Minutes - 01/25/2007
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Draft Minutes
Council Chambers–City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 25, 2007
I.CALL TO ORDER
ChairwomanKoglecalled the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Kogle, Blum, Beaulac, Carroll, Robertson and Sands were present.
Commissioner Crosby was absent.
Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director Community Development, Greg
McCormick, Planning Manager, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant.
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Beaulacseconded,and unanimously agreed to approve
the January 25, 2007agenda as presented.
V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Blum stated that in the 1/11/07minutes it was incorrectly stated that
the ordinance requesting a 6-month extension of the UR-1 zoning in Ponderosa and
Rotchford Acres had been approved. It had in fact been forwarded to a second
reading. It was moved by Commissioner Blum to approve the 12/14/06 minutes as
presented and the 1/11/07 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded and
passed unanimously.
VI.PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were offered
VII.COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Blum reported that he attended the Community Meeting for the
Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Planwhere good information was shared. At the City
Council meeting STV-04-07and the UR-1 zoning in the Ponderosa and Rotchford Areas
were both approved. Commissioner Beaulac reported that he also attended a good
community meeting regarding the corridor, a Conversation with the Community in the
Ponderosa area where they discussed neighborhood issues.
Commissioners Kogle, Carroll, Robertson and Sands had nothing to report.
VIII.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Sukup reported that approx. 95 people attended the Sprague/Appleway
th
Revitalization PlanCommunity Meeting on January 16. The Director briefed the
Council on Title 21 on Tuesday night. The Ad Hoc sign committee will be here on Feb.
th
to discuss the sign code and the decisions that they suggested.
8
IX.COMMISSION BUSINESS
Old Business Public Hearing Uniform Development Code (UDC) Title 21,
Environmental Controls.
01/25/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of 3
Commissioner Kogle reopened the public hearing at 6:15 pm. Director Sukup gave the
Commission a different presentation to attempt to assist them in understanding how the
Shoreline program overlaps the CriticalAreas Program. Director Sukup stated that the
policy issues are:
Regarding SEPA -Policy Question Should the City continue with the optional thresholds
adopted by Spokane County?
Regarding the Critical Areas -Policy Question: The proposed ordinance is significantly
more rational in dealing with flood prone areas. The analysis was a result of the Chester
Creek restudy which will permit evidence of compensatory storage in-lieu of limitations
on impervious cover.
Regarding the Wetlands -Policy Question: DOE has outlined three alternative
approaches (plus one variation on alternative 3) to wetlands regulation. Alternative 1 is
the only alternative permitted under our interim regulations. The proposed regulations
would allow an applicant to elect among the three alternatives outlined by DOE to
establish wetland buffers.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation -Policy Question: Should the Director’s authority to allow
reductions in the riparian buffer be reduced from 25% to 10%?
Geological Hazards -Policy Question: Proposed regulations determined only by the
results of a geo-technical report, as is currently the case. Note that some provisions
relate to grading and excavating included in Title 24-Building Regulations.
Critical Aquifer recharge areas -Policy Question: Should containment of Critical Materials
be included here or a part of Title 24 Building Regulations, as is the case with Spokane
County? While the public hearing draft does not include it, it would be prudent to
incorporate it here as a part of the CARA.
Shoreline Master Program -Policy Questions:Setbacks from the Ordinary High Water
Mark(OHWM)increased from 50 feet to 100feet? Alternately, the Riparian Management
Zone (RMZ) may be established as the “Shoreline Buffer. Should there be prohibitions
on new docks for single family residential? Should there be limitation on size and
alignment of replacement docks? This should be retained, even if new docks should be
permitted, although the dimensions may be revised. Are the Shoreline Environments
properly identified on the maps? Are additional uses allowed by right, with a conditional
use permit, or otherwise limited appropriate within the Shoreline jurisdiction?
Seeing no wishing to testify Commissioner Kogle closed the public testimony reserving
the right to reopen it in the event that some would wish to comment later.
Commissioners have a discussion with staff over subjects in title 21
New Business: Public Hearing Shoreline Master Program
X.GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI.ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjournedat 7:27pm
SUBMITTED:APPROVED:
01/25/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 3
___________________________________________________________
Deanna Griffith, Administrative AssistantGail Kogle, Chairperson
01/25/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of 3