Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 10-24-19 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 24, 2019 L Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley-absent excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley-absent excused Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Matt Walton-absent excused Robin Hutchins, Administrative Assistant Hearing no objections Commissioners Kelley, McKinley and Walton were excused. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 24, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: No action taken; October 10, 2019 minutes will be approved at a later date. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: City Attorney Cary Driskell gave some background into a motion brought forward by Commissioner Kelley regarding Commissioner Johnson's position of Chair without a formal vote. During the 2019 January election of officers there was a tie for the position of chair between Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Rasmussen whom withdrew her nomination. There was no re-vote. Staff has determined there is no question as to the validity of Chair Johnson's position as he was the only candidate which clearly implied one outcome with no challenge until September 2019. Mr. Driskell concluded that the Commission makes recommendations to the Council, and there would be no legal consequence in Chair Johnson fulfilling his position through the end of the year. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0003 a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.110.080 Signs in the aesthetic corridors. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided a presentation and background into the proposed amendment. On October 4, 2019 a determination of non-significance was issued and a notice of public hearing was mailed. On October 12, 2019 the Commission conducted a study session and tonight the public hearing is being held. Should a recommendation be made by the Commission at the close of the public hearing, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact on November 14, 2019. 10-24-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Ms. Barlow explained the proposed amendment to SVMC 22.110.080 is to allow wall signs in the aesthetic corridors as they are currently regulated within the SVMC. Ms. Barlow described that currently, per code, only monument signs are allowed in the seven aesthetic corridors, and staff feels this specific language is unnecessarily restrictive. Current wall sign regulations allow a wall sign to be up to 25 percent of the wall area, and those dimensional standards are not proposed to be modified. The proposed change intends to allow the wall signs in the aesthetic corridors by striking the sentence which states "only monument signs are allowed in the aesthetic corridors." All other changes proposed are refining the code language with no substantive change. Ms. Barlow concluded with a response to Chair Johnsons concern at the previous meeting regarding ambient lighting. She explained that within each sign there is an automatic sensor that adjusts the signs brightness as it relates to the ambient Iight. The City has stipulations in SVMC 22.110.060 stating that all electronic message centers have automatic dimmable capabilities that adjust the brightness to the ambient light conditions at all times of the day and night. This code also requires written documentation that the dimming capabilities exist and are verified by inspection, Commissioner Rasmussen gave an example of her personal experience with a bright sign and its affects, She asked if any jurisdictions have an illumination cap. Ms. Barlow explained that due to the scope of the proposal to allow wall signage in the aesthetic corridor that was not researched. However, she does know there is an industry standard relating to lumens. Commissioner Johnson expressed his concerns with changing colors and scrolling signs. He is concerned with how this could change the character of the aesthetic corridor and worries that allowing lighted motion signs would be distracting to drivers. Ms. Barlow explained that should this be approved the current parameters in code would prohibit lighting hazards such as flashing, strobe or running lights. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6::26 p.m. Commissioner Friend moved to recommend to City Council the approval of CTA- 2019-0003 as presented. Commissioner Johnson recommended there be no changing lights in the aesthetic corridor as he feels this would be a distraction. Commissioners I{aschmitter and Friend understood Commissioner Johnsons concerns but felt as though the current regulations put in place would alleviate the matters related to flashing and/or changing lights limiting distractions. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. H. Study Session: CTA-2019-0004, a proposed amendment to SVMC 22.70.020 Fencing, fence heights in residential zones, Ms. Nickerson provided a brief discussion related to fencing regulations in the residential zones. Ms.Nickerson explained that in researching other jurisdictions the City of Spokane and Spokane County limit the height of residential fences to six feet. However, they have no definition as to how the height is measured. Liberty Lake and Post Falls regulate that fence height be measured from the lowest grade elevation at the base of the fence. Airway Heights and Franklin County regulate the height of a retaining wall be included in the 10-24-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 measurement of a fence, which is consistent with the City's current code language. Ms. Nickerson added the City's current language also requires the height be measured at the lowest grade elevation within six feet of the fence horizontally. 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 stated the proposed language would add Section C. indicating that an administrative exception may be granted for a fence of more than six feet in height, but no more than eight feet in height, with a permitted non-residential use in a residential zone. This would allow more flexibility for non-residential uses such as schools, churches and utilities. Ms.Nickerson explained Section E would strike the language indicating that fence height be measured from the lowest grade elevation within six feet of the fence and would simply state "the height of a fence shall be measured from the base of the fence". Ms. Nickerson spoke to a comment by the Commission related to fence height of six feet versus eight feet. With the proposed change the measurement would no longer include the retaining wall. This proposed change would provide a different method of measuring the height making it more appropriate to limit the fence height to six feet. After some discussion it was concluded to be the case. iii. Study Session: Updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson introduced the subject of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (ROP) and provided background into the discussions and comments from the previous meetings. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton explained there were three sections of the ROP in need of consideration related to attendance, time limit of public testimony, and how often the rules should to be reviewed. Ms.Nickerson spoke to the section regarding attendance to include excused and unexcused absences. She added this section is new and is consistent with the Council's Governance Manual. Ms. Nickerson addressed the section related to time limit for testimony. After some discussion it was concluded the Commission will impose a three-minute time limit for public testimony. Lastly, it was determined that a review of the ROP be conducted every three years due to commission member turn over and to determine whether changes are necessary and/or appropriate at that time. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners thanked staff for all of their efforts and hard work. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. 7/054-/ZO/, James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary