Minutes - 07/27/2006 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
June 27, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kogle called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commissioners, Staff and Audience stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Fred Beaulac — Present Commissioner Gail Kogle — Present
Commissioner Bob Blum — Present Commissioner Ian Robertson — Present
Commissioner John Carroll — Absent, excused Commissioner Marcia Sands — Present
Commissioner David Crosby — Present* *arrived at 6:52 pm
Staff attending the meeting: Director Marina Sukup, Deanna Griffith, Administrative
Assistant
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Robertson moved that the July 27, 2006 agenda be approved as
presented. It was seconded and passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Sands moved that the June 22, 2006 minutes be approved as written. It
was seconded and passed unanimously.
Commissioner Beaulac pointed out that on the July 13 minutes that the reason he
asked to have Commissioner Blum added to the sign committee was to add diversity to
the committee and he felt that should be stated. Commissioner Sands said that her
comments about the TMDL meeting were actually that it was ironic that the committee
was discussing the TMDL after the fact that we had just had a recent spill.
Commissioner Beaulac made a motion to approve the July 13, 2006 minutes as
amended. It was seconded and passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment offered
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
None of the Commissioners had anything to report
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Sukup discussed that the Council had passed another 6-month e�ension to
the UR-1 zoning in Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres, the Commission has a new
advanced agenda with a couple of additions and changes to it. Additions are a FEMA
workshop for the Chester Creek Preliminary Flood Plain Maps and a Community
Workshop for the proposed UGA areas, along with moving the joint Planning
Commission/City Council meeting with the Consultants from October 12 to September
14 This has caused some of the UDC discussions to be moved around, all changes
are highlighted in yellow.
07-27-06 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
Director Sukup asked Ms. Griffith to give the Commissioners a brief rundown of the
Focus Group Meetings that were conducted the week before when the
Sprague/Appleway Consultants were in town. Ms. Griffith stated that the meetings
went well, that the consultants were pleased with the people to participated, with the
information they received and how well the meetings were organized. It was a good
beginning to the project. Based on the information received during those meetings the
consultants thought it would be better to bring the City Council/Planning Commission
into the picture for an update sooner, Sept. 14, rather than the original date of Oct.
12 t ".
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS:
Title 17 and Title 18 of the Uniform Development Code IUDCI — Discussion
Director Sukup gave the Commissioners an overview of the code itself and how it
would work as the Commission went along with discussing the different titles,
what titles meant what, how the UDC will be adopted, how it is a piece of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and how it will be able to stand as a
document that the Planning/Building Departments will be able to use on a daily
basis.
Commissioner Beaulac asked what is the difference between the Development
Code and the Municipal Code. How will the parts of the UDC not become
conflicting with what is in the SVMC?
Title 17, General Provisions - Other discussion involved issues surrounding were
neighborhood plans, do they belong in here, no they are not regulated, only hard
guidelines what is regulated by mandate/law not something that will just be
adopted by at anytime, something that is legislative changes will be handled
here. Discussion on how exemptions will be handled, Director Sukup stated she
would be able to provide flow charts to help show the process that might help
the Commissioner follow the process better than the words and charts.
Subdivisions will be addressed in a title of it's own with its own rules. In
question regarding to code violations, each day someone is not in compliance, is
another violation? Director Sukup explained that is correct, due to the fact that
the violation needs to get taken care of in a timely manner. Page 9, comment
period, long sentence, can we cut it down? Noticing to surrounding areas, can
notice more but never less than the law allows, which is 300 feet. If you notice
more, when do you stop the notice area and make it even. Commissioner Kogle
asked about the City's ability to notice on public television on Channel 5.
Director Sukup said she would inquire to the Public Information Officer,
Carolbelle Branch about this ability. Commissioner Sands pointed out that the
cross reference in the first table might not be quite correct and was assured that
it would be proofed and checked before it was issued. Are there any provisions
for getting permits processed faster? Is it possible to pay a fee to move to the
head of the line, some cities do that? Director Sukup stated that our City felt this
was preferential treatment and was not in favor of this practice. The City is not
in favor of holding up permits and will work to run time periods concurrently if
possible but some can not be shortened, for instance the SEPA comment period
can not be shortened. Commissioners asked to check 17.50.030 and could the
Boundary Review Board responsible for some of things in the permitting process?
Title 18, Votes by Commissioners, is stated in the Rules of Procedure and does
not need to be stated in the UDC. Hearing Examiner must approve a subdivision
if it meets all the rules. Rules say must hold a public hearing and notice it, but
07-27-06 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
some people say why would you do this if you are just going to approve it
anyway and it makes the people mad that they get asked for an opinion and
then don't listen to them anyway. If a short plat has nine lots or less it does not
need a hearing but ten or more it does need a hearing. Page 40, says the
Building Official enforces the nuisance ordinance, why is this? Director Sukup
answered that the code compliance officers report to the Building Official.
OLD BUSINESS:
No old business
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Blum stated that he would once again, like a meeting Hearing
Examiner, and the other Commissioners agreed. Director Sukup stated she
would contact him and see if he could make an appointment to come and speak
to the Commission.
XI. AD70URNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:41 pm
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Gail Kogle, Chairperson
07-27-06 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3