Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 09-26-19 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall September 26,2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. HI. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter- absent excused Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior PIanner Robert McKinley Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen- absent excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Rasmussen and Kaschmitter were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the September 26, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the August 08,2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Friend attended Valleyfest and thanked the City for organizing such a great event. Commissioner Walton also participated in Valleyfest and was happy to see the large community turn out. Commissioner Johnson attended the August 13, 2019 City Council Meeting and spoke. September 10, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force (SCHRTF) meeting where Sandra Williams with the Carl Maxey Center gave a presentation; also discussed was the Greater Spokane Progress plan. On September 19, 2019 he attended a conversation with the previous US Ambassador Ryan Corker where they discussed the Middle East. Commissioner Johnson also attended Valleyfest and thanked City staff for putting on a phenomenal event. On September 24, 2019 he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding homegrown extremism. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow updated the Commission on the Catholic Charities proposed Code Text Amendment. CTA-2018-0006 would allow multifamily development in single family residential zones. After considerable consideration and discussion with the St. John Vianney Board, Catholic Charities has officially withdrawn their proposal and will not be moving forward. Building Official Jenny Nickerson advised staff has made progress in relation to uploading the Planning Commission audio minutes to our website which would make them available to the public. Ms. Nickerson also spoke about the repairs to the Council Chambers curved wall that are in its beginning stages. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 i. Discussion, SVMC 22.70.020 Fencing; allowable heights in residential areas, fencing when property elevations differ. Ms. Nickerson explained this discussion is to review a section of the current fencing regulations causing some staff and citizen confusion. The hope is to encourage suggestions from the Planning Commission in order to prepare a comprehensive code text amendment. Ms. Nickerson explained the current regulations require that fence heights be measured from the lowest point within six feet of a fence. Ms. Nickerson continued that SVMC 22.70.020 Section E specifically states that when a fence is placed on top of a slope or retaining wall that height is to be measured from the lowest elevation within six feet of the fence. The City has found that constructing a six-foot fence when measured from the bottom of a retaining wall or heavy slope between two properties with differing elevation does not provide adequate privacy. Ms. Nickerson asked that should the language change and the measurement no longer include the height of the retaining wall or lower elevation of slope, would it still be appropriate to have a full eight-foot-high fence, or would a six-foot high fence be more suitable? Adding that nonresidential uses such as schools, churches and utilities would be limited to the eight-foot-high fence. She asked if that would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Friend discussed where the measurement originates from and suggested the measurement originate from the homeowner's side of the fence. Commissioner Walton discussed residents that abut primary arterials and suggested the option of allowing those property owners the ability to build a taller fence for noise reduction. Commissioner Johnson also spoke about front yards on an arterial.He suggested leeway in allowing property owners the ability to build a higher front yard fence. Commissioner Friend felt allowing a taller fence in the front yard was a safety issue in reference to line of sight. Commissioner Walton asked for examples from local municipalities and other jurisdictions relating to front yard fencing and their specific language. Commissioner McKinley's concern was measuring a fence at the lowest point between properties of differing elevations. He was also concerned with clear view triangle issues. Ms. Nickerson advised the fence regulations would not take precedence over the City's sight distance triangle regulations. Commissioner Kelley suggested that the fence measurement be measured at the property line. City Attorney Cary Driskell explained that if the City required the measurement to be right on the property line that would require a survey adding significant costs to the property owner and cautioned against it. Ms. Barlow encouraged the Commission to think about the need of the property owners, as well as neighborhood development. She added that higher front yard fencing may affect the character of a neighborhood especially from a pedestrian standpoint. ii. Discussion, SVMC 22.70.080 Signs; aesthetic corridors. Ms. Barlow advised this discussion is to review a specific section of the aesthetic corridor sign regulations which have caused some concerns. The intent is to encourage discussion from the Planning Commission in order to help prepare a code text amendment. Ms. Barlow explained staff's concerns are that monument signs are allowed in the aesthetic corridor, but wall signs are not allowed. Ms. Barlow provided background into how the City adopted the County's regulations as interim 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 regulations during incorporation in 2003. She noted that at that time the Aesthetic Corridor sign regulations were rolled over from the County. In the 1990's the Aesthetic Corridor regulations developed out of the Board of County Commissioners interest in preserving the entrances and exits into the City's and certain developing areas, as well as reducing billboard signage. Ms. Barlow continued that during the development of the City's Uniform Development Code regulations in 2006 one sentence to the code was added that stated "Only monument signs shall be allowed in the aesthetic corridor," which inadvertently prohibited wall signs. Over the years there has been some inconsistency implementing the code based on the interpretation. Staff feels this conflict is creating an unnecessary restriction on those property owners in the aesthetic corridor. Ms. Barlow provided a presentation with maps identifying the City's aesthetic corridors that include two sections of SR 27, two sections of Appleway Boulevard, Dishrnan Mica Road, 32' Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway. Ms. Barlow advised the zones surrounding these corridors are predominantly mixed use, multifamily, corridor mixed use and commercial zoning, with nominal residential zoning. Ms. Barlow described the definition of a wall sign, which includes that it be attached directly to the wall of a structure. Current regulations wouldallow a wall sign to be up to 25 percent of the wall area. Commissioner Johnson suggested separate regulations if the abutting use is residential versus commercial. Ms. Barlow explained that the zoning dictates what uses are allowed;changing the regulations to allow wall signs in the aesthetic corridor will not change the permitted uses allowed nor create opportunity for signage. The sign code does not allow off-premise signage, and therefore a residential use in a residential zone could not have a wall sign advertising another business. Ms.Barlow concluded that she will provide examples of each sign type at the next discussion. iii. Discussion, updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson provided a brief introduction into the establishment of the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure adopted in 2005. The rules of procedure state they are to be reviewed and updated in odd numbered years, the Commission was provided with a strike through version of the proposed changes for review. Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification in regards to what equals a quorum, the appointed Commissioners seats or the majority of the Commissioners present. Ms. Nickerson's interpretation was the majority of the seven-member Commission seats. Commissioner Kelly suggested adding the language "the number of appointed Commissioners". There was some discussion related to a quorum when there are vacant Commission seats. Commissioner Kelly spoke to the vote of a majority of those present as well as the conduct of business. Commissioner Kelley stated that during the 2019 election of officers all necessary parties were present including a quorum of Commissioners. He continued that there was a tie for the position of Chair between Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Rasmussen whom respectfully declined her nomination. Commissioner Kelley stated there 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 was never a re-vote for Chair, and Commissioner Johnson was not voted into his position appropriately. Commissioner Kelley moved to have a special election to establish a legal vote. He moved that Vice Chair Walton assume role of Chair during the election, and that Commissioner Johnson recuse himself from all leadership roles in this election, but not from voting. Commissioner Walton stated the motion as stated is out of order and would be better suited after the current item or before close of meeting. Mr. Driskell advised the best course of action would be for Commissioner Kelley to withdraw his motion as this should not be voted on without further review. Commissioner Kelley withdrew his motion. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that if a quorum of the Commission is present and one commissioner recuses themselves from the business at hand, does a quorum remain? Or is the quorum dissolved? It was determined that these issues will be addressed with the City's parliamentarian. Commissioner McKinley advised he appreciated the change related to public testimony being limited and not allowing the speaker to monopolize the time. Commissioner Kelley asked if the pledge of allegiance is going to be removed from the meetings. Ms. Nickerson clarified that particular strike through was to eliminate the entire section titled "recommended order of business for meetings". Doing so will provide flexibility for meeting conduct but does not prohibit the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any concerns by the Commission in removing the entire section "recommended order of business for meetings". There were no objections. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that Roberts Rules of Order and the order of business refers to small board forums in relation to the format the Planning Commission holds. Ms. Nickerson advised the City's parliamentarian Chris Bainbridge will be invited to attend the next meeting to assist in further details and discussions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson spoke about SCHRTF progress plan created by Greater Spokane Progress. He spoke about the July 23, 2019 City Council meeting regarding Council Woman Thompsons letter brought forth from the NAACP. Commissioner Johnson was asked to read a statement from SCHRTF at the August 13th, 2019 City Council meeting and read aloud the statement to the Planning Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. \- /Z)// / James Johnson, Chairman Date signed xos if AT Robin Hutchins, Secretary