Minutes - 03/22/2007
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers – City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 22, 2007
I.CALL TOORDER
ChairwomanKogle called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm.
II.PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Kogle, Beaulac, Blum, Carroll, Crosby,Robertsonand Sands were
present.
Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director Community Development, Greg
McCormick, Planning Manager, DeannaGriffith, Administrative Assistant.
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Crosby seconded by Commissioner Blum, and
unanimouslyagreed to amend the March 22, 2007 agenda to bring the public hearings
to the front of the agenda before the rest of Commission business.
V.COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Kogle reviewed the rules of procedure for the conduct during the public
hearings.
Old Business: Public Hearing Uniform Development Code Title 19, Zoning
codes:Commissioner Kogle opened the public hearing at 6:05 pm.
Bill Brooks, 1066 S. Wall – Mr. Brooks’ concerns were:
Shared access, when you have conflicting uses and one has more traffic than
anotheruse.Not always compatible,believesthey can work, but not by simple
line in the code.How willyou enforce it, whowill maintain it, questions must be
agreed to buy property owners.
16 foot drive isle, thiswill have a severe impacton property, reduces
developableproperty by 42%, UPS and FEDEX are not going to use a back door,
owners and sales people will not leave showroom,heavy handed for City to say
how to do it.
Scheduleof Permitted Uses – Have property that iscurrently B-3, looking at the
new matrix, now zoning would be Community Commercial, now can not have a
warehouse use on property. This is wrong.
th
Paul Warfield, 5813 E. 4 – Mr. Warfield’s comments are:
Happy to have more hearings,all that is missing now is which of the comments
have been incorporated
Would like ared line document,a matrix showing the changes and the rational
for those changes.
Chuck Hafner, 4710 S. Woodruff:
After almost4 years and still asking to have Ponderosaand Rotchford Acres area
zoned to 40,000 sq. ft. per home.
Why changeR-1to 25,000 sq. ft.? staff owesan explanation for this change.
Why not listening to public input?
FJDullanty Jr.,422 W. Riverside:
03/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
Non-conforming uses, had concerns but worked with staff to change codes and
feels it is better than before.
Has concerns about the shared access and will submit written commentssoon.
th
Gail Stiltner, 10119 E. 44:
Feels that 25,000 sq ft. is a nice lot size but does not preserve the character of
the Ponderosa neighborhood. Wants Ponderosato be one house per acre.
Concerns that a separate dwelling unit goes beyond the concept of a granny flat,
can and will be used for other than the intended purpose.
Mary Pollard,17216 E. Baldwin:
Does not feel that Essential Public Facilities, like a drug treatment facility,should
be allowed in a residentialzone.
Schedule of permitted uses - Wonders why an orchard is only allowed in an
industrial zone, trees need open space and good air quality.
Plan open spaces in new developmentnext to existing open space or contribute
to park space.
More planning with the schools, have a planner at the school district, coordinate
the cost for concurrency.
JohnMiller, 5817 E. Burnhill, Colbert:
Owns Pinecroft Business Park. Concerned that the Schedule of PermittedUses is
too restrictive.Have plenty of differentkinds of tenantsthat have very different
typesof businesses. Can’t have a contractors yard for my headquarters, not
zones for bio-tech but have one in the park now, be more open about uses.
Kevin Rindlisbacher, 2710 N ShaleshanLane, 13418 E. Nora:
Mr. Rindlisbacher owns the Steinway Pianos Gallery. New property for Gallery,
land use comp plan is Office, right next to Regional Commercial. Do not
understand classification or if business will be allowed on the property.
Doesnot understand non-conforming use. Not a lot of optionsto be near I-90,
concernedabout ability to conduct business near the freeway.
Bob Boyle, 15807 E. Indiana:
Has property in mixed-use area, workswell for us, as well regional commercial.
Has submitted additional comments for consideration, hoping Planning
Commission will takeit into review.
DeannaHormann, 13919 S. Shamrock:
She and her neighborsstill want the R-1 zoning to be 40,000 sq ft. Stated that
the neighbors were not happy that it was changed to25,000 sq ft..
TomThacher, 17015 E. Valleyway:
Concerned that zoning is fading agriculture out of the neighborhoods. Has had
an apple orchard in the valley for generations.
Feels the zoning should be less restrictive and let people make money off of their
property.
Dr. Philip Rudy, 5647 N. Fruit Hill:
Table 22.40-2 concerning maximum building height. Suggests making it
unlimited in the City Center. Concentrate people vertically in smaller land uses.
Provide for mass transit.
Bill Coyle, 1508 N. Fruit Hill Rd.:
Nursery business is currently B-3, business future is secure with this zoning.
Also fits his long range business plans
New regulations make non-conforming and limits his ability to sell in the future
and decreases his property value.
Disturbed that businesses were not notified in writing, questioned the notification
process.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Kogle closed the public
testimony. CommissionerCrosby made a motion to continue Title 19 to April 12, with
03/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
th
written comment to close on April 6. Commissioner Robertson seconded it. After
discussion Commissioner Crosby amended his motion to close written public comment by
nd
theclose of business on April 2. Vote was unanimous in favor. Commissioners set a
th
deliberation meeting for March 29.
Old Business: Public Hearing Uniform Development Code Title 22,
Development Standards:Commissioner Kogle opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm.
Don Skillingstad, 15xxx E.Mirabeau Parkway:
Submitted written comment previously regarding the outdoor lighting formula.
Concerned that the formula for the lighting standards will not work property.
Submittedadiagram that illustrates how you cancontrol the light and lighting
fixtures.Taller the pole isthe more light you can throw out.
The way proposed formula is written, requires more light poles, does not
properly allow for light in all areas, can create a security issue. Allow for
property owners to share light.
Feels measuring the foot candle, no more than .25 foot candlecan leave the
property, which he equated to the same as a full moon.
Would like to see the requirement for shielded lights removed.Will not allow for
some more decorative fixtures.
Kevin Miller, 10319 E. Sprague Ave., Fire Marshall:
The fire department would like to request that to the sign regulations that no
sign may block the view of fire protection equipment upon approach.
Bob Boyle, Hanson Industries, 15807 E.Indiana:
Submitted written comments regarding the Schedule of Permitted Uses, hopes
the Commission will take into consideration.
Concerned that the outdoor lighting formula will notserve businesses well.
Allows for shorter poles instead of taller poles with better light. Not a cost issue,
interferes with traffic. Current projectwould haveone 30’ pole now would be
allowedsix 5’ poles.
16 foot drive isle behind buildings does not seem practical in most cases.
vehicle parking, why do compact cars need to be segregated fromother typesof
parking?
Loading docks, less important for certainusers, different businesses need it in
different places, notall in the back.
Landscaping and buffering - Give the owner more flexibility. Vertical buffering
over important, more credit for xeriscaping.
Mary Pollard,17216 E. Baldwin:
Requests that full buffering in residential neighborhoods be required.
Outdoor lighting, please preserve the night sky, sent emails with websites that
talk about how to accomplish this.
3 foot fence,is too short,needsomethingtaller, especially since her fenceis 30
inches belowthe grade of the road.
FJDullanty Jr.,422 W. WallSt.:
Mr. Dullanty suggests making a rule making process, for conditions on permits,
so that things can not arbitrary, conditions will be consistent.
Suggests additional language for Title 22, “whenever the City conditions any
permit, or requires additional information in processingan application fora
permit, it may do so as follows: 1. Conditionswith respect to permit or request
for additional informationpursuant to an applicationfor a permit must be based
upon written adopted standards. 2. Conditions required to mitigate a known
environmental impact, which has been disclosed by some environmental
documentsubmitted pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.”
03/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
Concurrency,confusion in a section below must have a certificate of concurrency
but from the agencies that can not dictate direct concurrency. Should not
require a certificate if can not hold up a project because you have to have it.
22.40-1 requiring an additional 10% open space for multi family and not allowed
to use the landscapedareas could become onerous to the developers
Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Kogle closed the public
testimony at 7:25. Commissioner Crosby made a motion to continue Title 22 to April
12, with written comment to close on April2nd. CommissionerRobertsonseconded it.
CommissionerCrosby also requested staff bring back comments regarding some of the
issues raisedregarding elementsof the title. Vote was unanimous in favor.
New Business – No new Business
VI.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
nd
Commissioner Crosby made a motion to approve the minutes from Feb. 22 as
presented; it was seconded and passedunanimously.CommissionerBlum made a
th
motion to approve the minutes from March 8 as presented; it was also seconded and
passed unanimously.
VII.PUBLIC COMMENT
The was no public comment
VIII.COMMISSION REPORTS
th
Commissioner Blum reported that he attended the City Council meeting on March 20.
Itemsthat were discussed was the Council going to a paperlessagendasystem and a
sign code update. Commissioners Kogle, Crosby, Beaulac, Robertson, Sands and
Carroll had nothing to report.
IX.AMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Sukup reported thatthe City Council was updated on the sign regulations;
authorized a consultant to assist the City with the negotiations on the City Center
property; discussed charging for street vacations; and discussed a proposed public
records ordinance.
X.GOOD OF THE ORDER
th
5:00 pm on March 29 for a Study Session.
XI.ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
___________________________________________________________
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Gail Kogle,Chairperson
03/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4