Minutes - 09/24/2009 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
September 24, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Carroll, Mann, Towey, and Sands were present. Commissioners
Eggleston and Sharpe were absent.
Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner; John Hohman, Development
Services Senior Engineer; Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer; Henry Allen,
Development Engineer; Tavis Schmidt, Assistant Planner; Deanna Griffith,
Administrative Assistant.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded and unanimously agreed to accept
the September 24, 2009 agenda as presented.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no Commission reports
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Senior Planner Kuhta stated that Director McClung and Planning Manager McCormick
were attending the Planning Directors Conference in Chelan. Mr. Kuhta also reminded
the Commissioners of the upcoming Developer's Forum on October 1, 2009 at 7:30
a.m.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Business — Public Hearing CTA-04-09, Batch Code Amendments: After
reading the rules of public hearings, Chairman Carroll opened the public hearing at
6:03 p.m. Assistant Planner Tavis Schmidt stated to the Commission that the public
hearing had been inadvertently noticed as a public hearing and this meeting should just
be a study session for CTA-04-09. Mr. Schmidt stated that since it had already been
noticed staff would just continue with the reporting and the Commission could continue
the public hearing to a date certain. Mr. Schmidt then began to explain the varied items
in the proposed amendment. Setbacks for non-conforming structures, cargo
containers not being allowed as structures, calculating accessory dwelling units, home
occupation permits required, planned residential development must meet building
09/24/2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5
codes, self storage being allowed in I-1 and I-2 district zones. Commissioners had
questions regarding home professions, non-conforming structures, and accessory
dwelling units. Commissioner Sands made a motion to continue the public hearing to
October 8, 2009. It was seconded by Commissioner Towey and passed unanimously.
Devour
New Business — Public Hearing Code Amendment, Residential lighting
standards: Chairman Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. Senior Planner
Kuhta explained to the Commission staff is proposing a change to 19.040.010 general
provisions regarding residential lighting. Mr. Kuhta discussed the proposed changes
and a change that has been made since the study session, that these standards shall
apply all outdoor lighting all new development. None of the rest of the proposed
language has changed.
F. The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones:
1. All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots, along pedestrian
walkways and accessible routes of travel.
2. Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than twenty-four feet for
parking lots and no more than sixteen feet for pedestrian walkways.
3. All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare, either through exterior
shields or through optical design inside the fixture, and shall not emit light above 90
degrees.
4. Street lighting installed by the City of Spokane Valley or other public utilities is
exempt from these regulations.
Chairman Carroll read the rules of the public hearings, and then asked if anyone would
like to testify. Seeing no one who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the
residential lighting standards, Commissioner Mann seconded, and motion passes with
a unanimous vote
New Business — Public Hearing Street Standards: Chairman Carroll opened the
Public Hearing at 6:27 p.m. Development Services Senior Engineer John Hohman and
Development Engineer Gloria Mantz presented to the Commission the proposed street
standards Mr. Hohman and Ms Mantz explained the standards, reasons behind
developing standards and changes that need to be made since the public hearing draft
had been issued. Since incorporation all development and capital projects have
complied with the County's standards. This provided consistency during the initial years
of incorporation. However, the County standards are focused more on rural
developments and have been difficult to work with on our predominately infill
development.
In late 2006, City Council authorized the amendment of the Street Master Plan contract
with JUB Engineers to include the development of the City's first street standards. The
following are proposed changes to the current street standards:
• Establishing thresholds that trigger requirements for commercial permits
• Requiring that all land divisions improve fronting streets to the applicable
standards
• Allowing modifications to local access streets when existing conditions make
full construction unfeasible for projects that meet infill criteria
• Allowing private streets for projects with less than 10 lots and when a public
streets is not needed or possible
• Changing the requirements for private driveways and streets to address Fire
Code requirements;
• Requiring connectivity
09/24/2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
• Modifying street intersection and approach spacing to improve access
management
• Adding traffic calming requirements
• Increasing the minimum pavement section for local access streets, private
streets and driveways
• Moving all technical requirements currently in SVMC to the Street Standards
Staff is also proposing changes to SVMC titles 17, 18, 22, and 24. Changes are
necessary because portions of these sections have engineering technical
requirements. These engineering requirements will be moved to the Street Standards.
Additionally, changes are necessary to address minor inconsistencies, adopt the
proposed Street Standards, and add language to clarify changes in authority due to the
re-organization of Community Development and Public Works.
• Chapter 17.80.030. Changing the reference to the Right-of-way permit in the
Table
• Chapter 18.30 and 18.50 Clarifying the authority of the Community Development
Department and Public Works Department. Changes are necessary because of
the re-organization of Public Works and Community Development.
• Chapter 22.20. Deleting portion of Chapter 22.20.080, this information is
incorporated in the Street Standards. Minor changes to language throughout.
• Chapter 22.50. Removing the entire Chapter 22.50.030 and portions of
22.50.040. This requirement has been moved to the Street Standards.
• Chapter 22.130. Adding language to clarify purpose of chapter, regulated
activities, adopting Street Standards, review process, and authority to impose
development requirements. Clarifying language for reminder of chapter.
Removing section for Regional Pavement Cut Policy, the Street Standards adopt
by reference the most current version of Regional Pavement Cut Policy, a copy
of which is attached for reference.
• Chapter 24.50. The proposal is a complete re-write of the current grading
ordinance to remove confusing information and clarify applicability and
requirements for different land disturbing activities.
A public hearing draft was released for public comment in April 2009. Staff is
proposing the following changes to the public hearing draft:
❑ Minor modifications throughout the document;
❑ Clarified authority of development services senior engineer, traffic engineer,
and senior capital projects engineer. Moved two sections to Chapter 2;
❑ Added requirements for plan submittal in Chapter 4. Proposed requirements
were left out in the previous draft;
❑ Chapter 7- Clarified requirements for private driveways less than 150 feet in
length, minor changes to design tables, and removed sight distance case;
❑ Chapter 8- Revisions to pavement specifications presented in Chapter 8 to
better address projects in the City of Spokane Valley;
❑ Chapter 9- Revisions to minimum material testing and frequencies to be
consistent with Spokane County requirements.
❑ Chapter 11- Added 9 new standard plans and re-numbered stormwater
standard plans.
Commissioners asked if the City would benefit from the stricter standards, would the
document be reviewed from time to time to make sure that everything was working as
expected. Mr. Hohman explained that at the end of each construction season the
standards would be reviewed, that it was a living document to improve issues in design
or construction. Commissioner Carroll then opened the discussion up to public
testimony.
09/24/2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
Bob Boyle, Hanson Industries, 15805 E Indiana Rd: Mr. Boyle stated support
changes in the document since it had been put out for public comment. He stated he
approved the ability to choose his own inspection company and the asphalt specs
change is better. Mr. Boyle stated he still had a concern regarding access
management, only one driveway on a minor arterial. He said that the Hampton Inn he is
currently working on would not be able to have the two access points it needs with the
new standards. Mr. Boyle also wanted to know if Development Engineering would be
moving back to Public Works.
Seeing no one else that wishes to testify, Commissioner Carroll close public testimony
at 7:09.
Commissioners deliberated about the access management on minor arterials. Staff
explained this would eliminate the unlimited approach on roads like Sprague. This
issue could be addressed administratively. Mr. Hohman did address the last comment
about engineering under PW - engineering will remain under community development,
that it was moved to Community Development to improve customer service in the
permit process.
Commissioner Sands had questions regarding compactions standards. Her first
question was why are we taking out Public Works out of the testing requirements? Mr.
Hohman explained that the Public Works Department requested to be removed from
these requirements. Her next question was why wouldn't Public Work have to do more
as much or more than a regular developer? Mr. Hohman said that they did not want to
do more than regular people would do. Public Works could add extra specifications
equal or greater to than these standards. Commissioner Sands wanted to know if the
City would not benefit from heavier testing. Commissioner Towey wanted to know if
adopted, the standards could be amended from time to time? And did we have a review
process? Mr. Hohman explained that while most of the standards do follow Spokane
County, quite a few standards within the County were never written down, so the City is
trying to tie down those issues. The City will review things see how it works and amend
as necessary, There will be an annual review at the end of the construction season to
determine what did work and what didn't work so well.
Commissioner Sands stated she had a question regarding 8.6.5 - compaction test
requirements, Please explain the differences. Mr. Hohman said that 92% is the
standard from the County, WSDOT calls for 91 % and they allow for averaging. He also
stated that there have only been two times that someone has not met the standard, the
first company fixed the street. The second company did not want to meet the 92%
standards and has not repaired the street. The company has asked Public Works to
help them get the compaction standards reduced. Commissioners asked if it that big a
deal to reduce the standards? what does the difference mean? Mr. Hohman answered
the company has to get working on compaction rolling the pavement sooner, it means
workmanship and materials improvement, and it means a better product that will last
longer, The providers will say they have to work the asphalt longer and this could lead
to cracking of the surfacing. We believe they could meet proper compaction as long as
they use the right asphalt mix. For the lay person this does not mean a lot. But we
want to raise the bar up and meet higher standards and have the contractor put in
sufficient the effort if we want to have the streets last. The City wants a better product.
Commissioners asked what is the cost difference? Mr. Hohman answered most of a
cost difference would be having people to work the asphalt sooner before it cooled off
and testing it at a higher temperature. After the discussion Commissioner Sands made
a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the street standards as
they have been amended, to the City Council. Commissioner Towey made the second,
motion passes on a unanimous vote. The Commissioners praised staff for their diligent
hard work. Chairman Carroll closed the public hearing at 7:30
09/24/2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. AD70URNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson
09/24/2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5