendation for STV-2019-0005 as presented by staff, eliminating 12th Avenue from the request. Commissioner Kelley said he felt that 12th Avenue should be vacated along with the rest of the request, stating there could be a better place for access to the development and that would not be known until the development plans have been submitted. He said he would not be in favor of the motion as currently stated. Commission Johnson said he felt staff had evaluated the request extensively, and that the applicants could work around 12th Avenue being left in place. He commented that previous vacations have raised the question of what happens in the future when a vacation has been allowed and the City has needed the ROW after it is gone. He felt staff had reviewed the possibility and he wanted to support the decision. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she felt staff had reviewed the proposal and she supported leaving 12th Avenue out of the request. Commissioner McKinley stated he supported the removal of 12th from the request because of the landlocked parcels in the development. The vote on the motion was three in favor, one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, the motion passed. O1-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 iv. Study Session: Updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Building Official Jenny Nickerson presented the latest version of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure with all the changes in strike-out format. This reflects all of the changes the Planning Commission has discussed through the last few months regarding the update to the Rules of Procedure and if there are no more changes,they would be moved forward to the City Council for approval by resolution. Commissioners thanked staff for the work done to assist them in updating these Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Johnson suggested holding the approval of the Rules of Procedure for a fully appointed Commission, as was done for the election of officers. He felt covering the updated Rules of Procedure this would be a good for new commissioners. Commissioner McKinley stated he was opposed,sharing he felt as many times as they have been reviewed there was little modification which would occur and adding more voices could just postpone the approval process. Commissioners Kaschmitter and Kelley concurred with thought. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve and forward to City Council, the Planning Commission updated Rules of Procedure. The vote on the motion was three in favor, one against with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley suggested everyone be careful in the snow, Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked staff again for the work on the Rules of Procedure. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed I t 1 r abi, � '- O 1 Deanna Horton, Secretary