PC APPROVED Minutes 12-08-11.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
December 8, 2011
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Mann, Neill, Sands and Stc�y were present. Comrnissioner Hall
was absent.
Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Gommunity Develc�pment Director; Scott Kuhta,
Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician;
Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant '��
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Sands made a motion ta ,approve the agenda as presented. This motion was
passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment. '
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
The GQmmissioners had nothing to report
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta reported the City Council had amended the Commission's Rules of
Procedure.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: Continued Public Hearing — CTA-03-11 Proposed amendments
to Title 22, Landscaping and Fencing.
Assistant Planner Karen Kendall gave a brief recap of the questions which the
Commissioners had previously requested clarification on, which were maintenance of the
street trees along the public right-of-way (ROW), they responsibility of the property except
for a portion of Sprague and Appleway west of University and Appleway Blvd east of
Tschirley. Tree staking was the other subject Commissioners had asked about and Ms.
Kendall stated the best information she was able to find was supplied at the last meeting
OS-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
from the University of Colorado which stated that staking is supported however only for a
short period of time to stabilize the tree while it matures.
Ms Kendall stated staff had received comments from Avista regarding fencing around
utility facilities which have barbed wire. Avista is requested an exemption for critical and
essential utility facilities.
Chair Carroll asked for anyone who wished to testify.
Clyde Haase, 12202 E Thorpe Rd.: Mr Haase spoke in favor of the amendments. Mr.
Haase commented on tree staking and that it can be accomplished in many ways but it is
more important to monitor it and remove it so the tree does not get damaged as it grows.
Mr Haase agreed that smaller projects could probably be �����done without the help of a
landscape architect. However, he stated he felt that guidelines should be set up for staff so
that they would be able to understand better what they are� reviewing�
Commissioners did ask Mr. Haase some qu�stions about the staking, cabling and
maintenance of street trees.
Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane: Mr Hume stated that he reviewed the landscaping
chapter and felt that there were a few issues he ��thought should be ��addressed. Mr. Hume
stated he was concerned about fence� being on property lines if the property was a through
lot, the fence would be blocking the �'ront yard of the n�ighbc�r. Mr. Kuhta made a drawing
on the white board to show an example to the Commissioners�. Mr. Hume was concerned
that a change to the clearview regulations might make issue with every residential driveway
in the City. Mr. Hume felt that barbed wire should�� be allowed on top of the maximum
height allowed for a fence to be. Why allow barbed wire in a residential zone? Mr Hume
also asked about electric fences as c�pposed to el�ctrified fences and invisible fences. Mr.
Hume stated that landscaping a building in and existing parking lot in an industrial area
was not necessary. Mr Hume felt that the landscaping point threshold should be higher
than is currently, being, proposed. Mr. Hume stated that a sight obscuring fences were
required between �'����incompatible uses, but there is no definition for incompatible uses.
Mr Kuhta explained to the CQrrimissioners that some of the issues Mr. Hume had brought
up were beyond the scope of�'the original public hearing notice and if the Commissioners
wanted to look at them, those issues would have to be noticed, which they had not at this
time:
Seeing no one else that� wished to testify on this issue, Chair Carroll closed the public
hearing at 6;49 p.m.
Commissioners discussed the comments from Avista regarding the use of barbed wire
around electrical substations, tree staking, clearview discussion on driveways, having
answers from the traffic engineer, electric fences and several other issues and needing more
information for some subjects.
• Trees
o Staking required or not, maintenance, .,
o tree maintenance,
o staff to provide a recommendation on requirement,
o why only in parking island
OS-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
• Fences
o Fence height, with wire on top
o Exempt utility companies from wire requirements
o Other cities doing,
o Uniform height of fences
o Electric, electrified, and invisible fences
• Clearview Triangles
o Better understanding of issues
o Clearview triangles in residential zones
o Stacked lots
o Request traffic engineer attend to answer questions
• Landscaping Points
o Reduce required points for an architect (to how many points)
0 500 sf to bring site into compliance, questian if should be more,
o When would an architect be required `°
Commissioner Stoy made a motion, which passed S in favor with one abstention, to
continue deliberations to January 12, 2012.'��
B. New Business: Public Hearing for���� CTA+05-11, Proposed text amendment to Title 20,
requirements for Boundary Line Adjustments
Planning Tech Martin Palaniuk made a presentation to the C�ommissioners regarding the
proposed language change tc� Title ��2Q of the Spc�kane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
20.80.030 (F) regarding the requirements for a record of survey for all Boundary Line
Adjustments (BLA) .
Mr Palaniuk explained that' the proposed amendment would allow the Community
Development Director diseretion in,requiring,a record of survey for simple boundary line
adjustments. The current cade language requires a record of survey for all BLAs. Staff has
determined that in less complicated situations a BLA can be accomplished without a record
of survey. �����The Community Development Director would have the ability to wave the need
for a record of survey when there would be two parcels or less, simple legal descriptions,
no camplicating easements or appurtenances, no owner disputes, or any setback issues.
Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Anthony , La�anas, 10606 E Empire: Mr. Lazanas thanked staff for the work on this
amendment and spoke in favor of this amendment.
Chuck Simpson, 909 N Argonne Rd: Mr Simpson stated he was a licensed surveyor in the
State of Washington and was speaking in support of the proposed amendment. Mr.
Simpson shared several examples where a record of survey would not have been necessary
in order to complete the BLA.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify the chairman closed the public hearing at 7:45
p.m.
The Commissioners deliberated and asked Mr. Palaniuk to explain the basic process of the
BLA. Discussion surrounded when drawings would not be required, how counter staff
OS-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
would determine when a to defer the BLA to the director, how much time could be saved,
and that our consultant reviews all legal descriptions and surveys turned into the City.
Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-OS-11 to the City
Council. This motion was approved unanimously.
After review Commissioner Bates made a motion to approve the findings as presented.
This motion was approved unanimously.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioners and staff thanked Commissioner Joe Mann for his years of service to the City
serving as a Planning Commissioner for the last three years.
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:��52 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPRQUED:
Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson
OS-26-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4