Minutes - 01/11/2007
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers–City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 11, 2007
I.CALL TO ORDER
ChairwomanKoglecalled the meeting to order at 6:01pm.
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Kogle, Blum, Beaulac, Carroll, Crosby and Sands were present.
Commissioner Robertson was absent, excused.
Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director Community Development, Neil
Kersten, Director Public WorksGreg McCormick, Planning Manager, Karen Kendall,
Assistant Planner,Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant.
III.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Crosbyseconded,and unanimously agreed to approve
the January 11, 2007agenda as presented.
IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve
V.PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were offered
VI.COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Blum stated that he had attended the City Council meeting On Tuesday.
He reported that the Council forwarded to a second reading another six month
extensionofthe UR-1 zoning in the Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres areas, the street
th
vacation for 15and they discussed a consultant to come in and help with the
public/private partnership for the City Center.
Commissioners Carroll, Sands,Crosby, Beaulac and Kogle had nothing to report.
VII.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Sukup reminded the Commissioners that there was a community meeting
th
regarding the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Planon Tuesday January 16at
Decades and that City Hall would be closed on Monday for Martin Luther King Day.
VIII.COMMISSION BUSINESS
OLDBUSINESS:Continued Public Hearing Street Vacation STV-03-06:
Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Commission regarding the
location, properties involved, current uses and existing conditions. Assistant Planner
Kendall reminded the Commission that she had received comments from Public Works
that they do not support this vacation because they feel the street is needed for the
street system, and that the staff recommendation. A.P. Kendall also stated she had
received comment from a property owner that was at the end of Eastern on the Dyer
01/11/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of 3
end of the road opposing the vacation because he uses the road to access his
property. Slides were shown to allow the Commissioners to see where the property
was located.
Planning Manager McCormick stated that Public Works Director Neil Kersten was
attending the meeting in order to answer any questions the Commissioners had.
Neil Kersten,Public Works Director: Mr. Kersten stated that the Public Works
department would not support vacating an improved street in the grid system.
Vacations are basically used for dead ends and left over pieces of rights of way, rights
of way thatare not needed for public access;this road is still needed for public access.
Roads are made to serve the public and allow access for property owners;it becomes a
problem if you start to deny access to property owners. There was no proposed
substitution offered here. Mr. Kersten stated that Penske had raised the issue of
accidents on the street but could not provide a history of any accidents. Mr. Kersten
also explainedthe history and future of the grid system and how it relates to
congestion.
The Commissioners discussed the options, the conditions and the new information
received from a near by property owner’s objection that he will not be able to access
his property with his large trucks if he can not use Eastern. Commissioner Kogle called
for the vote. The vote was five to one, Commissioner Carroll being the one vote
against, recommending to City Council the denial of street vacation STV-03-06.
New Business:Public Hearing Uniform Development(UDC) Code Title 21,
Environmental Controls. Planning Manager McCormick presented to the
Commission the different sections of Title 21, SEPA, Flood Plains, Critical areas and the
Shoreline Master Program. Mr. McCormick explained that each area was highly
controlled by state statute. There were very few exceptionsto the threshold
determinations that the City could make individual adjustments to. In the SEPA part of
the code, thresholds could be changed in the areas of residential dwelling units of 20
units, agricultural buildings of 20,000 square feet, schools of12,000 sq. ft. plus
parking, parking lots of 40 vehicles and grading of up to 500 cubic yards of material.
Mr. McCormick stated that the City is currently operating at the maximum amount
allowable.
Flood Plains are controlled by FEMA and relates to administration, variance provisions
flood hazard reduction and FIRM maps.
Critical Areas discusses class and ratings of the critical areas in our City, buffer areas,
mitigation and restorationplans, fish and wildlife habitat, geological hazards and critical
aquifer recharge areas. Commissioner Beaulac stated he did not think he has seen the
maps that were referenced in this section of the code. Ms. Sukup stated they were the
same ones that were in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Shoreline Management, reflects permitted, conditional and limited uses, discussion of
the ordinary high water mark, which is difficult for some state entities to agree upon,
general provisions of the shorelines, substantial development, conditional use permits
and variances,there areseveralpolicy decisions in this section of the code relating to
allowing new docks/new bulkheadsand their size, location and alignment.
Director Sukup stated that the flood plain regulations were based on model ordinances
however a couple of the changes had come from the recent work on the Chester Creek
Restudy. FEMA has stated that we can adopt the regulations now if the City allows for
compensatory flood storage and pervious cover less than 5%.
01/11/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 3
In the critical areas the Dept. of Natural Resources has updated its wetland ratings,
with a new guideline of 3+1 ways to calculate buffer areas. The proposed code allows
an applicant to select any of three alternatives. Ms Sukup noted that the DNR
regulations specify “bankfull” as the measuring point, as distinguished from the
Ms. Sukup stated
ordinary high water markwhich has been the standard in the past.
also that DNR has an appeal process for the stream classification they have adopted.
Page 39, 21.50.070, conditional use permits, there is nothing under this section
referencing this, Ms. Sukup will fix this and bring it back for review. Ms. Sukupalso
stated that the Commission would be having a public hearing on the Shoreline Master
Program at their next meeting.
Chairperson Kogle opened the public comment at 6:48 pm.
Stan Schultz, 4425 N. Alpine Dr., Liberty Lake-Mr. Schultz stated that he was a land
use attorney for Divcon and Centennial Properties. Mr. Schultz stated that he had
prepared comments on the Shoreline portion of Title 21. His comments address the
set back is listed as 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. His question is why
would you not make it the same as the riparian set back in the critical areas? The
draft SMP states 100 feet set back, while the Critical Areas allow anywhere from 75 to
130 feet, it is basically judged on the same criteria, why not make them the same set
back and simplify things? The riparian set back determination is based on science, and
should be used for this purpose. Mr. Schultz’s other comment was regarding
21.50.020. In the table of permitted uses there are listed environments listed and
urban conservancy is one of them. Mr. Schultz feels that water related commercial
should be allowed in this environment listing. This would relate to any use that would
have a view of the water, multi family residential or possibly a restaurant. It is
considered water related commercial as long as the view of the water is a benefit to
that business or property. Mr. Schultz also stated that the Commission might want to
consider the fact that single family residential does not have to get a permit in a
shoreline permit to build.
The Commissioners stated that they would like to see a copy of Mr. Schultz’s
strikethrough version of the shoreline section ofTitle 21. Mr. Schultz stated he would
be more than happy to provide it. Commissioners wondered how staff felt about the
comments on the table in the shoreline section, about the single family residential
needing a permit, Ms. Sukup stated that she has taken out an exemption of more than
10,000sq ft but would return it to the policy.
Commissioner Crosby made a motion to continue the public hearing on Title 21 to the
January 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Blum, vote was unanimous to continue.
IX.GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Blum stated that he would like to thank staff for assisting him in getting
a copy of the Jan. 11 meeting minutes so he could get updated, in a timely manner.
X.ADJOURNMENT
There beingno other business the meeting was adjournedat 7:27pm
SUBMITTED:APPROVED:
___________________________________________________________
Deanna Griffith, Administrative AssistantGail Kogle, Chairperson
01/11/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of 3