PC APPROVED Minutes 09-22-11.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
September 22, 2011
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Neill, Sands, and Stoy,��were present. Commissioner Mann
was absent.
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioner Mann from the September 22
meeting. Vote on this motion was 6 in favor, 6 against.
Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Gommunity ,Development'���Director; Scott Kuhta,
Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember, Deanna
Griffith, Administrative Assistant
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Sands made a motion to 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 REFORTS
Commissioner�' Neill stated he would be attending a workshop on October 1 in regard to the
Shoreline Management Program.
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta stated the joint meeting with the City Council is off for right now.
He said the City''''was currently looking for special council to help guide staff and council
through the shoreline master program update process. Soon to be coming before the
Commission would be an amendment regarding the boundary line adjustment process. The
amendment would address whether or not a record of survey was required with the BLA.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business.
B. New Business: Study Session CTA-05-11 Proposed amendments to Chapter 22.70
Fencing and Landscaping regulations.
09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
Assistant Planner Kendall made a presentation regarding the proposed changes to Chapter
22.70 Fencing and Landscaping Standards.
1. Section 22.70.020.B - Allowing fences to be placed on the property line of a flanking
yard (corner lot) as long it remains out of the front yard setback.
2. Section 22.70.020.0 - Modifying language to provide more clarity to the clear view
triangle definition and updating references to tables and diagrams to ensure this
section is administered correctly.
3. Section 22.70.020.F - Defining which zones allow for barbed wire, concertina or
razor wire.
4. Section 22.70.040.E.9 and Table 22.70-4 - Consolidate all point calculation
requirements into Table 22.70-4.
5. Section 22.70.040.J.4 - Removing landscape requirement for new signs,in developed
areas.
6. Section 22.70.040.L.1.e - Adding additional fle�bility for landscaping requirements
to be modified on industrial zoned properties.
7. Section 22.70.040.1V - Providing a threshold of when a landscape architect is
required to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed
landscaping at time of completion.
After Ms. Kendall made her presentation she helped, with assistance from Planning
Manager Scott Kuhta, to answer som�,e questions from the Planning Commissioners.
Clarification on where a fence in the'front yard and flanking yard could go.
Barbed wire would only be���allowed in residential zanes in order to contain animals only.
However it would be allowed only in eommercial' areas. There was discussion over
changing the requirement that'��� a six foot fence with wire on top does not require a building
permit. There was a concern to have razc�r wire right next to the public row. Staff stated
they were getting a sense that the ���� Commission would like to allow barbed wire in all
commercia� zones, howe�er not adjacent to the right-of-way.
How the change in landscape requirements for signs on developed sites would make a
difference as well as� landscaping requirements on a fully developed site, removing the
requirement for xeriscaping landscaping.
Discussed ������the difference in the landscaping point calculations. Removing the part of
written code to reflect rnore than 500 sf of development does not require the calculation of
landscaping points. This would apply new buildings, and small proposals, 10 parking
spaces or less would�� not require landscaping. This applies to commercial development
only. Developer does get points for grass but only 25% of the points can be grass. Added
in a section for industrial sites, which may be exempt if not feasible. Thoughts to propose
an alternative to meet the points, which could allow a applicant to be creative, either to
move the points to another part of the lot, or refer to already existing landscaping. The
language actually allows exemption if applicant can show where it is not possible.
Landscape architects requirement. The thought would be to provide some relief to smaller
projects. Discussed the provision to make a threshold to when a architect would be
required. There was a discussion about if 50 points was too low. The requirement of an
architect certifies that the installation is done correctly, but staff will still do a site visit.
09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
There was discussion regarding tree staking. Concern was expressed as to if it is a good
practice and if it is done, if it is done properly and then removed when the tree is matured.
Talk about screening of loading docks. why limit the height of the landscaping for a
loading dock Staff stated they would look at that part of the proposal. Comment was it
could be a visual issue. It was stated that most trucks are 13 feet tall. Wouldn't staff want to
block the truck well from the view? Staff commented it was a safety issue.
Commissioners asked how long the City had been on the point system, staff replied since
2007 and that to change it at this point would be difficult since we constantly get comments
about not changing things and being steady.
Commissioner Stoy stated he likes the point system as a small designer, it's easier to use.
He said he thinks the point system is better than anyone else's to use. 1V1r. Kuhta stated
this was not a complete over haul of the landscaping requirements, that most developers
were used to the current system and to completely change it at this moment would cause
more heartburn for most people at this point.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Recently appointed Community Development Director John Hohman introduced himself to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Hohman shared with the Commission his' past experience, his
thoughts for how he plans to move forward with the,department. �
XL ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, ����� Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson
09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3