Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 01-24-13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stay—Vice Chair r Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin r Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins Steven Neill Christina Carlsen Kevin Anderson Carl Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the January 10, 2013 and January 7, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Reminded the Planning Commission about the sign code update from last year, and stated that our Code enforcement officers have been helping Planning Commission Minutes Page l of 5 businesses understand the new sign. code. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that 2 or 3 folks showed tip to the City Council meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2013 to express some concerns about sign regulations. He stated that John Hohman will be bringing a report back to the City Council March 5th, if any of the Planning Commission was interested in going. Mr. Hohman will be speaking on the enforcement activity, and how we have been helping the community with the regulations, also the possibility of revisiting the sign code regulations. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: No unfinished business. B. New Business: Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program Update — Draft Public Access Senior Planner Lori Barlow opened the Public Meeting explaining the purpose of the meeting and further stating the hope for this process is that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to council for approval. Ms. Barlow introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius who is the special legal counsel for this project and Mr. John Patrouch who is with URS Corporation, Both were there to answer questions. Ms. Barlow provided the comments from the agencies that responded to the Plan: Department of Ecology, Washington State Parks, Spokane County Parks Department, Spokane Valley Parks and Rec, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Ms. Barlow stated that with the exception of the Spokane Tribe of Indians the comments were fairly minor in nature. Ms. Barlow reviewed the response e-mail from Randy Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian Tribe, Mr. Abrahamson stated "I can't believe you didn't consider cultural resources etc...." Ms. Barlow stated that Mr. Abrahamson's letter was sent on a misunderstanding. And she further stated that Mr. Abrahamson did not understand that what he was asking for is just one piece to the Shoreline Master Plan, Ms. Barlow stated that they have addressed cultural resources in our goals, policies and they are currently addressing those in our development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr. Abrahamson comment letter does stay as part of the record, but he doesn't have any issues to this particular element, it was a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of what he was looking at. Ms. Barlow reported that to date there have been no public comment and they did make some changes to the technical review draft. As it became the public review Ms. Barlow stated they issued a public review draft, notices, and made it available for review and received no comments. Ms. Barlow had an open house on January 16, 2013. The turnout was rather low. Ten people attended and there were no real concerns from the persons that did attend. The Public Hearing was addressed. Ms. Barlow made a short recap of the Public Access Plan, Here are the things she went over: • Plan Review Summary • What is Public Access Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 • WAC Requirements (173-26-221-4) • What does Public Access look like • Public Access Plan • Section One- Introduction • Section Two- Integration with other Conununity Plans • Section Three- Public Access and Public Use • Section Four- Shoreline Conditions • Section Five-Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements • Section Six-Implementation Strategy • Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process Ms Barlow closed her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Chair Bates and Planning Commissioner Neill still had concerns about the e-mail comments from Randy Abramson. Mr. Tadas Kisielius reiterated that the Public Access document is not intended to address what Mr. Abramsom comments were about. Mr. Kisielius stated that Mr. Abramsom concerns are for development regulations which will be addressed later at the appropriate date and time. After a brief discussion and no public comment Chair Bates closed the public meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Kisielius was open for questions, he discussed protecting public access and went thru and highlighted the benefits of the Public Access Plan. Which are as stated below: • Allows us to capture the nature and beauty. Also gives the recognition for great public access • Helps to protect the natural surroundings of the river corridor, long stretches of the centennial trail • Another benefit is to coordinate so you preserve that amenity. This also gives flexibility or relief for development and property owners. Mr. Kisielius also touched up on implementation on section 6. This was handed out in the PowerPoint presentation by Planner Ms. Barlow, Mr. Kisielius closed with asking if there were any questions. Chair Bates stated that a motion on the floor needed to be made prior to the discussion. So the motion was put on the table. Commissioner Stay moved to accept the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan as presented by stgff A second was made. Chair Bates asked if there were any discussion, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Anderson proposed three amendments to the main motion for the proposed Shoreline Master Program Update Public Access Plan. • To remove from page 8 the sentence: including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT • To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2 • To add the word float boats for boat ramps on page 18,table 5-2 • To add motorized boats for Myrtle Point since this is intended for a true boat ramp John Patrouch informed Commissioner Anderson that Myrtle Point is a non motorized access. Commissioner Stoy moved to amend the main motion previously on the table for the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan to incorporate the three modifications that were discussed: 1. To remove from page 8 the sentence: (including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRC7). 2. To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2. 3. To add the word non-motorized boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 for Sullivan Park and Myrtle Point. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the amended motion and asked for all in favor for the amended motion. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the main motion. There was none and this was passed unanimously. Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13 Planning Manager Scott Kuhta opened by saying; the amendment is proposing to add townhouses back into the Permitted Use Matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Permitted Use Matrix was amended last year. One of the changes was to remove townhouses from the Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Mr. Kuhta talked to a gentleman who expressed interest in developing townhouses on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to purchasing the property, the individual saw that townhouses were a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that he reevaluated it and believes that townhouses fit ok in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support townhouses, specifically that there is a policy that talks about mixed uses in the neighborhood centers. Mr. Kuhta explained a townhouse is a single family unit with at least three units attached, up to six Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 total, in each block and developed on individual lots. This is a specific development type. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation about the lots. Mr. Kuhta explained that six units would be on their own lot and would have their own front and back yard. Town houses are different than duplexes. They are 3-6 units attached, all on their own platted lots. They are connected with a zero lot line. Chair Bates wanted to know if they have the same regulations as far as height and setbacks. Mr. Kuhta informed Chair Bates that they are the same regulations that you would find for all residential development in the zone that they are in. Mr. Kuhta discussed how there is a provision in the Code that says townhouses are developed and separate platting process for town houses. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the lot was big enough to split into lots to have town houses built. Mr. Kuhta stated that this property is small that and that it would be limited. The Neighborhood Commercial zones are meant to be smaller areas. This proposal allows the market to work a little bit if retail isn't working. It allows flexibility in such a way that it wouldn't be sitting vacant. Mr. Kuhta proceeded to say that the proposal is to put the P back under Neighborhood Commercial and to add the reference condition, Commissioner Stoy mentioned the residential requirements and asked if the minimum would be met on that particular property. Mr. Kuhta stated that if they can't they will have to look at something else. But they still need to meet the required setbacks. Mr. Kuhta explained that a Neighborhood Commercial zone does not specify minimum lot size because there are no other residential uses that are allowed there. There are no residential standards, so Mr. Kuhta stated he will look into this and bring back some information to the public hearing to see if that is something of concern. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. .,e_6( ::,,,„,_*,. 6 Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed 62 /2 r//3 Planning Conunission Minutes Page 5 of 5