Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 12-14-17 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Connell Chambers—City Hall December 14,2017 I. Chair {Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m, Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance, Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: leather Graham Cary Driskell,City Attorney James Johnson Bill I lelbig, City Engineer Tim Kelley Marty Palaniuk, Planner Mike Phil lips I lenry Allen,Engineer Michelle Rasmussen Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer Suzanne Stathos Gloria Mantz, Senior Engineering Manager Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the December 14,2017 agenda as.presented, The vote on the motion was seven favor, zero against and the motion passed, III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the November 9, 201 7 minutes as presented. The vole on the motion to approve the minutes was seven in favor,zero against, and the motion passed 1V. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report_ VI. PUDI,IC COMMENT: "There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Public Hearing: CTA.-2017-0003, A proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regarding subdivision general provisions. Chair Graham read the rules for a public hearing and opened the public hearing at 6:05 p,m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) chapter 20.20, He explained when the development regulations were updated in 2016 it created some inconsistencies in SVMC chapter 20.20 which need to be corrected. The amendment will clarify how a legal lot is created, eliminate the requirement that a corner lot needs to be 15 percent larger than other lots in a subdivision, remove the lot depth and width requirement,and redefines a Ilag lot. The proposed amendment also removes the requirement for El subdivision to conform with future planning documents and provide for possible future streets. The update includes a clean-up of grammar and changes in wording for consistency. In 1969 Washington state developed the subdivision process to divide property and create lots. Prior to that a lot could be created by a boundary line adjustment or by a deed. Spokane County adopted subdivision regulations in 1978. Mr. Palaniuk explained that the City has decided to use the date of March 13, 1978 as a benchmark to determine a legal lot, Spokane County uses the same date in their regulations. Any lot created prior to this date by a deed, is considered legally created. After this date,the lot must have gone through a proper subdivision process to be considered a legal lot. An applicant will need to provide a legal document showing how the lot was created. The Commissioners discussed the provisions for SVMC 20.20,30 (1 ) regarding an innocent purchaser. This section provides protection for someone who unknowingly purchases a lot which was not created legally. This allows the innocent purchaser to put a building on that property. Commissioner Phillips was concerned someone would try to use this process to commit.fraud. Mr. Driskell stated this would not apply to any lot created after 1978, however staff will research this to make sure this could not occur, It was pointed out this would only apply to lots created prior to 2016. Commissioner Johnson had a question regarding SVMC 20.20.30 (F)(2), whether the use is consistent with the use of at least one adjoining properly. II is concern, in the case of an innocent 2017-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 purchaser, was someone could come in and request to place a use on their property, because it is allowed on an adjoining property which was not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Palaniuk replied the use would have to be consistent with the underlying zoning. This could not be used change the zoning. Commissioners Johnson and Walton felt the wording did not meet the intent. The flag lot definition relics on the front lot dimension. The proposed definition does not rely on any width requirements,and removes any lot dimensions for a flag lot. Rather than allowing a flag lot for access, the City will require an easement across property. Mr. Palaniuk said a developer will cut corners developing a flag lot. The amendment removes the requirement for land to be set aside for the development of future streets the City might not build. This set aside is based on the arterial street plan. It also removes the future acquisition area requirements from the municipal code. A change to the amount of easement for a corner lot where two arterial streets meet is proposed to allow staff to determine the appropriate amount, which is often less than the current requirement. The rest of the changes update references and consistency in language. Commissioner Graham, seeing no one who wished to testify,closed the public hearing at 6:32 p,m- Commissioner Johnson asked to discuss 20.20.020(E)and(t{)( )regarding the innocent purchaser and extending a land use into incompatible zones. He said he fell that the language will allow a use from adjoining properly on the property. He requested language be added that the use must be allowed within the underlying zone. Commissioner Walton stated it would resolve his issue with those items as well. Mr. Palaniuk stated development, as it is referred to in this case, meant a building, If someone wanted to subdivide it, they would have to comply with the subdivision requirements. Staff would check the zoning, and enforce those zoning requirements. The Commission felt the current language was not specific enough for the public to understand, Mr. Driskell suggested the following language to add to (F)(2) -whether the proporedarse is consistent with the uce of an adjoining property, and also consistent with the underlying zoning, The Commission felt this satisfied their issue with this piece of the amendment, Commissioner Stathos asked about the removal of the future acquisition areas. Mr. Driskell stated it is not fair to require land to be set aside, without any possibility' of development, for the development of future roads which the City did not have the funds to build now or in the near future, Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed change to SMC 20.20.090 General Design. These are proposed changes being suggested by the Engineering Division. Commissioner Walton asked why the language regarding the easement for a corner lot at two arterials was changing from shall to may be required, Gloria Manu, Engineering Manager, stated it currently states there will be a 15-foot easement for traffic equipment. She said there are times when they don't need 15 feet, sometimes they only need five feet, sometimes none at all. This allows engineering the flexibility to look at each situation and make a determination at that time, The Commission agreed they liked the proposed change, as Well cis changing ihe matching figure, Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission agreed to the proposed change to 20.20.090(B)(4) language from ",shall"to"permitted only". The Commission discussed double frontage lots, and agreed to "permitted only" language. Commissioner Graham moved to forward to the City Council CTA-2017-0003, with the following changes adding to SVMC 20.20.030 (F)(2)"whether the proposed uce is consistent with the use of CHI adjoining pr'oper'ty.. and also consistent with the underlying zoning:and all others as presented. The vote on the tiaolicrrm was six in favor, one against, with Commissioner Walton dissenting. b) Study Session: CTA-2017-000=1, A proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Street. Standards, Engineer Henry Allen explained to the Commission the Street Standards need to be changed regarding some time sensitive changes which need to be made because of some federal projects. 2.017-12.14 limning Commission Minutes Page 3 cif 3 The Street Standards, which define how public and private infrastructure is built, was adopted in 2009 and has only had minor changes to it since that time. Some of the changes are for consistency, and language. Mr. Allen also explained staff is reviewing the Street Standards and would he returning at a future date with a comprehensive update.. The primary reason for the update was comments received from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) concerning the ability of the City to maintain sidewalks. The Fl 1 , wanted the City to make sure when a property owner does not maintain their sidewalk the City has the proper authority to go in and fix it. This change is necessary in order for the City to continue to receive grants for road projects_ Generally, the update will make the language in the standards consistent with changes to staff positions that occurred with the reorganization and implementation of the standards. Other substantive changes proposed include removing references to variances and future acquisition areas. Many staff positions were changed in the reorganization, but specific references still remain in the municipal code. These references have been changed to the city manager. Mr, Driskell commented the reason for this is the city manager has the ultimate authority, but delegates it to other employees to perform the work. There will be a public hearing on the proposed changes January 25. 2018. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: This was Commissioner Graham's last meeting. Staff and the Commissioners thanked Commissioner Graham for her time serving the City as a Commissioner. Commissioner Walton stated he agreed to all of the proposed changes for CTA-2017-0003, however he wanted to be a dissenting voice should there be a neat for a reconsideration. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. The vote on the motion was aarnaniarmous /rtAvw, and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed - ` /& Deanna 1 Iorton, Secretary