Loading...
Minutes - 01/26/2006 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave January 26, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Kogle called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm. Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director of Community Development, Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney, Gay James, Administrative Assistant, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Commissioner Beaulac — Present Commissioner Kogle — Present Commissioner Blum — Present Ian Robertson — Absent, excused Commissioner John G. Carroll — Present Marcia Sands - Present David Crosby — Absent* *Arrived at 6:13 APPROVAL OF AGENDA ���i�n� ���� � �� � ,Y�n��� �'�', �n� � ��� �� . �n��i�n� �1� �n�l� � n��n�. ��nt� ��'l ��n�i��� IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes to approve VI. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Blum stated that he attended the Tuesday 17 City Council study session. He stated that the Council removed Indiana between Flora and Pines from the aesthetic corridor list. The Council discussed the billboard �cap and replace' issue, and returned the words ��and replace" to the Comprehensive Plan. Council removed the City Center overlay from the Land Use map but left the wording in the Plan, since they support the concept but would determine the location at a later time. One council member stated that residential property could not support itself so you had to allow retail in neighborhoods. Commissioner Carroll had a question on how the Council voted on removing a portion of Indiana from the aesthetic corridor list. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that the vote ended up being 3 to 3 with the Mayor stating she would like January 26, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes the opportunity to drive it and look at it again and last meeting returned her vote to remove it. Commissioners Carroll, Sands, Beaulac and Kogle had nothing to report. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Sukup reported that the final date for accepting proposals is Feb. 10 The City would like to have two members of the Planning Commission sit in on the interviews. Everyone that will be short listed will be asked to make a presentation. The Committee will consist of Director Sukup, Greg McCormick, Scott Kuhta, two people from public works, a community member, two Planning Commissioners. The City Council e�ended the UR-1 zoning in the Ponderosa and Rotchford areas for another six month period in anticipation of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. The City Council finished the goals and policies in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan deliberation and will now move to the Land Use map, then go on to the Utilities chapter. Growth rate for this area is projected at 2.5%. Soon the City will need to decide what they believe they can incorporate into the population allocations and the UGA as they currently are. Director Sukup felt certain that the City Council would be looking at this subject and then asking the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Director Sukup stated she had looked into the house bills that Commissioner Crosby had brought to the attention of the Commission at the last meeting. HB 2217 includes new and modified requirements pertaining to county-wide planning policies adopted by counties/cities fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). HB 2323 declares that it is state policy to promote and encourage the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a manner that is effective in meeting citizen's needs for affordable housing while protecting and enhancing residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Carroll asked Director Sukup if the RFP that has been issued concerning the Sprague/Appleway sub-area. Would the sub-area plan proposal have to fall in line with any sub-area plan we would have in the Comprehensive Plan? Director Sukup stated that it would need to follow in the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion: Proposed Changes to the following ordinances: 1. An ordinance repealing Sections 14.406 and 14.412; amending Sections 14.402.140, 14.404.082(5), 14.404.102(2), 14.504.020, 14.504.040, 14.504.060, 14.512.000, 14.702.100(3), 14.706.060, and January 26, 2006 Planning Commission Page 2 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes 14.806.080 of the Interim Zoning regulations relating to the Hearing Examiner and hearing and appeals procedures. 2. An ordinance repealing and amending sections of the SVMC 7.05.010- 200 relating to nuisance requirements. 3. An ordinance repealing and amending sections of the SVMC Sections 10.30.150-600 relating to Code Compliance 4. An ordinance repealing Spokane Valley Ordinance 05-015 which renumbered various provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 5. An ordinance repealing portions of SVMC Section 10.30.060, as established by Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-053 repealing certain zones and Phase I Regulations. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that he would go through the ordinances one at a time and explain the need for change for each one,(will reference each change by number) Each of these changes is a housekeeping issue and does not carry significance of great change to any of the ordinances or codes. 1. 14.406 When the City adopted its Code Compliance ordinance, these provisions became duplicative and unnecessary. 14.412, appeals to the Hearing Examiner, this is not relevant any longer due to the adoption of Spokane Valley Code section 10.35.170 2. 7.05 In order to cut out duplication, we are folding two ordinances together, moving junk vehicles to the proper listing as a nuisance, removing anything that is a duplicate. This change is trying to bring about consistency and cutting down on paperwork and confusion and to streamline the code. 3. 10.30.600 The Notice and Order provisions give the full range of compliance necessary. As such, the Notice of Violation provisions are not needed, and should be removed. Under Sub-H there is no lawful basis for inspection order, it is not legal and it must be removed. 10.30.190, removing the priority typing because it was only necessary in the start up of the city. There is no longer a back log of complaints and we respond by date, except in the case of true emergency. 4. 05.015, repealing the numbering system currently in use, it is in conflict with what the city wants to use at this time. 5. 10.30.060, doing away with provisions and zoning codes that just do not apply to the City at all, example: Exclusive Agricultural B. OLD BUSINESS: Definitions: Essential Public Facilities, other jurisdictions places these (secure transitional housing, human services, state sponsored facilities) in any area where they need to have them, medical, emergency services. They are currently listed as community service and can go anywhere the City needs them to be. Question about the HB 2323 which addresses Accessory Dwelling Units. Page 3 says you can not include the type of occupant, would that allow for sex offenders, no they would not be allowed in this type of housing. It would allow for them across the state, would not have to be attached. January 26, 2006 Planning Commission Page 3 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes Standards and conditions could be imposed design standards, parking requirements, etc. Page 13, two definitions for dwelling unit, accessory apartment, which one. Transitional housing, is this an essential public facility? There is a listing for Hospital — specialty, what does this apply to and why it is broken out, the NICS code breaks out the difference between hospital — psychiatric- substance abuse from hospital — specialty. Commissioner Kogle has agreed to investigate the difference between transitional housing and post facilities specialty hospitals. Antique Stores — do all antiques require sentiment? Move to remove the word sentiment from the end of the definition. Agreed. Chemical manufacture — feels it should be expanded. Possibly make a list of including but not limited to — Commissioner Sands will research a more specific definition. Church, Temple, mosque, remove the wording — excluding facilities for training? Discussion in regard that facilities for training are dealt with in places like colleges, dwellings — congregate. Page 12, Critical Material, Commissioner Sands proposes we change the definition to read ��more beneficial uses of soil, air and both surface and ground water" X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Need to review the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Carroll has a question about how and who will be chosen to serve on the interview panel for the RFP, which Commissioner Kogle responded that she did not know what direction the Commission would take yet. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Crosby motioned for adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Beaulac to adjourn at 9:00 pm. Passed SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Gail Kogle, Chairperson January 26, 2006 Planning Commission Page 4 of 4