Loading...
Minutes - 03/08/2007 Spokane Valley Planning Commission ApprovedMinutes Council Chambers–City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 8, 2007 I.CALL TO ORDER ChairwomanKoglecalled the meeting to order at 6:06pm. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III.ROLL CALL Commissioners Kogle, Beaulac, Blum, Carroll, Crosby and Robertson were present, Commissioner Sands was excused absent. Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director Community Development, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager, Mary Kate Martin, Building Official, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by CommissionerKoglesecondedby Commissioner Blum,and unanimously agreed to amendthe March 8, 2007agenda to bring the public hearings to the front of the agendabefore the rest of Commission business. V.COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Kogle reviewed the rules of procedure for the conduct during the public hearings. OldBusiness: Public Hearing Uniform Development Code Title 24,Building codes: Commissioner Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:10pm. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin–Ms. Pollard’s comments regarding Title 24 are: Change the day for a building permit to expire from 180 to 270 days Feels mandated back door delivery is unsafe and should not be required Require vapor barrier under vinyl siding, currently reads to exception for vinyl Feels appeals should be more ‘affordable’ th Blighted property should be sure to not violate 4amendment rights for highest and bestuse of property. R-301 does not list radon on the chart, should be added and amended for venting 24.50.030 grading ordinance should allow for consideration of effect on neighbor’s property. 66.7% slope is too steep next to neighboringproperty is too much, there is no provision for retaining walls, too steep a pedestrian walkway left beside the road is not safe, feels there should be a provision to allow the City to mitigate these types of issues until the street standards are rewritten or the grading ordinance can be revisited. Seeing no one else wishing to comment on Title 24, Commissioner Kogle closed the public comment at 6:20 pm. Commissioner Blum made a motion to recommend approval of Title 24, Building Codes, to the City Council. Commissioner Crosby made the second. Commissioner Beaulac had a question about the Wildland Urban Interface. Building Official (BO) Mary Kate 03/08/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of 4 Martin stated that the City was working with the Fire Department to look at this code but it requires creating a scientific report, managing details and they are looking to do findings of fact to bring back to the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked about every fee structure, the fee structureis set by the Master Fee Schedule and is reviewed year and is a separate document. Director Sukup explained that the grading portion is exactly the same as the last time the Commissioners saw it and has not been changed in any way and it is staff’s recommendation that it remain this way for the time being. Commissioner Beaulac asked if there was a monitor for the grading times during the day, work hours are controlled by a state code. Building permits are fairly standard at 180 days, even in a climate like ours responded BO Martin to a question from Commissioner Carroll. Discussion ofgrading slopes and what does and does not need to be engineered and need a permit. Questions about how to make changes to this code later if the PC felt something needed to be changed. Commissioners took the vote on the motion to move Title 24 to Council. Vote is 3 –2, Commissioners Beaulac and Carroll against, Commissioner Robertson stated that he felt that since he had missed the last meeting and had been unable to listen to the minutes that he was not in a position to vote on the matter at this time. Motion passes. Old Business: Continued Public Hearing, Title 19 Uniform Development Code-Zoning,Commissioner Kogle opened the public comment at 6:37 pm Chuck Hafner, 4710 S. Woodruff–appreciates the time the Commission spent reviewing all of the pages of documents. Mr. Hafner’s comments are concerning: R-1 zoning district, dimensionalstandards say 25,000 sq ft per lot but that is not the one acre per lot that the Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres groups have been working towards. Codes states that you must have 40,000 sq ft to keep large animals Please consider changing back the R-1 zoning to 40,000 sq ft. Gail Stiltner, 4710 S. Woodruff–Ms. Stiltner’s comments concerned the following topics: Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres have worked for some timeto try and maintain their areas with one house per acre. R-1 zoning at 25,000 sq ft, regardless of a nice size, would totally change the Ponderosa and Rotchford neighborhoods and create urban sprawl. If this change is made these neighbors faith will be broken in what we have been working towards. The County came in and changed our zoning without notice or explanation and at least you have allowed us the opportunity for a working knowledge. These areas will never be the same if you make this change. will feel like the Council and Commissioners have done nothing but give us lip service time and time again about preserving our neighborhoods. If R-1 needs to be 25,000 sq ft, then please find another way for us to keep it at one house per acre. Provides a unique way of life, you are trying to exclude this. Susan Bishop, 1714 N. Flora Rd. Bell RV 15020 E. Sprague Ave. –Ms Bishop asked for an extension of time for comment, did not realize that our zoning would be downgraded. Currently zoned Regional Commercial, Feels being down-zoned to Mixed Use Corridor. Only going to be allowed in Auto Row and out by the Mall and Freeway. 03/08/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 4 Our business will be considered non-conforming, it feel like illegal to us and it feels like a very negative thing. Feelsit would reduce our property value, consider that it would reduce our sales tax. Ask for more time to review and understand the code changes. Nancy Nishimura, 15103 E. Valleyway, GreenThumb Nursery, 16816 E. Sprague Ave.– Ms Nishimura’s concerns are: More time to review the changes and proposed codes Nurseries are listed as an accessory use. Not sure what that means, can change the property, add on to it, rebuild? Take into consideration how many other nurseries are in the area and how will they all fit into the matrix that you have. th Paul Warfield, Spokane Home Builders Assoc. 5813 E. 4, Mr. Warfield requested on behalf of the Home Builders that they would appreciate that after the Commission is through with the documents 72 hours to 4 days time toreview a red line document and an opportunity to comment on it before it is voted on. Cal Walker, 11917 E. Broadway; Thanks for creating a dialog. Hopingthat what happened to Title 24 does not happen to this title. conversationfrom this morning’s meeting and you just received it today, have not had a chance to review it and you passed on this without consideration. One of the issues was about hard services for driveways, using pavers instead of just asphalt or concrete. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin, thanks for your hard work and please take the time to read all that you have in front of you instead of just going along. Construction ordinances do not need to be tied to noise ordinances. Find out what does and does not work. Schedule of Permitted Uses, there are lots of things that were allowed out in our neighborhoods that are now not allowed that add character to our area, u- pick farms, pond supplies, an extra kitchen if you love to bake, plant farms, Zoning does not appear to match what was there before. Essential Public Facilities, should have local siting procedures, should require a conditional use permit, a public meeting should be held in the Valley and public notice given. There should be good notice and good communications for these facilities. Historic preservation has been neglected. Spokane Valley does not have a contract with the Spokane HistoricPreservation Society, provide this contract by case by case basis. Site plan review should be allowed for neighboring properties to review the site plan, grading and drainage plans before the final review. 19.140, these are too liberal and defeats the purpose of the regulations, should be no more than 10%. Every thing else is 10%. Approval or denial is up to the director. Could add approval should be contingent upon ensuring altered topography does not affect adjacent properties. Mobile homes, why are they only be allowed to put in new? th Sheldon Jackson, 406 E. 14Ave. Looking at new zoning codes, anything that was zoned B-3, regional commercial that will no longer be a B-3 or regional commercial would be 03/08/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of 4 considered a down zone. Some areas going from B-3 to neighborhood commercial. This will be a downzone and will have a dramatic effect on their property. Commission Robertson moved to continue the public hearingfor Title 19to March 22, with public comment and have staff build a matrix of comments received. Seconded and passes unanimously. Commissionersmoved, seconded and passed to recall the vote for forwarding the recommendation of Title 24 to the City Council. It was moved, seconded and passed th unanimously to continue the public hearing for Title 24, Building Codes to April 12. New Business–No new Business VI.APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve VII.PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin, Regarding a path in the Ponderosa Area, Ms. Pollard believes it is time to create a Parks Committee. Staff can not do it all and the Community can carry this project, develop ideas, parks and plants and bring ideas forward to the Planning Commission. VIII.COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners Robertson and Kogle both reported that they are now members of Metropolitan Transportation PlanReview Committee with the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee. Commissioner Kogle reported that there was good turn out st for the March 1presentation of the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan st recommendation. Commissioner Sands reported that she attended the March 1 presentation and the presentation of that recommendation to the Valley Chamber the next day that was give by Senior Planner, Scott Kuhta. Commissioners Blum, Crosby, Beaulac and Carroll had nothing other to report than attending the presentation on st . March 1 IX.AMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Sukup reported that she was holding meetings in Council Chambers from 2:00 to 5:00 pm, this Friday (Mar. 9) and next (Mar. 16) for discussions of the UDC. She was working on providing a strike-through version of the sign code for Council discussion. X.GOOD OF THE ORDER Planning Commission agendas on the Web are not current and in light of public interest we should work to make them more current. XI.ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjournedat 8:03pm SUBMITTED:APPROVED: ___________________________________________________________ Deanna Griffith, Administrative AssistantGail Kogle, Chairperson 03/08/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 4of 4