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-