PC APPROVED Minutes 02-08-18 APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
February 8,2018
I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood
for the pledge of allegiance, Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and s[aff
were present:
James Johnson Caiy Driskell, City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Phillips Karen Kendall, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen,absent—excused Micki Harnois, Planner
Suzanne Stathos Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Matt Walton
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
Commissioner Walton moved to excuse Commissioner Rasmussen from 1he meeting. The vote on
this motion was six in favor, zero against am!the motion passed.
ii. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the February 08, 2018 agenda as presented. The
vote on the motion was.six M favor, zero against and the 'motion passed.
III. MINUTES:Commissioner Walton moved to approve the January 11,2018 minutes as presented. The
vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Commission Walton moved
to approve the January 25, 201g minutes as presented. The vote on this miction was six in favor, zero
against and this motion passed
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS; The Commissioners had no reports_
V, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT; 'There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Continued Public Hearing, CTA-2017-2005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60,050, SVMC 17.80,039 and Appendix A to
update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the
public rights-of-way.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission continued the hearing from January 25,2018.
Mr.Lamb answered some of the questions raised at that meeting:
• Can the City require a specific distance between new poles? Mr. Lamb said this was
feasible.The industry suggested this could prove problematic the more people who entered
the market. The industry said the distance requirement could make it difficult to find a
location which worked with the technology.
✓ Can the City require the providers to co-locate? Mr, lamb said legally the City could
require co-location however some of the utility companies do not allow it He noted sonic
of the technology doesn't work if there is more than one provider on the same pole
▪ Can the City require a minimum height for equipment location? Mr, Lamb said to the
extent that it doesn't interfere with the technology.A minimum height of 20 feet would not
pose a problem, but a higher level, above 60-80 feet, may cause issues from a technology
standpoint,
• Can the City require the ground base facilities to be buried? Mr. Lamb stated legally the
City could require it, although there a practical considerations. The industry provided a
significant number of comments regarding how detrimental to the equipment ungrounding
can be.
21k]5-012-OX Planning C:41rninission Minutes Pap 2 of5
• Can the City require providers to transmit from the small cell to the macro cell via fiber?
Mr. Lamb said the City cannot regulate the technology. By requiring the method of
transmission,WO would he regulating their technology.
• There were questions regarding radiation levels, type of bandwidth, possible impacts on
people, Mr.Lamb saidunder federal law we cannot regulate based on type of signal, which
would be regulating the technology. 1-le said these items are regulated by the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC.) and as long as the equipment meets FCC. criteria the
City cannot regulate them.
• 'l'he Commission requested crime statistics on ground based facilities. Mr_ Lamb said
according to the industry comments these structures do not have an impact on crime.
• Could the City tax wireless facilities? Mr, Lamb said the City already has a tax on
telephone/wireless. I le said cities can do this under federal law, however we cannot tax
the data.
• Could the City require the provider to submit an engineering certification of the pole.
structures? Mr_ Lamb said the City could require this. Ile said this relates to the public
safety of facilities placed in the right-of-way. While the City, does not have, any pole
standards, the utility companies do. The providers would already be supplying this
information to the utility providers so it would not hurt to ask for a copy of it with the
application.
• Who is responsible for the cost of relocation of boles with small cell facilities on them?
Mr.Lamb slated the cost of relocation is the responsibility of the party making the request.
Relocation costs are the responsibility of the utility company if it a capital project.
Relocations cost are the responsibility of the developer when it is a private development,
• is line of site a problem? Mr. Lamb said according to testimony at the last meeting, line
of site was not an issue, Ile said in Spokane Valley the topography does not pose a problem
because of the nature of the valley. 'The City does not have issues similar to downtown
Seattlewith all the hillsides and buildings. Industry has representatives who can provide
more clarification_
Mr. Lamb said staff and the Commission received comments at the last meeting from the
industry providers. He has reviewed them and offered comments oii some of the topics which
were brought up.
• The industry requested to have the undergrounding facilities requirement removed. Mr.
Lamb said legally the City can require it. However,there are considerations due to the size
of the vaults, vault safety and location, as pictures supplied by the vendors showed.
• The industry requested removing the requirement for co-location or a minimum distance
between new poles. Mr. Lamb said staff does not see an issue with those requirements.
The industry commented it would hinder the last company into the market, The
Commissioners expressed concern someone's house may have 3, 4 or 5 poles placed in
front of it. Mr. Lamb offered that in front of city hall there is a pole on the edge of City
tall property and another existing, pole 2.0-30 feet away.
• The industry requested shortening the permitprocessing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr..
Lamb said 60 days is required under state and federal law. The City's permit processing
time is much shorter than that, however he recommends keeping 60 days.
• T-Mobile requested the City allow a unified camouflage design., Mr.Lamb said this would
be facility that houses both the antenna and control equipment in one enclosure. T-Mobile
has suggested a unit which would not be bigger than six cubic feet. This is smaller in size
[Flan the size of the antenna and control box together. Mr. Lamb said this was a reasonable
request and the Commission could consider this, however staff suggested a name change
to limit confusion.
• The industry requested allowing small cell facilities within city parks, Mr. Lamb said given
the size of our parks and their proximity the right-of-way there is no need for a facility in
the park. The City has been working to clean up the overhead in its parks. It would be
inappropriate to allow small cell facilities within the boundaries of the park.
2018-02-05 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
• The industry requested increasing the height of the electric transmissions structure from 50
to 60 feet, Mr. Lamb stated this related to the large macro-poles and he recommended not
making this change,
o The industry requested increasing the allowable deviation before an action is viewed as a
substantial change. Mr. Lamb said this is the amount of deviation allowed before a
Conditional Use Permit is required. He said the City regulations are relatively flexible and
open,he would not recommend this change.
Commissioner Johnson and Phillips expressed concerns regarding the requirement for private
developer paying to move of the utility pole when there is a private development. Commissioner
Johnson shared his fear that line of site could pose a problem when a new building is erected. Mr.
Lamb said it is the responsibility the carriers to determine if their equipment was able to
communicate.
Vice-chair Johnson asked for public comment
Joel Aro Links Consenting fur Verizon:. Mr. Aro said he was addressing a couple of questions
which arose_ l Ie stated there are naturally occurring gases in an underground vault_ 'The equipment
contained in the vault does not emit any_kind of gas. He commented how damaged the equipment
becomes if it is required to be buried. He requests the City eliminate this requirement.
Commissioner Walton asked for the.size ofthe ground cabinet Verizon uces. Mr_ Aro said he did
not have the specifications with him. Mr. Aro said it would be the responsibility of the carrier for
making sure that they have communication with their own facilities. Commissioner Johnson
confirmed Verizon prefers fiber and that extensive damage, as shown in Verizon's comment is
caused b; putting the equipment underrground
Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke said he felt the legal department had
done a good job with the regulations and he wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to
forward them to the City Council. He stated Mobilitie has a contained antenna and control
equipment in one unit. He said crime will be difficult stating that Avista and CcnturyL,ink require
equipment to be ten feet off the ground. Mr. Burke said with enough notice his company would
move their own equipment.
City Attorney Cary Driskell clarified how Washington state statutes regulates who pays to move a
utility pole located in the right-of-way. He said under the statute if the City is doing a capital
project and utility pole needs to be moved,the cost is on the utility company, It is being moved for
the public benefit The Utility Trade Commission (IJTC) has imposed tariff on utility rates which
pays for these moves. The UPC determined that the person making the request pays for the
movement, If it is a private development,then the developer pays,
Commissioner Walton asked how many sites each of the carriers present were looking to deploy,
Steven Burke for Mobilitie stated they had six, Mr. Aro stated Verizon was looking at three at this
time.
Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment would be labeled for safety as required
Dennis Crapo, Spokane Valley: Mr. Crapo stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of the
unintended consequences of allowing more poles in the right-of-way. Ho said it would set a
precedence, and could keep someone from being able to develop a property.
Seeing no one else who wished du testify, Vice-Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:54
fix_Baa.
Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission begin with the proposed amendments which were presented
at the January 25 meeting. Then move to the proposed changes to that proposal:
• the 20 foot minimum height requirement,
• the facilities must be buried in the.ground unless technically infeasible,
2.018-02-05 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4of5
■ not located within a certain number of feet (currently bracketed with 250 in this holding
spot) of other small cell facilities unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location
can accommodate or is sufficient to meet the wireless service needs,
■ if the provider cannot meet the 250-foot distance, then they must make an attempt to co-
locate unless they demonstrate a reason why it is not possible.
Mr. Lamb addressed the public comment which said that this could set a precedence, He said cities,
under state and federal law, are required to allow facilities to locate within the right-of-way. The
City cannot preclude them, which was the reason for the amendment, Mr, Lamb confirmed
facilities can locate on private property, but it requires an agreement with that private property
owner allowing a recorded casement.
The Commission began deliberations of the issues which had been presented for change to the
proposed amendment. Commissioners agreed to add a 250-foot distance requirement between
facilities. They felt if the industry could demonstrate the problem of locating at this distance,they
can change it, The Commissioners agreed to add the requirement for co-location, if it was at all
feasible. The Commissioners discussed requiring a 20-foot height minimum and agreed to this
addition. Then the Commissioners moved to the requirement of undergrounding the control
equipment. After their discussion the Commissioners agreed to adding this language as well. 'I here
was a consensus that requiring transmission by fiber would not be added, because the City cannot
regulate the technology. Commissioners agreed to adding the requirement of engineering
certification for the pole. Commissioner Johnson felt parcels with a 50-foot frontage should be
exempt from new poles. Commissioner Phillips said he feels the carrier should have to pay to move
any utilities. Mr. Lamb said from practical standpoint he was not sure how the City would be able
to enforce it. Commissioner Walton confirmed there is no public comment or noticing regarding
installation of a new utility pole. Mr_ Lamb asked how the Commission felt about reducing the
permit processing timeline from 60-days.The Commissioners agreed to leave the 60-day time line.
The Commissioners agreed to allow for a combined enclosure which might be a bit bigger than the
allowable size for the antenna alone. 'l'he Commissioners agreed they did not want to allow small
cell facilities in City parks. The Commissioners agreed not to change the height limitations on
electrical transmission towers_ The Commissioners agreed to not change the deviation standards.
Mr. Lamb said the Commission should make a motion to approve the changes presented on January
25 along with the changes which were discussed tonight which include: a 250-foot separation along
with the co-location requirement, a minimum height of 20-feet, retain the existing language on the
ground vaults, addition of a structural engineer certification with the application, and allowing
un itied camouflage facility with a different term as part of those changes.
Commissioner Walton moved to recommend to the City Council the proposed amendment with the
changes which had been had been recorded by the Deputy City_4ttorney, The vole on the motion
was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed
Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested changing the agenda to move the Comprehensive Plan study
session ahead of the Open Space discussion due to the number of people in attendance who were
interested in the topics. Commission gave consensus to proceed.
ii. Study Session— 21)18 Comprehensive Plan amendments:
Ms. Barlow presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process. She explained there were
originally four privately initiated requests and three City initiated amendments. She explained after the
docket was approved, one of the privately initiated amendments was withdrawn. One City initiated
amendments was also withdrawn. After conversations with the property owner they requested the City
hold off making the proposed change while they develop their plan for the properly.
Planner Micki Harnois explained CPA-2018-0001. the property is located approximately 300 feet east
of Pines Road on alleyway Ave. The request is the change three parcels of approximately two acres
from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Multifamily Comprehensive Plan designation and
tonic. The site is surrounded by multifamily designation to the north and south and Corridor Mixed
[Ise to the west of the property, 'There have been no comments received for this amendment.
2015.02-05 I'tarinin Corninicssion Minutes Paw 5 of 5
Ms, Harnois reminded the Commissioners. that CPA-2018-0002 had been withdrawn by the property
owner.
Planner Marty PMan iuk explained CPA-2018-0003 is located at Rowdish and Sands Roads. The request
is to change the Single Family designation and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CMU
designation located across the railroad tracks and Dishman Mica Road. He said the lot was created after
a subdivision of the property in 2010, which divided the property for several single family lots on the
south side of the original lot, This lot was created as a drainage easement which has been dedicated to
the City_ The property is surrounded on three sides by a single family residential and the railroad tracks
to the north. The property borders Chester Creek, is located in a floodplain, has a Type F stream, a
biologist has reported there are no wetlands on the site. Commissioner Walton asked if the property
would have been allowed to be divided if the drainage easement had not been a part of it. Mr, Palaniuk
stated he would have to defer to engineers an answer_ Mr. Palaniuk stated the Commissioners already
had any comment which was provided up to the time of mailing the packet. Any comments received
since then had been provided to the Commissioners that evening.
Mr. Palaniuk discussed CPA-2018-0004 is located at the corner of 711' Avenue and University Road.
The request is to change the designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to
Neighborhood Commercial, He explained the subject parcel abutted another property owned by the
same property owner, which was changed to Neighborhood Commercial during the 2016
Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Palaniuk said the property was surrounded on other sides by single
family, The site is bordered by University Road which is a minor arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said the
Commissioners had any comments staff have received_
Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CPA-2018-0005, when Commissioner Phillips
recused himself regarding this amendment, and left the council chambers, The City initiated
amendments are both correcting mapping errors. The property for CPA-2018-0005 is located at the
corner of Progress and 1-orker Road. The parcels are split between Neighborhood Commercial and
Single Family Residential, i'he amendment is to designate the north and cast edge of one parcel as
Neighborhood Commercial and another along the BPA easement. Commissioner Stathos commented
the area could not handle any more traffic if it was developed.
Ms. Kendall exp]ained the change proposed for CPA-2018-0006. The property is located on Trent
Avenue approximately one and one half mile east of Sullivan. The parcel is developed and there is a
storanwater swale along the 15 feet to be rezoned. The parcel is split zoned with the 15 feet on the east
side of this parcel is zoned Single Family Residential while the rest is Industrial Mixed Use, The
proposed change is to zone the easterly side industrial Mixed Use.
The next step is the public hearing which is scheduled for February 22, 2018.
iii. Study Session, Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones.
The Commission agreed to postpone the discussion of open space requirements to another meeting.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order.
I . ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The vote on the
motion was uncr imouc in favor, the inotionpas:sed
Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary