Loading...
Minutes - 09/28/2006 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 28, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Kogle called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairwoman Kogle led 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 G. Carroll — Present, Commissioner Marcia Sands — Absent, arrived 6:10 p.m. excused Commissioner David Crosby — Present Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director; Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner; Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Beaulac, seconded, and unanimously agreed to move the Public Hearings on Title 17, 18, and 20 under New Business in front of the discussion on Urban Growth Areas. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were not available for review. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairwoman Kogle invited public comment; none offered. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Crosbv reported he attended the sign committee meeting, also attended by City Attorney Connelly. Discussed the definitions and will ne� talk about permanent and temporary signs. The ne� meeting is October 10, 2006 at 7:30 a.m. The Valley Chamber will help to get the word out to its members to help get more involvement from businesses in the process. Commissioner Blum attended the September 19, 2006 Council Study Session where he commented on the salary commission ordinance and was reported by the press as if he was speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission in which he was not. He questioned when the ne� joint council meeting would be. Community Development Director Sukup was not aware of an upcoming joint meeting. Chairwoman Koale reported that all the commissioners participated in the City Centers joint meeting. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Community Development Sukup stated that at the September 19, 2006 council meeting they passed an ordinance (ORD 06-020) that amended the municipal code establishing the procedure to amend the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission recommended to Council that they further define what constitutes an emergency. This is not in the draft for Title 17 and the commissioners may want to consider this when they have the Public Hearing for Title 17. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: Uniform Development Code Title 17 General Provisions Chairwoman Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. and invited public comment; none offered. Planning Manager McCormick commented that Title 17 constitutes the overall purpose, interpretations and basic ground rules of the Uniform Development Code (UDC). He pointed out that chapter 17.40 deals with the permit processing provisions which identify all land use permits the city issues. These permits are broken down into 4 different types: 1— administrative; 2— administrative approvals in which staff evaluates each request for certain criteria; 3— Hearing Examiner approvals; 4— Planning Commissioner permits which have a public hearing and a recommendation is forwarded to City Council. This chapter details the permitting process from the pre- application meeting through final approval, setting time frame for each permit. Chapter 17.50 deals with the appeal process of the City. Chapter 17.60 is the compliance and enforcement section that provides the City with the process to enforce the rules of the overall UDC. Chapter 17.70 detail the fees and penalties as adopted through a master fee resolution. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the approval criteria. Planning Manager McCormick responded the Planning Commission will need to make the approval criteria of the UDC consistent with the ordinance. The language in the code has not been adopted yet. Commissioner Blum questioned how the Planning Commission will make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Sukup explained that they would be processed as a whole and the Commission will take action on them as a group, after the deadline date of November 1st. Individual pieces will be considered by the Planning Commission, but the final action is a recommendation to council in a single motion. Director Sukup explained that in the Planning Commission rules of procedure, any action the commission takes will be by a majority of the entire commission, and could be sent forward with "no recommendation." Commissioner Carroll questioned if it was clearly defined whether or not a public hearing is to be held within 60 days. Director Sukup explained the public hearing could fall outside the 60 days but would make sure it was clearly defined in the code. It was moved by Commissioner Beaulac, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve Title 17 with the emergency Comprehensive Plan amendments to Title 17. Motion passed. Chairwoman Kogle closed the public hearing for Title 17 at 6:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Uniform Development Code Title 18, Boards and Authorities Chairwoman Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. and invited public comment; none offered. Director Sukup explained that Title 18 specifies provisions relating to Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and the Building Official, and establishes the powers and duties of the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner. It was 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 moved by Commissioner Blum, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve Title 18. Motion passed. Chairwoman Kogle closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Uniform Development Code Title 20, Subdivisions Chairwoman Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. and invited public comment; none offered. Planning Manager McCormick explained that Title 20 is the subdivision code. RCW 58.17 defines the city's authority. He defined the terms used in subdivisions or re- divisions. He explained that short subdivisions create 9 or fewer residential lots whereas subdivisions or long subdivisions create 10 or more residential lots. Binding Site Plans are non-residential new lots. General provisions section details the purpose of Title 20, promoting effective use of land that is beneficial to health and welfare. Findings for approval come from state law. Application requirements are based on different subdivisions and detail what is required for filing final subdivisions. Also detailed in this code are the provisions for plat alterations and vacations and boundary line adjustments and eliminations. It was moved by Commissioner Robertson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the Title 20 regulations. Motion passed. Chairwoman Kogle closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA DISCUSSION/WORKSHOP Chairwoman Kogle announced the public hearing for the UGA has been postponed until October 12, 2006. Break at 7:07 p.m. Reconvened at 7:12 p.m. Senior Planner Kuhta gave a presentation on urban growth areas, explaining that staff needed a little more time to research and prepare materials for the Planning Commission; therefore, cancelled the originally scheduled public hearing. Spokane County adopted a comprehensive plan in 2001, and they are required to do a 5-year update and an overall review of UGAs. Part of the review begins with a new county- wide 20-year population projections. The intent of the UGA is to separate urban from rural areas. Projected population for 20 years is 197,639 to be added to the Spokane County population. To designate an urban growth area, each jurisdiction does a land quantity analysis, capital facilities and services analysis, consider critical areas and natural resource lands, and get public input. As far as annexation, proposals would only be made if we were able to provide services. Annexations are generally property owner driven. As part of the UGA, Spokane Valley has not proposed Northwood because they don't want to be part of city and because the river and Millwood both provide a barrier to service that area. Staff will be providing more information on the capital facilities analysis to the commission. He will also provide a map of Liberty Lake's UGA proposal for the ne� meeting. Urban Reserve designations are county land use designations for areas outside urban growth areas for future potential urban growth. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Beaulac encouraged commissioners whose terms are ready to expire to continue on the commission. Director Sukup indicated staff feels the same way. 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Carroll discussed I-933 and asked for more information. Director Sukup explained that Legal is working on gathering information for City Council and will provide the same information to the Commission. Senior Planner Kuhta stressed the City cannot advocate one way or the other on the initiative. XI. AD70URNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Gail Kogle, Chairperson 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4