Loading...
Minutes - 12/09/2004 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers -City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 9, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Gothmann called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Fred Beaulac - Present Bill Gothmann - Present Bob Blum - Present Ian Robertson - Present David Crosby - Present John G. Carroll - Excused Absence Gail Kogle - Present IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Robertson moved that the December 9, 2004 agenda be approved as presented. Commissioner Kogle seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Gothmann and seconded by Commissioner Blum that the minutes of the November 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting be approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Kogle announced that the Light Rail Citizens' Advisory Committee will reconvene in February 2005. Commissioner Gothmann attended two City Council meetings since mid- November. At the last Council meeting, Ms. Sukup presented a framework plan for development of the Unified Development Code. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Ms. Sukup called the Planning Commissioners' attention to the Advanced Agenda which was handed out earlier this evening. As the Comprehensive Plan works its way through the Planning Commission and City Council, careful tracking of each element will be necessary. During the break between early-December and mid-January, s, ukup requested that the Planning Commissioners study the "Schedule of Permitted Uses" which was enclosed in their meeting packets. She would like the Commissioners to study the charts and help fill in blanks. I. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. B. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing. Stormwater Ordinance Chairman othrnann opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. He explained proper procedures for a formal hearing to those assembled, and then turned the hearing over to staff for an overview of the Stormwater Ordinance. Mr. John Mohrnan, Senior Engineer. introduced himself to the Commission and presented a PoerPoint slide show regarding the background of tormwater Management in the Spokane Valley. He showed the Commission photos of flooded streets and parking lots due to insufficient storm drainage systems, and addressed concerns about contamination of the aquifer. The City of Spokane - Valley does not have a comprehensive storm drain system, and has adopted the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management, The City has no underground piping system, depending upon swales for storm Ater filtration and drainage. There is an immediate need to amend the current standards, and the City wants to put its own Stormater Utility together. The intent of the draft Ordinance is to minimize the degradation of water quality in surface and groundwater; reduce the impact caused by development, promote site planning and development practices consistent with topographical and hydrological condition; and protect public and private property used and dedicated for storm water management- Thresholds for regulated activities, which are missing from the Spokane County Guidelines, would be implemented. The City's authority for developing standards; reviewing developments, and preparing conditions of approval are clarified in the draft Ordinance, The Planning Commission asked for clarification of the following issues in the draft ordinance: 2 IF . Section 2.F (page 2): Mr. Hohman was asked to provide a more detailed definition of "indoor pollutants". In addition, clarification of the role of roofs as a PGIS was suggested. Section 5 (page 4): After a discussion regarding the method in which property owners are notified of their responsibility for the maintenance of a Swale, it was suggested that swales be tied to easements so that the information will show up on a title report and realtors and citizens will be aware of swale maintenance responsibilities early in transfer of property. Section 6 (page 5): Mr. Hohman was asked to clarify the language in the first paragraph regarding design elements. It was not clear to several Commissioners. Section 11 {page 8)~ It was suggested that the language in Part A be rewritten so that it is clear the property owner is only responsible for the maintenance of vegetation surrounding a swale on their property. Mr. Hohman suggested inserting the provisions that go on the face of a plat in this section. Other issues of concern discussed: use of emerging technologies, in addition to swales, for stormwater maintenance; City responsibility for swale installation and maintenance in the case of street widening projects; and the approval of stormwater design and maintenance at a business construction before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued compared to that of the final inspection at a residence. The hearing was open to public testimony at 7:30 p.m. There being no one present to testify, the hearing was closed to public testimony at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners requested that they be given an opportunity to see their suggested revisions in writing before forwarding a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Gothmann moved that the Planning Commission table further discussion of the Stormwater Ordinance and continue the Public Hearing on Thursday, January 93, 2005. Commissioner Crosby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing on the Stormwater Ordinance was tabled at 7:40 p.m., to be continued on Thursday, January 13, 2005. 4. The Commission took a ten-minute break in preparation for the Sign Code Study Session. Study Session: Revised Sign Code Ordinance. Commissioner Crosby served as Chair of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee. Other members present were: Eldonna Gossett, Duane Halliday, John Johnston, Ray Perry, David Quinn and Denny York. A Power Point presentation was shown to give the Planning Commission background on the work of the Sign Committee. Mr. Johnston pointed out that Evergreen had been omitted from the aesthetic corridor list on the slide. Ms. Sukup agreed to correct that omission. Questions and comments from the Planning Commission included: How does a billboard cap and replace policy work for other cities? Mr. Halliday brought the idea from Boise, Idaho, and is not aware of how it works in any other city. 2. Is a mural considered part of the sign area? Sign area is defined as "copy area", so the mural is not a part of the total space allowed for written advertising. 3. Does this policy cover addresses on the sides of buildings? No. The Fire Department requires outside addresses, so they have no place in the City sign regulations. 4. Does this policy address signs that are not meant to be readable from the street? No, but the Committee did discuss this issue at length. 5. Are seasonal decorations addressed in this policy? Are they considered signs? They are not addressed in this policy, but perhaps ought to be contained in the "Temporary Sign" section. 6. What about temporary real estate signs and non-profit signs. Temporary real estate Signs are included as Temporary Signs. 7. Table 7.01, page 5: The chart does not really clarify the total number of signs a business can have on its premises. Can they have one of each: wall sign, pole sign and monument sign? This section needs to be clarified. 4 There was a lengthy conversation regarding aesthetic corridors and the billboard cap and replace policy, Ms. Bukup reminded Planning Commissioners that these two sections of the Code are contingent upon adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments- In the meantime, the sections of the Revised Sign Code which address billboards and aesthetic corridors will be removed and a statement that the sections are "Reserved" will replace therm. Commissioner othmann stated that he was impressed with how much clearer this proposed ordinance is compared to the several sign codes he downloaded and studied in preparation for this session. He is, however, passionately concerned that we are not looking far enough down the road at how we want our City to look as it grows (10-0 years from now) and that we are proposing a sign code which would merely maintain the status quo. He doesn't think that is what Valley citizens want. Commissioner Blum would like to see the City head toward creation of a more aesthetically pleasing community, instead of simply creating a revised sign code that makes it easier for the business community to advertise. The Revised Sign Code will be moved to Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on January 1, 2005. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Robertson thanked Eldonria Gossett, Director of the Valley Chamber of Commerce, for being present. Ms. Gossett stated that she has been impressed with the clarity that is corning out of City meetings- Commissioner Crosby will be a guest on her K Pf radio talk show tomorrow on a segment called "Signs in the City". Commissioner Robertson will speak at the December 17t Chamber meeting on the topic "Season of Sharing"- XL ADJOURNMENT There tieing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. APPROVED: Debi Alley, Administrative i yam - othmann, hAirman } 5 SUBMITTED-