Loading...
Minutes - 02/22/2007 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers–City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 22, 2007 I.CALL TO ORDER ChairwomanKoglecalled the meeting to order at 6:08pm. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III.ROLL CALL Commissioner Fred Beaulac –PresentCommissioner Gail Kogle –Present Commissioner Bob Blum –PresentCommissionerIan Robertson –Absent, excused Commissioner John G. Carroll –PresentCommissioner Marcia Sands–Present CommissionerDavid Crosby –Absent, excused Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director Community Development, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager, Mary Kate Martin, Building Official, Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner,Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by CommissionerCarrollsecondedby Commissioner Beaulac,and unanimously agreed to amendthe February 22, 2007agenda to bring the public hearings to the front of the agenda. It was unanimously approved to do so. V.COMMISSION BUSINESS OLDBUSINESS: There was no old business Commissioner Kogle reviewed the rules of procedure for the conduct during the public hearings. New Business: Public Hearing Uniform Development Code Title 24, Building codes: Commissioner Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:10 pm. Building Official Mary Kate Martin made a short presentation regarding the proposed building codes relating to the International Building Codes, adopting the Washington State building codes in June of 2007. Ms. Martin explained that the local amendments do not cover property maintenance and explained that the definitions of blight and drug properties. Mary Pollard, 17216 E.Baldwin –Ms. Pollard concernswere Thepublic only had a one week to comment on the development code. Thegrading section stated grading of onevertical unit to two horizontal units, would not need a permit. Ms. Pollard said that in front of her house that this was not the case andthat this section did not take into effect of the consequences for people. 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of7 The grading ordinance needs to reference the building of retaining walls in necessary cases, such as in front of her house. The City needs to take into account slopes that go nowhere, wheelchair access, grades slopes, that a side yard at one home could be the back yard of someone else’s home, which would come under different regulations. Feelsthe grading section shouldalsoaddress noise and vibration.Ms. Pollard also said that you should be aware that if you raise the dirt at one property, how it would effect surrounding property. Wouldencourage the Commission to have a meeting where you have more public dialog. Margaret Mortz, 3420 S. Ridgeview Dr.: Ms. Mortz’s comments concerned the following topics: designate the Ponderosa area as a Urban Wildland Interface Area o make this area UWI by local amendment, o require water supply as part of concurrency o Makesure that there are appropriate egresses and ingresses in the o Ponderosa area before allowing more development. Closed public testimony for title 24, Commissioner Beaulac made a motion to continue the public th hearing until March 8;it was seconded and passed unanimously New Business: Public Hearing Uniform Development Code, Title 19 Zoning –Planning Manager Greg McCormick made a presentation on things contained into Joe Organic, 220 W. Main – zoning matrix seems to have inconsistencies o not much time to review titles o FJ Dullanty, 422 W. Riverside, FeelsUDC is concentratingtoo much on uses, what do you care what o the use is. Concentrateon design standards, like proposing in the o Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Non conforming rightsshould be worried about removing rights from o people. GMA is about protecting rights, new comp plan and regulations to implement it makes for rights in the City but non-conforming uses take away rights. City should be more flexible. UR-22 had multiple uses allowed now they o are not, now they would be legal non-conforming uses. Need to look at how you will impact small businesses. Bill Szabrowicz, 15716 E. Sprague Ave. Has anautomobile repair and towing business. Would like to move it. 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of7 Found out can only move it to light industrial with new plan, not a lot of places to do that. With old zoning could do it all along Sprague and lots of other places. There is no wherein the Valley now that I could move my business, what am I suppose to do now? Dick Harmon, 17610 E. Mission Ave.; People keep saying that the zones are the same but UR-3.5 is 10,000 sq ft and R-2 is 7,500 sq ft –how is that the same? You are going to change my zoning again and not tell me. Where is the map? Where are you going to put these R-1, R-2, R-3, Canwe get an extension on the time to look at these things? Pete Miller, 18124 E. Mission Marina told me horses would be allowedon my property. o As an R-2 zone I will be conforming because I have 40,000 sq ft o however I have a huge issue when you deny the rights of a property owner th Gail Stiltner, 10119 E. 44, 19.40.010, single family estate, it will change the characterof the existing development if you allow the minimum lot size to be less than 40,000 sq ft, however it is wonderful that you have continued to allow us to have animals. Accessory dwelling units, in some areas these accessory units have become large homes. It does help to limit it to two bedrooms but people just get around that by calling them something other than bedrooms, just to meet the codes. This is a concern to us. 19.40 Manufactured homes, are they allowed in all areas that are notcovered by covenants? Home Occupations, It says traffic greater than normal, this is not easy to define. In some places where traffic is already high, it would be dangerous, say to put a day care withsmall children. Animal raising and keeping, 40,000 sq ft is the correct amount of land, hoping. I have been informed that llamas should not be grouped with horses and cows as large animals but under the smaller breeds since they do less damage to the area. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin: Amendments to the comp plan which are a benefit to the whole o community should not be fee based. There should be clear criteria for zoning o Why do we need a designation about dependants and dependants o should not have tosubdivide Need a construction ordinance –worry about noise pollution o 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of7 Beg you to have workshops and open dialog to discuss and understand o these codes and regulations Nancy Nishimura, 15013 E. Valleyway; Feels it would be very sad to take away the animals o Don’t take away the rights of people to use their property as they wish o Have more meetings and dialog like the corridor workshops o Chuck Hafner, 4710 S. Woodruff: Have questions for better rational for changing UR-1 from 40,000 sq ft to 25,000 sq ft-have been working toward this for past 4 years. Want to keep the zoning dimensions in the UR-1 as they are. Cal Walker, 11917 E. Broadway, Too much information to digest in this short amount of time. Ask for o more time to look at these regulations. Ask to have regulations state the Director or designee –too much o control for one person and what do you do if she is away on vacation or sick? Gene Strunk, 12920 E. Broadway: Staff has a large task that is dictated by Olympia and they are forced to try and comply Everyone in this room has an agenda The purpose of these hearings is to look into the future and comply with the laws that are handed down by Olympia Staff is trying to strike a balance between the citizens and the charge they have been tasked with. It is not the fault of the Commission if you have not done your homework before now and you have come here with an agenda You people think that you can stop development just because you want it to be so The people who are not here are depending on you (staff and Commission) to make the right decisions for them Seeing no one else who chose to step up and speak the public comment portion of the hearing was closed at 7:34/ New Business –Public Hearing Uniform Development Code Title 22 Development Standards Open public hearing at 8:14 Slide presentation Public testimony opened at 8:33 Don Skillingstad, 12730 E. Mirabeau Parkway; 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 4of7 Outdoor lighting –feels the lighting formula does not work well Would not work now along the sidewalks along streets would have to set itback 10 feet from the sidewalk to get the pole high enough Auto Row lights are not contained in anyway and are non-conforming, Sprague street lights would be non-conforming Developers have safety concerns, in order to get the foot candle standards;you would have to double the amount of poles now to generate enough light. You would have to tilt the light in order to keep the light from leaving the property but then you have an issue with being able to see the light bulb th Joel White, CEO Spokane Home Builders Association, 5813 E. 4Ave.: Commend for continue hearing on Title 19 Home Builders have a committee looking at this, you are seeing some of the response to that We want to build good neighborhoods We will bring back more comments back Set a meetingwith the neighborhoods Encourage you to continue this hearing until March 8, or later. th Tom Vandervert, 4406 E. 15, Mr. Vandervert turned in a handout with pictures of parking lots and addresses the parking standards. Based on the new parking standards many of the current stores in the area would not be able to meet the requirements. Target, Wal-Martand Costco were examples given. The amount of parking stall in the 300 foot requirement is difficult to achieve. Landscaping point system is innovative,but if you want landscaping in the parking area, it takes up parking stalls making it more difficult to meet the requirements. Margaret Mortz, 3420 S. Ridge View Dr.: Concurrency and emergency access –transportation requirement for evacuation in a wildland urban interface area. You would have conflict. Need more access, but don’t feel you have the money to create one but you could with a controlled access one across the railroad tracks. Need a walking path for kids who can not get out except on foot In your landscaping index you need a sub appendix that has a list of plants that are fire safe and will not explode in a fire, you can check with the University of Idaho or Colorado Concurrency and zoning need to overlap in a wildfire area th Duane Halliday,1612 E. 64: 22.110 Billboards, Member of the Ad Hoc sign committee, when wrote the billboard standards, they did not get everything they wanted but they 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 5of7 compromised and the standard of 1000 feet apart with an offset of 250 on the opposite side of the street. It is difficult once a billboard comes down, to replace it. We have to acquire a demo permit for it to come down with a 5 year time frame to get it back up. In that time frame you must find a piece of land that is zoned properly, meets spacing requirements and a willing landowner. Ask that you consider all of the time that we spent putting this document together and it is a great document. Commissioner Blum made a motion to extend the time to 9:30;it was seconded and passed unanimously. Richard Harmon, 17610 E. Mission: Would like Marina to show how R-2 is UR-3.5. This is misleading. UR-3.5 has a lot size of 10,000 sq ft, R-2 is 7,500 sq ft. It is not the same. Our neighborhood went around and collected money to stay at UR-3.5 and now this is being slipped in on us. Are you going to notify all of these people? I don’t think R-2 is right for us and maybe R-1 is not right, maybe we need a R- 1A or something Concurrency, I don’t agree with Council that schools should not be considered as partof concurrency. Nancy Nishimura, 15103 E. Valleyway: Sign committee member, concerned about portable signs o Banners that are a requirement of vendors for co-op monies o .050 permitted signs, what if the banners are required by the business? o Pete Miller, 18124 E. Mission: Looking at the standards table, the minimum lot width and depth do not add up to the lot size. Have been told that this is not necessary. Need to have this explained better. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin: Lighting standards, concerned that the standards are not written clearly. Concurrency, Schools should be a part of direct of concurrency. Other cities have written ordinances to make schools part of direct concurrency. Waste water treatment plant, accident waiting to happen. Need to prepare for capacity. Bozemancharges $1100 in waste water impact fees. Grading, you must write the neighbors into the process, easements spill out on someone else’s property, and thenyou are planning someone’s property with out their permission. Front yard fencing should be allowed higher so a dog can not jump the fence. Application process we do not have a stake in what happens at the hearing. 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 6of7 th Gail Stiltner, 10119 E. 44 22.20.020, concurrency with development Transportation –ready when o development occurs, as it occurs or a financial commitment to occur within six years. This is way too broad. In a neighborhood impacted by transportation six years does not give o much hope. Make this much more specific. Worried about applications/permits that willbe submitted prior to these o rules taking effect that would be contrary to what we are trying to do here. No one else wishing to speak stepped up to the microphone. Commissioner Beaulac moved to continue the public hearing until March 22, 2007. It was seconded and passed unanimously. VI.APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve VII.PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments were offered VIII.COMMISSION REPORTS IX.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS X.GOOD OF THE ORDER XI.ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjournedat 9:24pm SUBMITTED:APPROVED: ___________________________________________________________ Deanna Griffith, Administrative AssistantGail Kogle, Chairperson 02/22/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 7of7