PC APPROVED Minutes 11-10-11.pdf � Spokane Va�ley Planni��g Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Councii Chambers — City Ha11, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
November ld, 2011
T. CALL TO ORD�R
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at b:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Cammissioners, staff and audzence stood foz the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commissianer�s Caz•roll, HaII, Neill, a�d Stoy were present. Commissioners Bates, Mann and
Sands we�•e absent.
Commissioner Stoy made a mation ta e�cuse Cam�nissianers Bates, Mar�n and Sands fiom the
November 10,2011 meeti�g. This mation was seconded and passed unanirnously.
Staff attending the meeting: John Ho�man, Commttnity Development Director; �cott Kuhta,
Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Plannez; Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician,
Dean G�•afos, Councilmember, Kelly Konk�•ight, Deputy City Attorney; Deanna Griffit�i,
Secretaiy
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Cammi�sione�• Mann made a motian to approve the agenda as pi•esented. This motion was
passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The�•e were no minutes to approve.
VI. PUBLIC COMM�NT
The�•e was no public commenf.
VYY. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioners Ca�'roll and Stoy repoz�ted they attended the City's Developer's Foi�um on
October 27.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE 1tEPORTS
Planning Manage r Kuhta repo�•ted staff was wo�•king on an advanced agenda for the
Commission. He alsa repo�-ted staff had received seven p�•ivately imitated Cornprehensive Plan
a�nendments, would be reviewing th� Garden Of#"ice zone and land use along Trent Ave.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Un�nishetI Business: There was no unfinished business.
� B. New Business:
11-10-11 Planning Commission Minukes Page 1 of 5
i. Public Hearing; CTA-03��.1� Proposed amendment ta Title 22.70, Landscapi�g and
( Fencing Standards:
Assistatat Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Commissian regarding
propased#ext amendments ta the Iandscaping and fencing portions of Titl�22.
• Sactian 22,70.020(B)—Allow fences to be placed an the pzape�•ty Iine�n a flauking
yard(corner lot}outside of the fi•ont ya��d setback.
• Section 22.'10.020(C}--Mvdify language to provide more clarity to the cleazview
triangle definitian and updafe refe��ences to tabies and diag�•atns to ensure this sectian
is administered correctly.
• Section 22,70.020(F}—Define which zones allaw barbed, concertina ar razor wire.
• Section 22.70.040(E)(9) and Table 22.70-4—Consalidate all landscape point
caicuiation requirements into Table 22.70-4.
• Section 22.70.040{J)(4)—Remove iandscape requirement for new signs in developed
areas.
� Section 22,70.040(L)(1){e)—Add additionai flexibility ta la�dscaping requirements
far industrial zoned praperties.
• Section 22.70.040(N)--Provide a Iandscape point tlu•eshold for requiring a landscape
architect to prepare a Iandscape plan and clari�ying who will certify the installed
landscaping at tijne af completioa�.
The Commissioners had some clarifying questions fa�• Ms. Kendali rega��ding same of the
clearview diagi•ams, clearview in residential a�•eas, barbed wire and where it is cuz•�•ently
allowed, fence height in �•elatio� to allowing the wire on top, atnending the landscaping
, point table, and the exemption fo�•existing sites in industrial areas.
Ms. Keaidal� informed#he Commissioners s�aff had received severa�written commen#s:
:• From Gavin and Associates stating they felt the barbed wu•e section should add
language whzch stated "and no� adjacent to a residential zone" after `in the absence of
a residential zone", and that cont�•actors cannot design, install and app��ove t�zeir own
work. This would be to protect a client fi�om poar workrt�anship.
+;4 From Commissioner Neill suggesting a c�ange in Iang�zage ��egarding the staking of
trees and add�•ecommended Iist of trees.
❖ Froni staff n�embez• Glaria Mantz, to i�eference the City's Stzeet Standa�•ds when
calculati�ag cIearview t�•iangles for new developmen#.
The Chair opened the pt�blic hearing at 6:20 p.m. then invited people to speak to the
changes proposed in CTA-03-11.
To�� Pratf, 20114 � Belmont Rti, Mica, WA: Mr Pratt stated he was a landscape
a�chitect who did work in the City. Mr. Pratt stated he had a question about the clearview
triangle change and whetk�er or not it was referring to curbed i•aads ox• non-curbed roads,
Mr. Pratt suggested the amendment include non-curbed z•oads. Mr. Pratt stated he
unt�ers�ood the City wanted to establish s�andards so tliat development was well thought
out, done consistently and with well thought out design. Mr. Pratt stated he felt that the
streamlining of tha point syste�u might be too much of a sitnpIification, if the point systen�
� were over simplified the City might not get the development it wan�s.
11-]0-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of S
Mr. Pr•att said fhat the Czty of Spokane does require staking, He �eIt it was more important
{ how to handle the how the tree is installed, how the root ball is handled. Staking is not the
only the issue in whether a t�•ee suivives o�•not, there could be other issues, i��staIl, nursety,
maintenance, how staking is dane, stapled, wha maintains it. Mr. Pratt did say he did feel
that staking was impo�•tant. Cornmissioner Hall asked abo��t stabilrzation Geing rnore
impor�tant th�tn just staking the tree for its oivn sc�ke. Commissronef� Neill asked hot>> Mr.
P��att it�ould recamrriend inserti�g this stsggestion irrlo the SVMC. Mr. Neill stated he liked
the rdea of stabilization mo��e than staking. M��, P��att suggested a planting detail, making a
berotiv su�face stabilizataon. M�•. Pt�att stated also that it could be a r•rsk that telling
someone ho�v to plarrt eould be a strrall Iiubility, sofne requir•e an af�ho�ist on site �vhile
planting, but it cotrld h�elp keep a better•hold on r�aaintaining the landscaping.
Mz•. Pratt made a com�nent also on the requirement for a landscape architect and he £eels .
that the City would ba better served by having this requirement, with someone who can
tl�ink beyond just the paint system and to the reasons why things a�•e required and
necessary. He fel� fhat the reason Spra�ue was looking sa dawn tzodden was the fact that
there was Iess and less landscaping being requi�•ed, should��equire more, s�iould he i•equired
around srgns. Architects make sure the whole picture is taken into account from the sign,
to tkae �•ights-of-way to the parking lots and #l�e ��est of the site to keep fhe City looking
better,
Clyde H�ase, ]2242 E T}�orpe Rd: Mr. Haase stated he was a landscape architect would
did wark in the City. Mr. Haase stated he was concerned about the eight foot high fence,
and tliought it shouid be allowed. Mz• Haase stated he felt that the City should have a
% ; minimum standa�•d of guidelines. Mr. Haase said that sta�Cing method�a�y however what is
more i�npartant is the enfo�•ce�ne�t of making sure the t�•ees are unstaked afte�• 12 months.
Mr. Haase s�a#ed that landscaping around signs should be common sense. If you cannot get
water out to the site don't put plants in a place where they will die. He said tlie City should
allow s�aff a little latitude in making some decisions wh.en common sense sliould take over
the decision.
Mr. Haase did share that he had been invoived in assisting t�e City c��eate the point system
which allaws there to be variety of plantings on a site without ha�ing to tell the applicant
what to puf th�e�•e.
Commissianer Stoy had a question regarding the fencing and c�anging height
rec�uireme�ts. Staff explained that this amendment was not changing the height
requirements,just if they are allawed along a flanking street.
Comtnissione�• Hall stated he hoped �or a better understanding of the right-of way at the
next meeting.
Commissioner Neili made a motian to continue the public l�earing far CTA-03-11 to
December 8,2011, T�iis motion was passed unanimous.
C. Study Session: CTA-DS-ll Pro�osec� amendmeuts to Title 20 regarding records of
survey requirements for boundary line amendments.
Planning Techr�ician Mai�tin Palaniuk made a presentation to tI�e Commission outlining the
� propased amendments to Title 20 and tlie requi�•ements for a record of survey �or boundaty
line adjustment (BLA}.
11-10-11 Plannii�g Co�tfmissian Minutes Page 3 of 5
� The numba�• of p�•opez�ties involved. The nutnber of parcels will determine the number
( af legal descriptions and the number of Iines being rr�oved. This can make it mare
difficult to evaluate. It also increases t�e oppai�funity fo�•an error to occur.
• Legai ciescriptians. Ax�y drawing or suFVey sliould accurately depict the wi�itten legal
description. Legal desc�•iptions are typically taken from tl�e Iar�d-holders deed. Any
time a battnda�•y line adjustment is under•taken a new legal description is created for all
the affec�ed pz•aperties. In inost cases in Spokane Valley the Iegal description is writter�
using the lot and block number of a Iand subdivision or aliquot pat�ts o� a land
subdivisian. In some cases the p�•operty is described using a metes and bounds
desci•iption whicl� d�scribes the property t�u•oug�� a series of heading and distar�ce
calculations. Wl�ile bot�� types of description can be used to desc�•ibe a p�•operty the
aliquot pa�-ts descriptian is much easier to read, unde��stand and amend,
• Appurtenances attached to the prope��ty. If the propex�y is subject to an easemen� ar
multiple easements then issues may a��ise as to the prape�• placement and size of the
aasement. Easements are typically recorded with �he county in a written fo�•m and
added to the title as an appui�enance. Ensuring apput�tenances are depicted du�•ing a
boundary line adJustment is impo��tant to inform and pratect prape��y owners.
• Boundary disputes between propet�y owners. Bounda��y Iine disputes sometimes occur
within the City's jurisdiction. In some cases, �0�8 WBi'� CT�c�t�C�. ��11•oug�i a segregatian
pi•ocess prior to formal subdivision regulations. When tl�is occurs, se#backs, Iegal
descriptions, and the actual versus perceived boundary lines may add to tlie
�nisunderstanding anc� dispute. On other accasions a long standing fence t��at was
originally mispIaced may be mistaken for an actual property line.
• Existing buildings. The proposed boundary lines are examined to dete��rttine if all the
required setbacks are being maintained as pat�of any boundary adj�stment revlew. It is
dif£'icult or impossible to determine w��ethe�•the setbacks are maintained if the buildings
are not accurately depic�eci. in the site plan. Tt is not as critical in cases where the
proposed boundary lzne will clearly maintain a setback. A reviewei• can gain
�'easonable assu��ance the setback is being maintained if the nearest building is dep�cted
as 1� feet fi•om fhe bo�ndary and the z•equired setback is five (5} feet, It becomes more
difficuit if the building is depicted as six (6} feet fi•oin the proposed boundary and the
setback is five (Sj feet.
Commissioners asked for tlie r�ason for this amendment and if this �ad been a problerr� for
customers. Staff discussed siluations w��en a record of suivey migkt nat be necessary and
when it would and haw giving the Director sonie para�n�ters to be able assist the when it
would be a simple process to ta�Ce ca�•e of the BLA withaut tl�e�•equirement,
There were no other questions fram the commissioners.
X. GOOD OF TH� ORDER
The�•e was nothing for the gooc�af tl�e o�•der.
XI. ADJQURNMENT
� The being no ofher business t�ie meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.�n.
�
11-10-I I Planning Commission Minutas Page 4 of 5
SUBMITTED: A ROVED:
i
(
.--_�,. �/
�
Deanna Griff fli, •etary ohn G. CatxaIl, Ch itperson
11-10-11 Planni��g Cammission Minutes Page S of 5