Loading...
Minutes - 10/26/2006 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 26, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Blum called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL Commissioner Fred Beaulac — Present Commissioner Gail Kogle — Absent, Excused Commissioner Bob Blum — Present Commissioner Ian Robertson — Present Commissioner John G. Carroll — Present Commissioner Marcia Sands — Present Commissioner David Crosby — Present Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director of Community Development, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager, Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Mike Basinger, Associate Planner, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the October 26, 2006 agenda as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Crosby, seconded and passed unanimously to approve the minutes from the August 24 and August 31 meetings. Minutes were provided for the Joint Meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council on Sept. 14, for information only. V. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments were offered VI. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Blum stated he had attended the Sign Committee meeting on Oct. 24. Commissioners Carroll, Sands, Beaulac, Crosby and Robertson had nothing to report. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Sukup reported that the City Council has e�ended the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendments Dec. 29, 2006. The City will be holding two more Open Houses for the Shoreline Master Program, from 4:00 to 6:00 pm before the ne� two Planning Commission meetings, Nov. 9 and Dec. 14 The Commissioners have copies of Title 21 of the Uniform Development Code, which will be discussed at the ne� meeting. Parts of this Title include the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas regulations and the SEPA regulations. The staff has received some comments back from different agencies and has updated the portion on Wetlands which was handed out tonight. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS 10/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing Proposed Urban Growth Areas (UGA) Senior Planner Kuhta reviewed the background information for the proposed UGA. He indicated the county is responsible for coordinating the planning activities and the urban growth areas. The UGAs must be sized to accommodate the projected 20-year population growth. The first step in planning the UGA is to adopt a 20-year projection. He detailed the population allocations county-wide, totaling 197,639, of which 33,100 is allocated to Spokane Valley. Mr. Kuhta also explained all the steps that are taken to determine what areas, and how the areas have been reviewed and where the population could be accommodated. Mr. Kuhta also stated that he had received three more requests for inclusion in the UGA since the Commissioners received their packets for review. Those requested were then handed out. Commissioner Crosby made a motion that was seconded and passed unanimously to re-open the public comment. Vice-Chair Blum opened public comment at 6:20 p.m. Pam Fredrick, parcel 45362.9172, - Ms. Fredrick is the owner of the parcel which is approx. 30 acres. She would like the Commissioners to consider adding her parcel to the UGA. It is a good area for growth, there is a shortage of land in the valley, we need more land. This parcel is adjacent to another that is being considered. Jim Cameron, 5022 N. Sunnyvale Dr. — Mr. Cameron stated he had received a letter about someone wanting to build a road to get to the UGA 5 and take his land to do it. He would like to know where roads are going to be put around his area. Ron Caro, 16503 E. Welleslev — Mr. Caro stated that in his area the traffic on Trent is making it difficult to get out onto the road now. Feels before we bring in more people we should fix the traffic problems we have now. Mr. Caro asked a question as to how the City/County process worked — who gets to make the decision. Mr. Kuhta explained that the City makes a proposal then the County will take all the proposals from the jurisdictions and make the final decision in the end. Richard Priest, 4707 N. Larch — Mr. Priest stated that he shares the same views as Mr. Caro, he is concerned about the infrastructure in the area. Why would you add density without being able to handle the traffic you have now? Stacev Biordahl, 422 W. Riverside — Attorney, representing several clients. Ms. Bjordahl stated that she had some questions for staff in regard to the land quantity analysis. Ms. Bjordahl stated that she had a question about covenants on certain properties, stating that a recent Supreme Court ruling said that covenants trump zoning and did staff look at the covenants on each parcel considered for inclusion in the UGA? Staff explained the Regional process that the County uses to determine the land quantity. Elise Gumm, 16833 E. Herov Ave. — Neighbors have a considerable traffic problem now with all the people and the traffic from the high school. Neighbors have to call the cops to come and sit and to control the speed around the grade school. Hard to get out at Flora and Trent. Ms. Gumm does not see the benefit to the area to add more density when it will just make a hindrance. She stated she supports the other neighbors' comments. AI Komarek, 4916 N. Sunnwale Dr. - wants Planning Commission to talk to the road engineers and ask them why when they build a road that the school district then builds a school on it so that traffic can be slowed down. Mr. Blum stated that this was not related to the public hearing, but he would pass it on. 10/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Sharon Faulk, 16309 E. Broad — Ms. Faulk stated she has two children one in high school and one in middle school who could walk back and forth to school and activities up and down Broad, however they do not let them walk because the traffic is so bad. Adding more traffic to the area would be a nightmare, it would be too dangerous. Ms. Faulk stated she was against this idea. Larry McGuire, 1906 E. Pheasant — Mr. McGuire stated he was interested in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the covenants and was it considered in the future growth? Mr. Blum replied that subject would come up for discussion when the Commission started their deliberations. Ron Caro, 16503 E. Welleslev — Mr. Caro stated that he would like to go on the record that there is a plot that has already been approved by the City that will bring in more traffic to the area. Mr. Caro stated that he doesn't think that is a good decision and he feels that it should be rethought. He stated that the Commission has heard all the concerns from the neighbors about how bad the traffic is already in the area now. Seeing no one else that wished to speak, Commissioner Blum closed the public comment at 6:46. Discussion — Mr. Kuhta asked if there were any general questions that the Commissioners had, before they started discussion of the individual requests. Commissioner Sands asked if the County had adopted a very high number. Not the highest, but a very aggressive number. Commissioner Crosby asked if the covenants had been taken into account. Commissioner Robertson stated he would like more information about this issue. The regional methodology takes approximately 50% of the land right off the top as unusable. Staff explained that in order to look at the covenants it would require going to the assessor's office and the examination the language on every parcel, and there is not enough staff to be able to accomplish this task. Further, that the adopted regional methodology does not include doing this level of research and the appropriate course of action would be to approach the GMA Steering Committee with a suggested change to the methodology - not for the City to independently include this level of analysis. In order for the land to be considered developable it must be 5 times larger that its current zoning. Anything developed in the past 5-10 years would not be able to be sub-divided again. The City does not enforce covenants, only citizens can enforce covenants. The County has build in safety factors to allow for these kinds of issues as the jurisdictions look at their UGA areas. Commissioner Beaulac stated that he had spoken with Dave Jackman from the Central Valley School District about the bond issue that is on the ballot for Nov. 7tn Commissioner Beaulac is concerned that pending the outcome of the bond issue that CVSD will not be able to accommodate more growth in its school district if the bond issue does not pass. Staff stated that no matter what, the property in the UGA areas will be developed to at least the County standards which is 6 unites per acre. The act of the City to define the UGA is the right to enter into joint planning with the county in areas that are designated as our own UGA. If it is not in our UGA then we have no rights to have any say in how the planning is done in those areas. The development will happen either way, just who will plan it is what this is about. Staff stated they have been in contact with the school districts and discussed how the growth will affect them. Commissioner Beaulac is still not comfortable making a decision until after the results of the vote. Commissioner Carroll asked the Staff if they had a specific deadline that they had to make for the County. Staff responded that originally the County wanted a response by Dec. 1S t . The City has informed the County that there was too much to process to be 10/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 able to produce a good recommendation by that time. The County is considering trying to split its Comp Plan update from its UGA update and establish a time line but the City has not had a response from them yet. It was moved by Commissioner Sands to continue the public hearing for the Urban Growth Areas until Nov. 9 2006. it was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff requests any questions that the Commissioners have to get them in advance so they can get answers before the ne� meeting. Commissioner Robertson requested a copy of the recording from the last meeting. Commissioner Carroll asked if there were any areas that the staff did not recommend or support being added to the UGA. IX. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order X. AD70URNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Gail Kogle, Chairperson 10/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4