Loading...
2024-10-24 PC APPROVED SIGNED MINUTESRegular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Spokane Valley City Hall October 24, 2024 I. Chairman Robert McKinley called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person and via ZOOM meetings. A fifteen -minute recess was called to allow the remaining Planning Commission Member to arrive. The meeting was called back to order at 6:15 pm. The Commissioners and staff stood for the Pledge Of Allegiance. II. Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Susan Delucchi Michael Kelly, absent Tony Beattie, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Bob McKinley Martin Palaniuk, Associate Planner John Robertson Miguel Aguirre, IT Specialist Vadim Smelik, absent Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Justin Weathermen Dan Wilson, absent There was consensus to excuse Commissioner Wilson, Commissioner Kelly, & Commissioner Smelik from the meeting. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Weathernion moved, and it was seconded to approve the meeting agenda for August 24, 2024. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in fervor, zero against, and the motion passed IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Robertson moved, and it was seconded, to approve the meeting minutes for the October 10, 2024 meeting. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was three in fervor, one abstention, and the motion passed. V. COMMISSIONER REPORT: Vice -Chairman Delucchi reported that she visited California and roads in Washington are much better than California. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported that the City broke ground on the Spokane Valley Cross -Country course in partnership with Spokane Sports. She also stated that the course has already been booked for the 2027 Division Men's and Women Cross -Country Regionals. 10-24-2024 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mike Thacker (Spokane Valley) expressed concern about the Notice of Application he received for the Family Promise Transitional Housing Use (CSA-2024-0002) located at 17103 E Main Avenue. He stated that he did not understand the process and why Family Process was being given the opportunity to request Transitional Housing at this location when the Planning Commission recommended denial of their Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the matter was not put through to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Thacker had a lot of questions regarding the planning process and Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided some information to Mr. Thacker and stated that she would reach out to Trim outside of the meeting to explain the matter in detail. Mr. Thacker stated that his objections to the project were as follows: Family Promise should not be allowed to "get another bite of the apple", the project is located too close to a school with no proposed road improvements, traffic on Flora Road, the proposed location is a single-family home and they are planning to put two families per bedroom with only bathroom, there is no on -site parking, Family Promise does not require background checks or drug tests, there's no one that will be monitoring the comings and going of the families or others, and it will tax the police and fire department with additional services needed. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2024-0001 — Amendments to Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing The public hearing was opened at 6:36 a.m. Associate Planner Mai -tin Palaniuk gave a staff presentation. He explained that in April 2023, Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 5290 updating portions of the Local Project Review Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW. The update is intended to streamline project review for land use project permits. The legislative update creates inconsistencies within Chapter 17.80 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) permit processing procedures. Based on these inconsistencies, the City needs to review the local project permit timelines, clarify the determination of completeness process, and address partial permit fee refunds. Mr. Palaniuk outlined the proposed changes: • Clarify what constitutes a complete application and the determination requirements. • Clarify time -period exclusions and additions to the decision timeline • Add a reference allowing the applicant to request a refund of a portion of the permit fees if the permit time periods are not met. • Housekeeping items that clarify a requirement but make no substantive change. Mr. Palaniuk explained the process and the timelines that the City is currently following. He then outlined the proposed changes that are required due to SB5290. They are as follows: • Complete Determination: The proposed amendment removes the term "fully complete" throughout the chapter and adds clarifying language that the application is complete once the "procedural submission" requirements have been met, i.e., all the information listed on the application has been provided. • Decision Timeline: SB 5290 requires local jurisdictions to issue a decision for project permits that do not require public notice within 65 days of the determination of completeness, within 10-24-2024 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 100 days for projects that require public notice, and within 170 days for projects that require public notice and a public hearing. The proposed code text amendment makes no changes to the decision timeline contained in Section 17.80.130 SVMC given the lean plarming staff, the volume and type of land use permit applications the City receives, and the focus on expediting applications through the review and decision process. Timeline Exclusions: o SB 5290 provides that the time period for a local government to process a permit shall start over if an applicant proposes a change in use that adds or removes commercial or residential elements from the original application that would make the application fail to meet the determination of procedural completeness for the new use. The proposed code text amendment adds language that mirrors this language. o SB 5290 provides that 30 additional days may be added to the decision timeline if the applicant requests, in writing, a suspension of the project review for more than 60 days or if the applicant is nonresponsive for more than 60 days to a written request from the City for additional information. The proposed code text amendment adds language that provides for adding an additional 30 days to the decision timeline. • Application Refired: The proposed code text amendment adds language that provides the applicant with the means to receive a refund in cases where the final decision is made after the applicable timeline Mr. Palaniuk stated that the staff recommendation for CTA-2024-0001 is to recommend approval to the City Council. He also explained that the Planning Commission recommendation will be formalized in the Findings of Pact that will be presented for approval at the next meeting. The item will then be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Vice -Chair Delucchi asked the consequences of not adopting the requirements in S135290. Mr. Palaniuk responded that if the jurisdiction does not adopt their own outlined timelines, the State guidelines outlined in SB5290 will automatically go into effect on January 1, 2025. The public hearing was closed at 6:59 p.m. Vice -Chapman Dehrcchi moved and it was seconded, to recommend approval of CTA-2024-0001 to the City Council with changes to Section ]7.80.100 (B) to read as follows: Within 14 calendar days after the applicant has submitted any additional information identified by the City as necessary for a complete application, the City shall notifjl the applicant whether an application is filly complete or what additional information is necessary. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the notion passed IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chairman McKinley stated that he will not be at the November 14, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robertson moved, and it was seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7: 05 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 10-24-2024 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Bob McKinley, Chairman Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary