2020-10-22 PC APPROVED SIGNED MinutesRegular Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
October 22, 2020
I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via
ZOOM meeting.
H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
James Johnson
Danielle Kaschmitter
Bob McKinley
Sherri Robinson
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Bill Helbig, City Engineer
Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer
Connor Lange, Planner
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 22, 2020 agenda as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 8, 2020 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, one
abstention, zero against and the motion passed.
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Haneke apologized for missing the last
meeting. Commissioner Granrath stated that he is excited to be on the Planning Commission.
Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force
meetings.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson welcomed
Commissioner Granrath to the Planning Commission. She also reminded the Commission
that all meeting videos are on the Spokane Valley website for review.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 8
a. Public Hearing: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion
of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road
The public hearing was opened at 6:06 p.m.
Planner Connor Lange gave a presentation regarding an application received by the City
on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLC/TCF Properties requesting a
street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The
area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north
of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue are owned by the
Montgomery Apartments, LLC, the two properties along Bessie Road are owned by
Diamond Rock and Kenneth Ward and the adjacent property on East Montgomery
Avenue is owned by Argonne/Montgomery Storage, LLC. All four of these property
owners signed the submitted application in support of the street vacation. Mr. Lang stated
that he reached out to the Burlington Northern Railroad and they expressed that they do
not have any issues with the vacation.
Mr. Lange said that the applicant's reason for this request is as follows:
1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides
no public access at this time.
2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Avenue are not full right-of-way
widths and therefore would be substandard for today's use. Bessie Road is 25
feet of right-of-way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet
in the largest section of right-of-way.
3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill
development.
Mr. Lange stated that the public hearing notice was posted as required, was published in
the Valley Herald twice, written notice was sent to the property owners adjacent to the
properties along Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue and signs were posted at each
end of the proposed vacation area.
Mr. Lange explained that the right-of-way to be vacated is unimproved, is not currently
being utilized for public access, and is overgrown with weeds. Infill development on
these adjacent parcels will enhance the City's tax base and remove undeveloped right-of-
way from the City's maintenance division. Also, there are no means of future connection
that would enhance public access because much of the right-of-way is substandard to the
current City street standards and the existing street network provides a sufficient level of
service for the adjacent properties.
Mr. Lange stated that staff condition number eight (submitted in the packet) states: The
zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be
automatically extended to the center of such vacation and all area included in the
vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the district. However,
staff is recommending a change to that condition that would dedicate all of the vacated
street along Bessie Road to Diamond Road Financial, LLC because the entire right-of-
way was dedicated during the creation of the Vista Gardens subdivision. The proposed
staff condition reads as follows: The zoning district designation of the properties
adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such
vacation except in the case of Bessie Road in which the entire 25 feet shall be included
with parcel 45074.0223 (owned by Diamond Rock Financial, LLC) from which it was
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 8
originally platted as part of the Vista Gardens Number 4 Plat. All area included in the
vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the district.
Commissioner Haneke asked why this same logic would not apply to the right-of-way
along. Montgomery Avenue that is being given to the railroad. Mr. Lange answered that
the right-of-way in that area was not dedicated at the same as Vista Gardens. Only fifteen
feet of Montgomery Avenue was dedicated during the subdivision plat.
Chairman Johnson asked if the property owner Kenneth Ward was notified that the street
vacation is being given solely to the other piece of property. Mr. Lang answered that he
had not been notified. Chair Johnson asked if Kenneth Ward was specifically told that he
would be getting any of the property. Mr. Lang answered that he was not because the
allocation is based on how the original plat map was dedicated and based on the plat map
the property would not be entitled to any additional area. However, Kenneth Ward did
sign the original application in support of the request.
Chair Johnson opened the public testimony.
Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton read 27 written comments that were received on
October 21, 2020 into the record. The comments were all in opposition to the street
vacation request.
1) Alice Marie Bristow, 8720 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to increased traffic,
decrease in property value, increase in taxes, less safety for older people, wear and
tear on streets and utilities, more noise in the neighborhood, possible increased crime,
and poorer air quality.
2) Matthew Keller, 8603 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because Diamond Rock
Financial, LLC will build a three-story apartment complex which is in conflict with
the Cities housing policy #6, it will strip him of his privacy in his backyard where he
installed a $10,000 vinyl fence, the property would be a better site for storage units,
the proposed development will attract a cluster of crime and drugs, and the proposed
street vacation is needed to meet fire code.
3) Tracy McCulloch, 8521 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the future
development of the properties owned by Diamond Rock Financial, LLC and
Montgomery Apartments will violate the housing policy #6 of the Cities
Comprehensive Plan and will cause impact to the neighborhood including increased
traffic, increased noise and loss of privacy to the adjacent properties.
4) Sara and Christopher Wilson, 8720 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased
traffic, making Sargent and Mansfield a more dangerous intersection due to the
increased traffic, more people will affect the nice quiet neighborhood, possible
increase in crime, and decreased property value.
5) Johnathan E Hannel, 8721 E Mansfield Avenue, objected to an addition of apartment
complexes due to increased traffic, children being unable to play outside because of
traffic threat, increase in crime, and decrease in property value. He requested that the
City not sell or allow the use of Montgomery Avenue by Diamond Rock Financial,
LLC.
6) Sarah and Tom McKeever, 8820 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to additional
traffic on an unmarked road, increased crime rate and decreased property value.
7) Izeah and Jessica Mattingly, 8504 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because it will
negatively affect their way of life in the neighborhood and it will increase traffic
which is already a problem in the neighborhood. She stated bringing section eight
3
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 8
housing to the neighborhood is not a good idea and she is worried about an increase
to the crime and drug rate and a decrease in property values.
8) Austin and Kaytlyn Auckerman, 8602 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to
decreased property values and an increase in traffic. They also expressed concern
about a "problem house" (owned by one of the applicants) where a resident visited
their home demanding drugs and threatening to kill them. When this incident was
investigated by the police, they found drugs being sold out of the home. He stated
that allowing this build to pass would promote and increase this type of behavior,
especially if it is low income housing.
9) Donna (Thompson) Messinger, 8520 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to a decrease
in property value, traffic congestion will increase, dangerous for children to go to the
2 bus stops in the neighborhood, the roads in the neighborhood cannot handle the
traffic for a 3-story apartment complex, and the trains going past Mansfield causes
traffic delays at Vista and Trent and the complex will make these delays worse.
10) Ross Sells and Sarah Spencer, 8621 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increase in
vehicle traffic, increase in crime and decrease in property values.
11) Dale A McCallum II, 8607 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased traffic
flow and crime, decreased property values, proximity to railroad, petroleum line, loss
of privacy, and risk to children's bus stops.
12) Elizabeth Vazquez, 8621 E Knox Avenue, objected due to increased traffic flow,
increased crime rates, increased noise and decrease of privacy for neighborhood.
13) Emogene Sweigle, 2214 N Sargent Road, objected due to increased traffic flows on
already overloaded streets and decreased property values.
14) Hector Andrade, 8709 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to the decrease in safety for
neighborhood children, potential for more/bigger accidents, increased crime,
vandalism, and homelessness in the neighborhood.
15) Mark Krum, 8702 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to property value, taxes, traffic
congestion, crime/undesirables, environmental impacts, railroad/property conflict,
fire/emergency service, neighborhood unity, and noise pollution.
16) Patrick Ohmann, 8716 E Mansfield, objected due to increase in traffic and that the
neighborhood will no longer be quiet.
17) Kimberly McKinley, 8715 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the proposal is an
infringement on single home dwellers and owners of property in the neighborhood.
She stated that they do not need any additional traffic because people already speed
on Montgomery and kids and pets are being put in danger. She also expressed
concern about Diamond Rock creating a neighborhood problem around Pasadena
Elementary.
18) Brian P McCabe, 8708 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because property values will
drop after being as high as they have ever been, drug use/traffic are usually close
behind an influx of low-income habitation, fear of crime rates increasing in a safe and
close-knit community.
19) Danny Tryon, 2310 N Margeurite, objected because the traffic on the streets has
increased multiple times since 1972. The neighborhood is family friendly with lots of
kids and pets, but the construction of the Maverik gas station and convenience store
has tripled the traffic and people do not adhere to the speed limit. He stated the
neighborhood does not need the impact of opening up more streets and more building
because it is already congested enough.
20) Paul Cockburn and Alexandra Hill, 2302 N Marguerite Road, objected because they
just bought their home to get away from apartments. They stated that apartments will
4
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5 of 8
cause crime, drugs, high traffic, and theft. He stated that apartments need to be built
elsewhere and not in their neighborhood.
21) Bill and Kathy Bartlett, 2218 N Marguerite Road, objected because they are
concerned about children and elderly safety, heavy traffic associated with a large
number of occupants in a small area, children walking to bus stops, danger to
pedestrians, more theft/break-ins, property taxes will increase to support additional
utilities and infrastructure repairs, and decrease in property values.
22) Danny A and Susan Packard, 8815 E Knox Avenue, objected due to an increase in
traffic and speeding on Knox Avenue.
23) Yamada, 8510 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because of continuing crime, concern
over major gas line by the railroad track, decrease in property values, increase in
traffic, and apartment complexes attract drug and foot traffic.
24) Lonnie Scott, 8704 E Montgomery Avenue, objected because the area is not able to
handle the current traffic, additional traffic will put children at risk, development so
close to the train tracks will only draw those who cannot afford a better location
which will increase crime and drugs, and lower property values.
25) Mike and Lorraine Schweda, 8608 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because there will
be increased occupants, foot and car traffic, and the safety of railroad access. They
also stated there are no street lights on Mansfield Avenue which has caused an
increase in vandalism, car break-ins, gas robbing, and vehicle/car/yard thieves. They
stated that they are also concerned about fire and police protection access, decrease in
property values and more drug activity. They do not feel that this proposal will be an
asset or improvement to what already exists.
26) Kris and Jessica Taylor, 8805 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the vacation
would infringe on the surrounding homes by decreasing privacy, property values, and
safety, and increasing traffic volumes. The proposed development would violate
housing policy #6 and they stated frustration that Diamond Rock would propose a
plan for their gain and knowingly violate this policy.
27) Barbara Stum, 8415 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because low income housing
brings trouble and they just got rid of three drug houses, congested streets that are
already crowded and don't have stop signs, decrease in property values, and the
residents will lose their view of Mount Spokane. She asked if anything is sacred
anymore or if everything is about money.
Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant, stated that he
understood the comments from the residents regarding high density but the zoning for the
properties had already been approved and determined. Therefore, the developers could
move forward with the multifamily project regardless of the whether or not the street
vacation was approved. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Chairman Johnson asked if the transition requirements would apply between railroad and
multifamily. Building Official Nickerson responded that the railroad does not have a
zoning classification associated with it. Therefore, there are no requirements for
buffering or transition.
During this time, an attendee, Sheri Lang continued to interrupt the meeting by unmuting
and interjecting herself into the discussion. While trying to gain control over the
interruption, Commissioner McKinley asked Secretary Horton why she just did not allow
Ms. Lang to continue to speak. Ms. Horton explained that in order to speak, the public
needed to notify staff ahead of time so that staff would be able to maintain control over
the meeting. Commissioner McKinley stated that he felt that the Commission should
5
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6 of 8
allow the member of the public to speak on this matter even though she did not request to
speak through the proper channels. There was discussion between the Commissioners
regarding whether or not to allow the public to speak. They decided to allow Ms. Lang
only to speak.
Sheri Lang, Spokane Valley, stated that she lives on the corner of Sargent Road and
Montgomery Avenue and she felt that this request for street vacation would substantially
affect her. She stated that if a large apartment building is built, the only exit for those
residents would be past her home onto Sargent Road. She said there should be an
easement granted through the Diamond Rock property so that the apartment traffic could
funnel onto Bessie Road. She also expressed concern about Ken Ward not being notified
about him not maintaining his portion of Bessie Road.
Ms. Horton noted that through the chat function Mr. Whipple had requested to speak
again to rebut some of the testimony. There was consensus from the Commission to
move forward without allowing any additional public comment.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioner Haneke suggested that rather than vacating Bessie Street, changing it to a
one-way street. Ms. Nickerson responded that it would be very difficult to make that
designation without a specific proposal for development on the undeveloped properties.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that a determination on that sort of change would
have be made by traffic engineering during the proposal.
Commissioner Robinson commented that this request was for the street vacation only and
the decisions regarding zoning have already been determined. Development on these
properties is going to continue regardless of the street vacation determination.
Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of STV-2020-002, the proposed
street vacation for Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road to the City Council subject to
staff conditions.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if the traffic light at Montgomery Avenue and Argonne
Road could be adjusted for additional traffic if the apartments are built. Senior Traffic
Engineer Jerremy Clark answered that the corridor along Argonne Road has automated
traffic signal performance measures already set up and they could be reviewed in real
time so that adjustments could be made as volumes change.
Commissioner Haneke commented that he would like Kenneth Ward to be notified that
he will not be receiving any of the vacation right-of-way. Commissioner Beaulac stated
that his motion is recommending approval of the street vacation subject to the original
written staff conditions without any changes to the allocation of Bessie Road (the right-
of-way will be split between both property owners).
The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
A brief break was called at 7:42 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:53 p.m.
b. Study Session: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor
City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the agenda item. He explained that the City is
proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the
South Barker Road corridor. He explained that the City currently uses two process to
determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act
of
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7 of 8
(SEPA). Both processes are based on proportionate share of the proposed project and
they require each project to do a unique, project specific evaluation each time. These
evaluations are done by following the City's Street Standards. He stated that currently
mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on
the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the
last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to
mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on
that development's proportionate share.
Mr. Helbig stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is
limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place
through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multifamily dwellings up
to 60 units and commercial buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still
occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact.
Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have
development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be
limited to an identified geographical area. He stated that the City has conducted a
substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven
recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately
$18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of
the improvement amount.
Chairman Johnson asked if the City had looked into interlocal agreements with other
jurisdictions. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that the City has not engaged in
any formalized discussions yet. However, there has been ongoing discussions with
Liberty Lake and Spokane County regarding the need for cooperation addressing traffic
impact. The City is aware that these agreements will be needed in the future but feels
that the impact fee adoption is the first step.
Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made
to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to
Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some
additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding
fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane
Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these
changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements
that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees
are only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He explained the
highlights regarding the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure,
the deferral process, exemptions, credits, appeals and refunds.
Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272
per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Area is
$2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted
fees. He also showed a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted
fees.
7
10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8 of 8
Mr. Lamb stated that there will be a public hearing on this agenda item at a special
meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings of Fact will
presented at November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City
Council on November 24, 2020.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: None was offered.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
James Johnson, Chair
Deanna Horton, Secretary
Date signed
8