Minutes - 01/08/2004Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers - City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 8, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Ian Robertson, Planning Commission Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m.
TI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ill. ROLL CALL
Fred Beaulac - Present
Bob Blum - Present
David Crosby - Present
Gail Koele - Present
Bill Gothmann - Excused Absence
Ian Robertson - Present
John G. Carroll - Present
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Robertson moved that the agenda be approved as presented
Commissioner Crosby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Blum requested that his name be stricken from the December 18,
2003 meeting record as having made the motion to approve the minutes of the
December 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, since he was absent.
Commissioner Crosby stated that he made that motion.
It was moved by Commissioner Kogle and seconded by Commissioner Beaulac
that the minutes of the December 18, 2003 Planning Commission meeting be
approved as amended Motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Kogle attended a Citizen's Advisory Committee for Transportation
recently. The Light Rail was discussed, and Option #4 was deemed the most
favorable option. She will bring a copy of Option #4 to the Commission when
one becomes available.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Tonight will be a continuation of the Public Wearing on the Floodplain Ordinance.
The Commission will also hold the first discussion on a proposal to adopt the
International Building Code. This will be the beginning of a new two-phase
approach. The first phase will be to "clean up" the code, the second phase will be
to propose substantive changes down the road as amendments.
There will be a Joint Planning Session with the City Council and Planning
Commission next Thursday, January 150, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. Commissioners present confirmed they would be in attendance at the
planning session.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. OLD BUSINESS:
Continuation of Floodplain Ordinance Public Hearing
Commissioner Robertson declared the Public Hearing open at 6:38 p.m.
Director Sukup gave a brief overview of the Spokane Valley's Floodplain
and the need for the proposed ordinance. She pointed out that there are
only two provisions in the proposed Spokane Valley Ordinance which
differ from those of Spokane County: the requirement for a crawl space
with a footprint one-foot higher than base flood elevation for
manufactured housing; and the prohibition of impervious cover without
completion of an engineering study. The City of Spokane Valley can't
begin the one-year waiting period to obtain acceptance of its own National
Flood Insurance Program until the City Council adopts this Floodplain
Ordinance. Existing flood insurance policies will be continued under the
umbrella of Spokane County NFIP participation during this one-year
waiting period.
Since the first Public Hearing on the Floodplain Ordinance at the
December 11, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, staff has researched
the Commission's question regarding the proposed requirement for a
performance bond. Staff determined that enforcement of the provision is
better effected through changing procedural requirements to secure
elevation certificates as part of the building permitting process, so the
provision was deleted.
Commissioner Carroll asked for clarification of the defmition for Critical
Facility. Ms. Sukup explained to him that the definitions used in the
Spokane Valley ordinance are FEMA definitions.
Commissioner Robertson opened the Hearing to public comment at 6:48
p.m.
Wayne Frost, 3320 N. Argonne .Road, Spokane Valley, WA
Mr. Frost works for Inland Empire Paper Company, which owns a great
deal of land within the city limits. Before his present work, he was a
trained Civil Engineer.
2
He stated that he is in favor of a Floodplain Ordinance for the City of
Spokane Valley, but had the following; observations:
1. Page 7. Section 5.04.04.5: Interpretation of Firm Boundaries -
Section 5.04 generally establishes the responsibilities of the Floodplain
Administrator, including the responsibility for interpreting boundaries. He
stated that FEMA maps contain errors, and would like a provision in the
ordinance that would allow citizens to go to planning staff to handle
FEMA map errors instead of requiring them to go to the Hearing;
Examiner for resolution.
2. Page 13, Section 5.06.11, Items 2 & 3: Relating to construction
of "water dependent works". Mr. Frost objected to language that
requires "a professional civil engineer registered as such by the State of
Washington "to certify" (emphavis added) work that will withstand 100-
year flood flows and velocities or cause no increase in the 100-year flood
elevation".
3. Page 7, Section 5.05.01, Item l.vi. Relating to procedures for
variances. Mr. Frost does not believe that the Hearing Examiner should
be allowed to consider alternative locations in considering approval of a
variance to specified construction. He thinks that there will always be an
alternative location, and thinks that this provision will be used to delay
construction at the desired site(s).
4. Page 10, Section 5.06.07. Relating to the issuance of building
permits in areas where elevation data is not available. Mr. Frost
objected to the discretion allowed the Floodplain Administrator to require
a minimum floor elevation two feet above adjacent natural ground surface.
He also questioned the wisdom of noting that insurance rates would be
adversely affected by a lower elevation.
5. Page 12, Section 5.06.09(5). Relating to requiring; the consent
of adjacent property owners impacted by a rise in base flood elevation
resulting from a project. Mr. Frost felt that this item is open to
interpretation. It would require adjacent impacted property owners to
provide written, notarized approval for increased base flood elevations
upon their property as a condition of approval.
6. Page 14, Section 5.06.13. Relating; to local amendments
requiring; a study by a registered engineer verifying that a proposed
development located within specific areas would have no impact.
7. Page 14, Section 5.06.14. Relating to requirements for
construction of "Critical Facilities" in the floodplain. He noted that
provision requires floor elevation of three feet "above BFE" or to the
height of the 500 year flood, whichever is higher. .
The Public Hearing was closed to further public comment at 7:20 p.m.
The Commission asked Director Sukup if one, two or three feet made a
big difference in Floodplain insurance rates. Ms. Sukup explained that
any construction that goes beyond the minimum FEMA standards to
insure safety and stability makes a very big difference in rates. Flood
Insurance is the only insurance that is provided by the federal government.
The proposed Floodplain Ordinance is to assure safe construction, it is not
driven by insurance rates. She noted that the Floodplain Administrator is
required to maintain records of floor elevation for structures located in the
100-year floodplain. This information drives the rate of insurance.
B. NEW BUSINESS:
Study Session - Sign Code Revision
Mr. Kuhta briefed the Commission on a Sign Code Text Amendment for
hospitals within the UR-22 Zone. The applicant requested the code text
amendment to allow greater flexibility in size and location of signage for
hospitals. Code changes would be made on page 804-4, section
14.804.070, item 3.a.ii with the deletion of the word "hospital"; and in the
two tables on page 804-5, item 3.b.i and 3.c.i. to include new language
specifically for hospitals in UR-22 zones.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if this code would have to be changed if the
zoning around the hospital changes. Mr. Kuhta responded that if the zone
around the hospital changes, staff would assure that hospital needs would
be addressed. Commissioner Carroll asked why the applicant didn't
request a variance instead of a code text amendment. Mr. Snyder
explained that the variance was offered as an option to the applicant, but
the applicant chose to pursue a code text amendment. Commissioner
asked staff if it would still be more reasonable to give the applicant a
variance until we could create a suitable zone for hospital facilities. Mr.
Kuhta reminded the Commissioners that they will have an opportunity to
discuss this issue with the applicant at the January 22"d Public Hearing. A
Staff Report will be forwarded to the Commission on this subject as well.
Study Session - International Building Codes
Mr. Tom Scholtens, City of Spokane Valley Building Official, was
introduced to the Planning Commission. He explained that the
Washington Association of Building Officials passed resolution 2003-02
that, in part, promotes the local adoption of the International Building
Codes and Uniform Plumbing Code with as few local amendments as
possible. The City of Spokane Valley Building Division has followed that
direction and is offering a very simple adoption ordinance for approval.
4
He welcomed Planning Commission discussion today, in preparation for a
Public I-fearing on January 22"x. Mr. Scholtens' goal is for the City
Council to adopt this Ordinance within the next several months so that the
new code can take effect by July 1, 2004.
Commissioner Kogle asked if Code updates will be automatic since ours
will be the same as all those in the state. Mr. Scholtens explained that
Washington State statute requires us to adopt a new code each time it is
amended.
Commissioner Carroll recommended that the reference to the "sheriff s
office" on page 5, item 19.4, be changed to read "Spokane Valley Chief of
Police". Mr. Scholtens mentioned that &ction 3.02 - Professional Review
of Plans will also be revised.
The Commission praised Mr. Scholtens for a job well done.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Crosby requested a complete packet of meeting backup at
his place at the dais before each meeting. Ms. Alley agreed to provide this
for the Commissioners.
Mr. Snyder announced that the Commission will be receiving information
on a Street Vacation Ordinance, scheduled for briefing on January 22,
2004.
Xf. ADJOURNM_ENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
SUBMIT TED: APPROVED:
r
Debi A ley, Administrative Assist Bill Go hmann, Chairman
5