Minutes - 12/11/2008 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
December 11, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
All Commissioners were present.
Staff attending the meeting: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Lori Barlow,
Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Kogle, seconded and unanimously agreed to accept the
December 11, 2008 agenda as presented.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Munson thanked Commissioners Beaulac and Kogle for their service on the
Planning Commission on behalf of the City Council and presented them with certificates
of appreciation and pins with the city logo. Mayor Munson then announced that Tom
Towey and Joe Mann were approved by the council and appointed to the Planning
Commission. Councilmember Gothmann also thanked them for their hard work.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
No Commission reports
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager McCormick said the ne� meeting will be January 8, 2009 and a
short course session January 22, 2009 with CTED.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Old Business — Continued Public Hearing, Title 19, 19.110.030, Airport
Hazard Overlay
Chair Robertson opened the Public Hearing at 6:13 p.m. Associate Planner
Kendall explained the reason for the continuation of the public hearing for the
Airport Overlay Zone was to allow time for the airport groups to review and meet
with city staff to provide comment. She said staff inet with Spokane International
Airport and made some changes based on their recommendations. She said staff
has received one additional public comment from Washington State Department
of Aviation and she will distribute it to the commissioners.
Ms. Kendall said the area being discussed is residential zoning district within zone
6 of the overlay zone. She said Option 1 is no change to the current density
limitations. Option 2 allows density of current zone districts within zone 6. Option
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7
3 limits the zoning in zone 6 to the density limitations of current zone 2. She said
this would not be a re-zone of all the parcels, but would be an overlay of density
restrictions in R2 which is a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Option 4
would allow density of zone 6 but development must comply with one of three
following criteria: a.) The site has water or sewer stubs installed; b.) Contiguous
parcels with a minimum lot size less than or equal to the underlying zone; or c.)
More than one residence located on the property. She said staff also wants to
have language on the face of mylars for final plats and subdivisions located
within zone 6 stating that sound proof ineasures will be taken and a note that
the lot is located within the airport hazard overlay zone and it is subject to
increased noise levels. Option 5 is to split zone 6 on the north and south side of
Trent. Ms. Kendall said staff recommends Option 4 to allow density limitations in
the underlying zone but allow development that complies with one of the three
criteria and language be placed on the final mylars serving as notification of
increased noise levels and soundproofing on all new construction.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if the soundproofing would be universal and how it
would be enforced. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the builder to notify people
and it would be based upon the federal regulations for soundproofing. She said
there is nothing in our building code and at this time there is no interest in
adding it to our code.
Ms. Kendall added that in response to liability questions, the city attorney said
that the City can adopt zoning regulations that are reasonably designed to
ensure the public health, safety, and welfare. To protect against later claims for
noise we can require a title notice that the property is within the airport hazard
overlay zone and that noise or other disturbances from traffic may occur. She
said the city attorney concluded that in general he does not see any liability
issues if the ordinance stays as is.
Chair Robertson invited public comment:
Carter Timmerman, 3704 172 St., Arlington, WA — Representing the
Washington State Dept. of Transportation Aviation Division (WSDOT-AD). He
said WSDOT-AD is concerned that the increases in allowable residences in this
zone will affect the long-term operational viability of Felts Field and recommends
the Planning Commission deny the request or table the proposal until a full
analysis of all the issues are addressed. He said WSDOT-AD has concluded that
options 2, 3, and 4 are in contradiction with the regulations of the GMA and that
option 1 is the only option that doesn't allow for the substantial encroachment on
Felts Field. He said the review did not address the characteristics of the airport
future operations for impacts which is a requirement of the GMA. He said noise is
only one of four issues to be addressed and others include: land use, airspace
obstructions and safety. WSDOT-AD recommends option 1: no change to current
residential density. Commissioner Sands asked if WSDOT-AD would be available
to help staff if they recommend further analysis. Mr. Timmerman said he works
for WSDOT-AD and looks forward to working with them in the future.
Commissioner Eggelston asked how long an analysis would take. Mr. Timmerman
said he has no answer to that question and that it depends on the city's
resources.
Edie Strekher, 5813 E. 4 Ave — Ms. Strekher is the Legislative Affairs
Coordinator for the Spokane Homebuilders Association which supports the effort
to increase residential density in this area. She said they are in support of option
2 that allows for the greatest development. She said she believes home buyers
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7
understand the conditions in that area of increased noise, fumes, and light when
they move there.
Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane — Mr. Hume said he is in support of
options 4 or 2 because zone 6 is a noise zone, not a crash zone so he doesn't
think it is an issue of density; therefore because zone 6 is zoned residential they
should allow the new construction of the 388 units (to full build-out).
Mike King, 9300 E. Sprague Ave. — Mr. King said he is a pilot and does training at
Felts Field and is speaking on behalf of Life River Fellowship Church located on
the corner of Park and Buckeye. He said they think the overlay zone is too far
reaching. He said the air traffic pattern of planes does not go over this area. He
said the church is concerned with the non-conforming use and the potential for
the property to lose its value or its usage. He said with regard to noise, railroads
cause more noise than the aircraft at Felts Field; there is no jet traffic, only light
and small aircraft. He said his major concern is within the crash zone because
there is no air traffic there; the planes don't fly over that area and if they lose
control they still do not come in from that angle because it is not practical. He
recommends further study as we do not have all the facts.
Jerry Baur, 2410 N. Cherry St. — Mr. Baur said he is a private pilot and said he
thinks the problem will always be noise and that the City will still be sued even if
they are not liable. He said if housing density is increased it is likely people will
move in who don't like the noise and who will say they had no idea there was an
airport there, despite the notification on the plat. He supports option 1 and
encourages the City staff to work with WSDOT-AD.
John Townsley, 607 W. Montgomery Ave. — He said he is a pilot and flies out of
Felts Field frequently and doesn't think there is a great deal of risk in exploring
the issues further. He said the decision the Planning Commission makes could
have long-term consequences so they need to make good decisions. He urges
caution and deliberation and said there is no reason to rush to a determination;
with the recession right now there is no rush to build so we should take the time.
He said the biggest complaint is noise and the noise is louder in warmer weather
because it is harder for planes to climb in warm temperatures and people are
likely outside so they will hear it and they will feel the vibrations.
Jon Gordon, 7105 E. Euclid — Mr. Gordon said he is out of the flight path but has
lived in two different homes in this neighborhood. He said he has called the FAA
with concerns about pilots flying outside of the flight paths as they approach the
runway and they have not been addressed. He said there is also a dirt and gravel
road in the area that doesn't meet EPA because it should have been paved as
indicated on the airport's original plan. He said Felts Field is used for flight
instruction causing potential hazard, as well has home-built planes that are not
constructed to strict standards. He said the proposal for language on the plat
serving as notification to homeowners is typically not large enough once it is
reduced in size for the title report so homeowners may not be aware of the
notice. He said overall he thinks the overlay zone is relatively large and the area
is too big but it should be held to no growth to eliminate hazards in the area.
Raymond Gunning, 6215 N. Theirman — Mr. Gunning said he loves the planes at
Felts Field but he doesn't want the airport to hinder development. He is a
proponent of option 4 or option 2 with some revisions. He said the area is a
noisy neighborhood with the train, the mill, and the airport and the longer this
decision takes, the more resources and money is going to be spent and wasted.
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7
Chair Robertson invited further comments from staff; none offered. Pub/ic
comments were c%sed at 7.•OS p, m.
Commissioner Carroll asked staff what the probability of an accident occurring in
zone 6 is likely to be. Ms. Kendall said that information probably comes from the
state aviation guidelines where the traffic zones and flight patterns were
developed; she said she can follow up to provide that information to the
commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Beau/ac, and seconded, to propose adoption of
option 4 to the City Counci/. Mr. Beaulac said he is in favor of option 4 because
there are 2000 other residents in the community that haven't complained, it is a
community that has been allowed to develop and he doesn't think new
development will make much of a difference. Commissioner Kogle asked staff if
Spokane International Airport (SIA) offered any input. Ms. Kendall said she spoke
with Ryan Sheehan, the manager of Felts Field through SIA, who said he was
unable to attend the meeting today but had no further comments to share. She
said they had met with SIA previously, but they did not offer an opinion to staff.
Commissioner Sharpe said he favors option 2 because this area has been in
existence for a long time and it is an area that has the potential for fill-in
development. He also said that the reason people buy houses near an airport is
affordability; the cost of land is less. Commissioner Carroll said he thinks they are
recognizing growth that already exists and could be developed along with the
airport and option 4 recognizes that co-development. Commissioner Kogle said
she agrees, but is sensitive to the airports and doesn't want to jeopardize them.
Commissioner Sands said she has seen airports shut down and it has been due
to residential in-fill. She said Felts Field is a unique feature of this area and she
wants it to thrive. She said originally she thought the overlay zone was a
forward-thinking plan to help save the airport. She is in favor of option 4 but
would like the city to take time and allow WSDOT-AD to bring more information
to the planning commission. Commissioner Eggleston said he is frustrated they
did not receive more information from WSDOT-AD and Felts Field when they had
been asked and had been given more time. He said he is in favor of option 4 and
he agrees we should give more time to get more information. but he doesn't
want to wait forever. �ote by show ofhands: In favor.• Commissioners Sharpe,
Carro/% and Beau/ac. Opposed.� Commissioners Kog/e, Sands, Egg/eston, and
Robertson. Motion Fai/ed.
It was moved by Commissioner Sands, and seconded, that staff work with
WSDOT-AD fora period ofthree months (to conduct their analysis and present it
at a future meeting). Chair Robertson asked for clarification of process and
whether we need to set a specific date for this item to come back before the
commission. Planning Manager McCormick said they can continue the hearing to
a date certain or they can close the hearing and re-advertise and re-open the
hearing. Mr. McCormick said they need direction as to what information the
commission is seeking. Commissioner Sands invited Mr. Timmerman to comment
as to the information he would help provide. He said he recommends they work
with the airport on flight patterns, current and planned operations, and
conducting a risk assessment. He said he offers his services at no charge to the
City. Commissioner Sands recommended someone from the real estate
community join in the discussion for a fair and balanced conversation.
Commissioner Eggleston asked if this analysis can be completed in three months.
Mr. Timmerman said he can not guarantee anything. �ote by acc/amation: In
Fa vor.• Commissioners Robertson, Carro/% Egg/eston, Kog/e, Sands, and Sharpe.
Opposed.� Commissioner Beau/ac. Motion passed.
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7
Chair Roberston called for a break at 7:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30
p.m.
B. New Business — Public Hearing, Title 20, Subdivisions
Associate Planner Lori Barlow explained the purpose of the public hearing is to
discuss the proposed Title 20 updates and develop a recommendation to council
to either approve the updates as proposed, approve the updates with
modifications, or to recommend council not adopt the proposed updates. She
introduced Henry Allen from Development Engineering and Rich Waltrip of David
Evans and Associates who provide comments and guidance for plat review for
Spokane Valley; both are able to answer any technical questions from the
commission. She reviewed for the commission that Title 20 was adopted in 2007
as part of the overall regulations adopted and since that time staff has been
reviewing all of the regulations for inconsistencies, errors, and things that don't
work and need to be changed. She said that in the time since she released the
public review document for comments, she has met with the legal department
and the City Attorney recommended four minor changes that will involve some
reformatting to the document but the content of the document is not
significantly changed. She said Title 20 includes all the regulations for review of
subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, alterations, vacations, and boundary
line adjustments. She said the majority of the changes are in chapter 20.20,
20.30, 20.40.
20.20 — General Provisions: The City Attorney has proposed that in the
Exemptions section the exemptions be categorized into two categories: a.)
provisions are exempt, Title 20 does not apply; and b.) the following actions are
exempt, the exemption application is provided and a drawing consistent with
20.20.20 is provided to the city. This allows staff to review the drawing to ensure
it is not in violation with the code requirements. In addition, she said item b5 has
been added; however, it was in the previous code but did not get carried forward
in the 2007 adoption.
20.20 — Monumentation: She said this allows for property corners to be marked
or referenced, right-of-way centerlines and street intersection monumentation as
established by street standards. Another change is that side lot lines would be
allowed to be within 20 degrees perpendicular to the right-of-way.
Corner lot lines at street intersection of two public streets the property line will
be located at a minimum of two feet behind the back of a curb. At intersections
of arterials, a minimum of fifteen feet from behind the pedestrian landing will be
right-of-way or border easement to provide for traffic utilities. Mr. Allen explained
that a typical street section has a border easement located at the back of the
sidewalk so that widening of fifteen foot border easement comes in tangent with
border easement called out in the street standards. If there is right-of-way that
e�ends behind the sidewalk, then the fifteen feet would come in tangent to the
right-of-way. To get the arc, he said they use a CAD program to create a circle
and the arc is a part of that circle, and fifteen feet is the third-point constant.
Ms. Barlow continued to the proposed change that for tracts that are being
divided into lots greater than one acre, the Community Development Director
has the discretion to require a plan that will show how that land be further
developed and it take into consideration the Master Plan. The City Attorney
recommended adding that if a redevelopment plan is required, it should also take
into consideration the areas identified in the future acquisition area and it would
identify areas we might require streets or public facilities.
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7
She said an additional proposed change is that alleys be included as
improvements that are required to be constructed prior to filing a final plat, and
existing and proposed easements be required on all drawings, and they have
created a section establishing provisions that allow for attached single family
development to be subdivided.
Chapter 20.30: Majority of changes are contained within the contents of the
application. A significant change is that they would require pre-aps would be
required for short plats and binding site plans, where previously there was no
charge the City is now in the process of developing a charge. They are proposing
a plat certificate be required at the preliminary plat stage, that the assessors
map and title information be allowed to be dated within 60 days of the
application, the vicinity map scale and details, show required border easements
on the preliminary plat, topographical information can be shown at 5 foot
maximum contour intervals or two feet intervals and that the land surveyor can
select a source at their discretion. They have proposed to eliminate the
requirement of electronic files being submitted at the preliminary plat stage as
well as eliminate the requirement for high accuracy reference network boundary
point.
Chapter 20.40: Proposing that at the time the mylar is submitted, the applicant
provide the City with an electronic file, that all dimensions be shown on the
drawing, and that the partial dimensions have to equal the overall dimensions
shown, the water purveyor and fire department signatures be eliminated.
Language for the bond in lieu of construction she said the City Attorney
recommend they divide the types of improvements that can be bonded for into
two categories: street improvements and non-street improvements. He has
suggested they take out the language in the criteria for street improvements that
would dictate how to go about bonding from the subdivision section and defer to
the street design standards.
Chapter 20.50: No significant changes proposed but they clarified the process to
follow.
Chapter 20.60: Added binding site plan as a Type II process and identified a
process that allows a binding site plan to use a record of survey to establish lots
within the recorded binding site plan with specific criteria.
Chapter 20.70: No change proposed.
Chapter 20.80: No significant changes proposed. Added additional language and
the City Attorney suggested they add to item C: Such alteration shall not result in
a building setback violation or site coverage to less than prescribed by the zoning
regulations or areas as required by future acquisition areas.
Ms. Barlow said staff recommends the updates be approved with the items noted
by the City Attorney.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Arnie Woodard, 2511 S. Best Road — Mr. Woodard said he is concerned with in
Chapter 20.30, number 3 regarding condos and manufactured home parks there
will be a dramatic increase to the cost if there is a binding site plan requirement.
In the exemptions, another concern is the recording of the binding site plan and
how it affects the affordability of housing. He asked the commissioners to take
that into consideration when making their final decision.
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7
Mike Phillips, 909 N. Argonne — Mr. Phillips asked that they consider eliminating
the notice required for a preliminary plat because he doesn't think it is necessary
to notify neighbors when submitting an application and then an additional notice
when it goes to hearing for comment, adds approximately an additional $350. He
also said that he doesn't think they should require there be a radius on every lot
on a plat when there is a requirement to show the arc length because it is
redundant. Rich Waltrip from David Evans and Associates confirmed the radius
information is redundant. Ms. Barlow said that while it may be redundant but it is
useful information. It is not a change and is a continuation of the code
requirement.
John Gordon, 7105 E. Euclid — He asked if boundary line adjustments will still
require a survey. Ms. Barlow said they do. He said other municipalities don't
require it and the price in Spokane Valley can cost up to $3,600. Mr. McCormick
said It is required in Spokane Valley because past experience revealed the
property lines may be off, buildings are not located where they often think they
are, and we need to make sure the boundary line adjustment does not create a
non-conforming situation.
Chair Robertson c%sed the pub/ic hearing at 8.�30 p, m.
Mr. McCormick said the in regard to notice of application, it is required by state
law and we do not have any option other than to notify the public of the
application.
It was moved by Commissioner Kog/e, and seconded, to recommend to City
Counci/ the Tit/e 20 Subdivision as it is. Mr. McCormick asked for clarification if
that included the changes from the City Attorney as presented this evening.
Commissioner Kogle amended the motion to Recommend to the City Counci/ the
Tit/e 20 Subdivision changes as proposed. Vote by acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion passed.
C. Election of 2009 Officers
Commissioner Beaulac nominated Ian Robertson to Chair, seconded and
unanimously passed. Chair Robertson nominated John Carroll to Vice Chair,
seconded and unanimously passed.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Chair Robertson thanked Commissioner's Kogle and Beaulac for their service to the
Commission, as well as staff. He also asked that his thanks be e�ended to Mr. Kuhta
for all his hard work.
XI. AD70URNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Ian Robertson, Chairperson
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7