Loading...
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