Loading...
Minutes - 05/13/2010 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes (approved 6-24-10) Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. May 13, 2010 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe (arrived at 6:06) and Woodard were present. Commissioner Eggleston was absent. Staff attending the meeting: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Lori Barlow, Assoc. Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the May 13, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the April 22, 2010 as presented. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners Woodard stated he had attended Council meetings and the opening of the Discovery Park Commissioner Carroll stated he had attended Council meetings also. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr McCormick reported that the Shoreline Inventory Report had been stalled at the Council level at the request of Centennial Properties, while they finish an inventory or their own shorelines. 05-13-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Public Hearing —Street Vacation STV-01-10 Assistant Planner Karen Kendall: Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Commission regarding STV-01-10 which is located near Carnahan Rd and 16 Lane. Ms. Kendall also read comments that had been submitted by Avista Utilities. Commissioners discussed the conditions for approval, comments from some of the agencies and using private roads instead of public roads. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. and read the rules of the hearing. Elle Key, USKH, 612 W Mallon Ave.: Ms. Key stated that she was here as the proponent and to support the vacation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Carroll closed the hearing at 6:28 p.m. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to adopt the findings incorporating the recommendations from Avista, which was seconded. Commissioners had discussion about the location, reasoning and determination of need for the vacation. T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Abstentions: None. Motion carried Commissioner Sharpe made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of STV-01-10. This motion was seconded T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Abstentions: None. Motion carried B. Public Hearing — CTA-02-10 Code Text Amendments, Associate Planner Lori Barlow: Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.: Associate Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff report regarding the four municipal code amendments. • Amendment to 17.20 clarifying the developer's responsibility to satisfy all code requirements. Federal law gives employees immunity while performing discretionary functions, however the City felt it could make it clear that in the end it is still the permit holders responsibility to meet all code requirements whether the City enforces the code or not. • 21.40 In the critical areas ordinances the City is adding an amendment for a reasonable use exemption. In the unlikelyhood that a lot cannot be developed without encroaching into critical areas, there needs to be a provision to allow a use in the end for that lot. These first two changes are being proposed based on a Association of WA Cities Insurance Authority 2009 Annual Review and Audit comments. 05-13-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 • 21.30 amending the language to reflect the new date of the FEMA flood rate insurance study and maps. This amendment is being proposed to bring the code in line with the current dates of the federal maps. • Appendix A definitions amending the definition of kennel. Changing from 6 animals to 5. The Code discrepancy was brought to the City's attention by Nancy Hill, Director of SCRAPS. The City contracts with SCRAPS to provide animal control. The change in definition is being proposed for ease of enforcement by the SCRAPS Enforcement Officers. This change would align the City's definition with that of Spokane County which SCRAPS also enforces. There was considerable discussion regarding this topic. Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell stepped to the podium to assist with questions regarding the amendments. Mr. Driskell stated that staff is taking no position on the kennel change. The difference is between the animal control ordinance and the zoning ordinance, which has a discrepancy. There was discussion surrounding the issues that could be caused by the differences, and SCRAPS enforcing the difference. Mr. Driskell stated at this time he was not aware of how we would be able to handle this compliance or proof issues if it was to become a vesting issue. Mr. Driskell also commented on the amendment to 21.40.070. Mr. Driskell stated that allowing the Community Development Dept. a reasonable use determination would help to avoid trying to keep from getting into a taking. Mr. Driskell stated our insurance company suggested this would be a helpful idea. Mr. Driskell and Mr. McCormick helped to clear up that this would be a Type I decision and appealable under the Municipal Code, if necessary. Commissioner Carroll opened the public testimony at 6:50 p.m. Nancy Hill, SCRAPS, 2521 N Flora Rd. Ms. Hill stated that with the adoption of the renewed contract that it was a new discovery for SCRAPS that the City's and the County's numbers were different. Ms. Hill stated SCRAPS has been enforcing the County rules not realizing that there was a difference. Ms. Hill stated that the animal control ordinance needs to match the zoning ordinance so enforcement can be consistent in all areas. There was considerable discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Driskell, Ms. Hill, Mr. McCormick regarding historical data, adopted the county information. zoning codes and implications of the proposed changes. • The animal control ordinance adopted by the City states the City adopts County definitions by reference. • The County definition is a combination of 5 or more cats or dogs requires a private kennel license. Anything less does not. The County also has a commercial kennel license definition. 05-13-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 This is consistent in both the animal control ordinance and the zoning ordinance. Kennels are not allowed in residential zones. • The City definition is a combination of 6 or more dogs or cats requires a kennel license. Anything less does not. Kennels are not allowed in residential zones in the City. There was continued discussion of vesting rights and enforcement, urban areas, too many dogs and barking issues in populated areas. Commissioners had a question regarding procedure, could they remove the kennel amendment and continue its discussion and pass forward the other amendments? The kennel amendment can be removed and addressed separately. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to remove the amendment regarding Appendix A, definition of a kennel, from the batch of amendments to 17.10, 21.40 and 21.30 for recommended approval at this time. This motion was seconded. After a brief discussion the vote was taken. T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Five Opposed: One, Commissioner Sharpe, Abstentions: None. Motion carried Commissioner Sands made a motion to adopt the following findings A, B, C and E which have been presented for amendments to Title 17.10, 21.30 and 21.40. T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Abstentions: None. Motion carried Commissioner Mann made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to 17.10, 21.40 and 21.30 to the City Council. This motion was seconded. T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Abstentions: None. Motion carried Commissioner Carroll made a motion to continue the public hearing of the amendment to Appendix A, the definition of a kennel to May 27, 2010 Planning Commission regular meeting. This motion was seconded. Commissioners had more discussion regarding the number of animals. Discussion surrounded subjects like the following: maybe cats and dogs should be dealt with separately, what regulations apply to a kennel, vesting issues if you have too many animals. Commissioners asked Ms. Hill if she would be able to attend another meeting in order to assist in the decision making process as an expert in her field. T�ote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Abstentions: None. Motion carried X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Carroll asked Mr. McCormick to explain how the City's documents fit together and what the Comprehensive Plan is. Mr. McCormick explained that while Comprehensive Plans have been around longer than the Growth Management Act, the GMA sets the stage for requirements in the Plan and the communication between cities, counties and the public. 05-13-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document. It is the Community's vision. It guides budgets, spending, public investment, like the TIP and other spending plans which are required to be part of the capital facilities plan, safety improvements, Parks plan, the Sprague Appleway Subarea plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation that allows the other plans to take place. It is the umbrella that covers everything the city does. When the City is applying for federal or state money, it must be able to have that link to the capital facilities plan, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the adopted policy for the City. All of the development regulations adopted by the City must be shown to be consistent with, and supported by goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. All land use actions taken by the City must also be shown to be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments raised by the Commissioners during this discussion were what was required by law to be in the Plan and what parts are modifiable. Another comment was if more people took the time to understand the process to create the Plan and the Plan itself they would have a better appreciation for the document. Another discussion came from the question of if we have 40% of the retail space and 60% of the vacancy rates what are we doing wrong to improve this and what is someone else doing right? Comments from Commissioners discussion: City has been seen as non-business friendly in the past, too burdensome to do business with, why do we continue doing the same things we have been doing in the past that have not worked and instead try some new steps. Staff have hired and used experts to develop a vision for the future, we should not go backwards due to a lack of vision. The question was also raised regarding Commissioner Eggleston not being in attendance at the meeting. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 05-13-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5