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