Loading...
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