Spokane Valley Planning Commission - DOC by flyboyor

VIEWS: 50 PAGES: 7

									Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers – City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 11, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL All Commissioners were present. Staff attending the meeting: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Kogle, seconded and unanimously agreed to accept the December 11, 2008 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Munson thanked Commissioners Beaulac and Kogle for their service on the Planning Commission on behalf of the City Council and presented them with certificates of appreciation and pins with the city logo. Mayor Munson then announced that Tom Towey and Joe Mann were approved by the council and appointed to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Gothmann also thanked them for their hard work. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS No Commission reports VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager McCormick said the next meeting will be January 8, 2009 and a short course session January 22, 2009 with CTED. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business – Continued Public Hearing, Title 19, 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay Chair Robertson opened the Public Hearing at 6:13 p.m. Associate Planner Kendall explained the reason for the continuation of the public hearing for the Airport Overlay Zone was to allow time for the airport groups to review and meet with city staff to provide comment. She said staff met with Spokane International Airport and made some changes based on their recommendations. She said staff has received one additional public comment from Washington State Department of Aviation and she will distribute it to the commissioners. Ms. Kendall said the area being discussed is residential zoning district within zone 6 of the overlay zone. She said Option 1 is no change to the current density limitations. Option 2 allows density of current zone districts within zone 6. Option

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 1 of 7

3 limits the zoning in zone 6 to the density limitations of current zone 2. She said this would not be a re-zone of all the parcels, but would be an overlay of density restrictions in R2 which is a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Option 4 would allow density of zone 6 but development must comply with one of three following criteria: a.) The site has water or sewer stubs installed; b.) Contiguous parcels with a minimum lot size less than or equal to the underlying zone; or c.) More than one residence located on the property. She said staff also wants to have language on the face of mylars for final plats and subdivisions located within zone 6 stating that sound proof measures will be taken and a note that the lot is located within the airport hazard overlay zone and it is subject to increased noise levels. Option 5 is to split zone 6 on the north and south side of Trent. Ms. Kendall said staff recommends Option 4 to allow density limitations in the underlying zone but allow development that complies with one of the three criteria and language be placed on the final mylars serving as notification of increased noise levels and soundproofing on all new construction. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the soundproofing would be universal and how it would be enforced. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the builder to notify people and it would be based upon the federal regulations for soundproofing. She said there is nothing in our building code and at this time there is no interest in adding it to our code. Ms. Kendall added that in response to liability questions, the city attorney said that the City can adopt zoning regulations that are reasonably designed to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare. To protect against later claims for noise we can require a title notice that the property is within the airport hazard overlay zone and that noise or other disturbances from traffic may occur. She said the city attorney concluded that in general he does not see any liability issues if the ordinance stays as is. Chair Robertson invited public comment: Carter Timmerman, 3704 172nd St., Arlington, WA – Representing the Washington State Dept. of Transportation Aviation Division (WSDOT-AD). He said WSDOT-AD is concerned that the increases in allowable residences in this zone will affect the long-term operational viability of Felts Field and recommends the Planning Commission deny the request or table the proposal until a full analysis of all the issues are addressed. He said WSDOT-AD has concluded that options 2, 3, and 4 are in contradiction with the regulations of the GMA and that option 1 is the only option that doesn’t allow for the substantial encroachment on Felts Field. He said the review did not address the characteristics of the airport future operations for impacts which is a requirement of the GMA. He said noise is only one of four issues to be addressed and others include: land use, airspace obstructions and safety. WSDOT-AD recommends option 1: no change to current residential density. Commissioner Sands asked if WSDOT-AD would be available to help staff if they recommend further analysis. Mr. Timmerman said he works for WSDOT-AD and looks forward to working with them in the future. Commissioner Eggelston asked how long an analysis would take. Mr. Timmerman said he has no answer to that question and that it depends on the city’s resources. Edie Strekher, 5813 E. 4th Ave – Ms. Strekher is the Legislative Affairs Coordinator for the Spokane Homebuilders Association which supports the effort to increase residential density in this area. She said they are in support of option 2 that allows for the greatest development. She said she believes home buyers

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 2 of 7

understand the conditions in that area of increased noise, fumes, and light when they move there. Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane – Mr. Hume said he is in support of options 4 or 2 because zone 6 is a noise zone, not a crash zone so he doesn’t think it is an issue of density; therefore because zone 6 is zoned residential they should allow the new construction of the 388 units (to full build-out). Mike King, 9300 E. Sprague Ave. – Mr. King said he is a pilot and does training at Felts Field and is speaking on behalf of Life River Fellowship Church located on the corner of Park and Buckeye. He said they think the overlay zone is too far reaching. He said the air traffic pattern of planes does not go over this area. He said the church is concerned with the non-conforming use and the potential for the property to lose its value or its usage. He said with regard to noise, railroads cause more noise than the aircraft at Felts Field; there is no jet traffic, only light and small aircraft. He said his major concern is within the crash zone because there is no air traffic there; the planes don’t fly over that area and if they lose control they still do not come in from that angle because it is not practical. He recommends further study as we do not have all the facts. Jerry Baur, 2410 N. Cherry St. – Mr. Baur said he is a private pilot and said he thinks the problem will always be noise and that the City will still be sued even if they are not liable. He said if housing density is increased it is likely people will move in who don’t like the noise and who will say they had no idea there was an airport there, despite the notification on the plat. He supports option 1 and encourages the City staff to work with WSDOT-AD. John Townsley, 607 W. Montgomery Ave. – He said he is a pilot and flies out of Felts Field frequently and doesn’t think there is a great deal of risk in exploring the issues further. He said the decision the Planning Commission makes could have long-term consequences so they need to make good decisions. He urges caution and deliberation and said there is no reason to rush to a determination; with the recession right now there is no rush to build so we should take the time. He said the biggest complaint is noise and the noise is louder in warmer weather because it is harder for planes to climb in warm temperatures and people are likely outside so they will hear it and they will feel the vibrations. Jon Gordon, 7105 E. Euclid – Mr. Gordon said he is out of the flight path but has lived in two different homes in this neighborhood. He said he has called the FAA with concerns about pilots flying outside of the flight paths as they approach the runway and they have not been addressed. He said there is also a dirt and gravel road in the area that doesn’t meet EPA because it should have been paved as indicated on the airport’s original plan. He said Felts Field is used for flight instruction causing potential hazard, as well has home-built planes that are not constructed to strict standards. He said the proposal for language on the plat serving as notification to homeowners is typically not large enough once it is reduced in size for the title report so homeowners may not be aware of the notice. He said overall he thinks the overlay zone is relatively large and the area is too big but it should be held to no growth to eliminate hazards in the area. Raymond Gunning, 6215 N. Theirman – Mr. Gunning said he loves the planes at Felts Field but he doesn’t want the airport to hinder development. He is a proponent of option 4 or option 2 with some revisions. He said the area is a noisy neighborhood with the train, the mill, and the airport and the longer this decision takes, the more resources and money is going to be spent and wasted.

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 3 of 7

Chair Robertson invited further comments from staff; none offered. Public

comments were closed at 7:05 p.m.

Commissioner Carroll asked staff what the probability of an accident occurring in zone 6 is likely to be. Ms. Kendall said that information probably comes from the state aviation guidelines where the traffic zones and flight patterns were developed; she said she can follow up to provide that information to the commission.

It was moved by Commissioner Beaulac, and seconded, to propose adoption of option 4 to the City Council. Mr. Beaulac said he is in favor of option 4 because

there are 2000 other residents in the community that haven’t complained, it is a community that has been allowed to develop and he doesn’t think new development will make much of a difference. Commissioner Kogle asked staff if Spokane International Airport (SIA) offered any input. Ms. Kendall said she spoke with Ryan Sheehan, the manager of Felts Field through SIA, who said he was unable to attend the meeting today but had no further comments to share. She said they had met with SIA previously, but they did not offer an opinion to staff. Commissioner Sharpe said he favors option 2 because this area has been in existence for a long time and it is an area that has the potential for fill-in development. He also said that the reason people buy houses near an airport is affordability; the cost of land is less. Commissioner Carroll said he thinks they are recognizing growth that already exists and could be developed along with the airport and option 4 recognizes that co-development. Commissioner Kogle said she agrees, but is sensitive to the airports and doesn’t want to jeopardize them. Commissioner Sands said she has seen airports shut down and it has been due to residential in-fill. She said Felts Field is a unique feature of this area and she wants it to thrive. She said originally she thought the overlay zone was a forward-thinking plan to help save the airport. She is in favor of option 4 but would like the city to take time and allow WSDOT-AD to bring more information to the planning commission. Commissioner Eggleston said he is frustrated they did not receive more information from WSDOT-AD and Felts Field when they had been asked and had been given more time. He said he is in favor of option 4 and he agrees we should give more time to get more information. but he doesn’t want to wait forever. Vote by show of hands: In favor: Commissioners Sharpe,

Carroll, and Beaulac. Opposed: Commissioners Kogle, Sands, Eggleston, and Robertson. Motion Failed.

It was moved by Commissioner Sands, and seconded, that staff work with WSDOT-AD for a period of three months (to conduct their analysis and present it

at a future meeting). Chair Robertson asked for clarification of process and whether we need to set a specific date for this item to come back before the commission. Planning Manager McCormick said they can continue the hearing to a date certain or they can close the hearing and re-advertise and re-open the hearing. Mr. McCormick said they need direction as to what information the commission is seeking. Commissioner Sands invited Mr. Timmerman to comment as to the information he would help provide. He said he recommends they work with the airport on flight patterns, current and planned operations, and conducting a risk assessment. He said he offers his services at no charge to the City. Commissioner Sands recommended someone from the real estate community join in the discussion for a fair and balanced conversation. Commissioner Eggleston asked if this analysis can be completed in three months. Mr. Timmerman said he can not guarantee anything. Vote by acclamation: In

Favor: Commissioners Robertson, Carroll, Eggleston, Kogle, Sands, and Sharpe. Opposed: Commissioner Beaulac. Motion passed.
12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 4 of 7

Chair Roberston called for a break at 7:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. B. New Business – Public Hearing, Title 20, Subdivisions Associate Planner Lori Barlow explained the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the proposed Title 20 updates and develop a recommendation to council to either approve the updates as proposed, approve the updates with modifications, or to recommend council not adopt the proposed updates. She introduced Henry Allen from Development Engineering and Rich Waltrip of David Evans and Associates who provide comments and guidance for plat review for Spokane Valley; both are able to answer any technical questions from the commission. She reviewed for the commission that Title 20 was adopted in 2007 as part of the overall regulations adopted and since that time staff has been reviewing all of the regulations for inconsistencies, errors, and things that don’t work and need to be changed. She said that in the time since she released the public review document for comments, she has met with the legal department and the City Attorney recommended four minor changes that will involve some reformatting to the document but the content of the document is not significantly changed. She said Title 20 includes all the regulations for review of subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, alterations, vacations, and boundary line adjustments. She said the majority of the changes are in chapter 20.20, 20.30, 20.40. 20.20 – General Provisions: The City Attorney has proposed that in the Exemptions section the exemptions be categorized into two categories: a.) provisions are exempt, Title 20 does not apply; and b.) the following actions are exempt, the exemption application is provided and a drawing consistent with 20.20.20 is provided to the city. This allows staff to review the drawing to ensure it is not in violation with the code requirements. In addition, she said item b5 has been added; however, it was in the previous code but did not get carried forward in the 2007 adoption. 20.20 – Monumentation: She said this allows for property corners to be marked or referenced, right-of-way centerlines and street intersection monumentation as established by street standards. Another change is that side lot lines would be allowed to be within 20 degrees perpendicular to the right-of-way. Corner lot lines at street intersection of two public streets the property line will be located at a minimum of two feet behind the back of a curb. At intersections of arterials, a minimum of fifteen feet from behind the pedestrian landing will be right-of-way or border easement to provide for traffic utilities. Mr. Allen explained that a typical street section has a border easement located at the back of the sidewalk so that widening of fifteen foot border easement comes in tangent with border easement called out in the street standards. If there is right-of-way that extends behind the sidewalk, then the fifteen feet would come in tangent to the right-of-way. To get the arc, he said they use a CAD program to create a circle and the arc is a part of that circle, and fifteen feet is the third-point constant. Ms. Barlow continued to the proposed change that for tracts that are being divided into lots greater than one acre, the Community Development Director has the discretion to require a plan that will show how that land be further developed and it take into consideration the Master Plan. The City Attorney recommended adding that if a redevelopment plan is required, it should also take into consideration the areas identified in the future acquisition area and it would identify areas we might require streets or public facilities.

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 5 of 7

She said an additional proposed change is that alleys be included as improvements that are required to be constructed prior to filing a final plat, and existing and proposed easements be required on all drawings, and they have created a section establishing provisions that allow for attached single family development to be subdivided. Chapter 20.30: Majority of changes are contained within the contents of the application. A significant change is that they would require pre-aps would be required for short plats and binding site plans, where previously there was no charge the City is now in the process of developing a charge. They are proposing a plat certificate be required at the preliminary plat stage, that the assessors map and title information be allowed to be dated within 60 days of the application, the vicinity map scale and details, show required border easements on the preliminary plat, topographical information can be shown at 5 foot maximum contour intervals or two feet intervals and that the land surveyor can select a source at their discretion. They have proposed to eliminate the requirement of electronic files being submitted at the preliminary plat stage as well as eliminate the requirement for high accuracy reference network boundary point. Chapter 20.40: Proposing that at the time the mylar is submitted, the applicant provide the City with an electronic file, that all dimensions be shown on the drawing, and that the partial dimensions have to equal the overall dimensions shown, the water purveyor and fire department signatures be eliminated. Language for the bond in lieu of construction she said the City Attorney recommend they divide the types of improvements that can be bonded for into two categories: street improvements and non-street improvements. He has suggested they take out the language in the criteria for street improvements that would dictate how to go about bonding from the subdivision section and defer to the street design standards. Chapter 20.50: No significant changes proposed but they clarified the process to follow. Chapter 20.60: Added binding site plan as a Type II process and identified a process that allows a binding site plan to use a record of survey to establish lots within the recorded binding site plan with specific criteria. Chapter 20.70: No change proposed. Chapter 20.80: No significant changes proposed. Added additional language and the City Attorney suggested they add to item C: Such alteration shall not result in a building setback violation or site coverage to less than prescribed by the zoning regulations or areas as required by future acquisition areas. Ms. Barlow said staff recommends the updates be approved with the items noted by the City Attorney. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Arnie Woodard, 2511 S. Best Road – Mr. Woodard said he is concerned with in Chapter 20.30, number 3 regarding condos and manufactured home parks there will be a dramatic increase to the cost if there is a binding site plan requirement. In the exemptions, another concern is the recording of the binding site plan and how it affects the affordability of housing. He asked the commissioners to take that into consideration when making their final decision.

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 6 of 7

Mike Phillips, 909 N. Argonne – Mr. Phillips asked that they consider eliminating the notice required for a preliminary plat because he doesn’t think it is necessary to notify neighbors when submitting an application and then an additional notice when it goes to hearing for comment, adds approximately an additional $350. He also said that he doesn’t think they should require there be a radius on every lot on a plat when there is a requirement to show the arc length because it is redundant. Rich Waltrip from David Evans and Associates confirmed the radius information is redundant. Ms. Barlow said that while it may be redundant but it is useful information. It is not a change and is a continuation of the code requirement. John Gordon, 7105 E. Euclid – He asked if boundary line adjustments will still require a survey. Ms. Barlow said they do. He said other municipalities don’t require it and the price in Spokane Valley can cost up to $3,600. Mr. McCormick said It is required in Spokane Valley because past experience revealed the property lines may be off, buildings are not located where they often think they are, and we need to make sure the boundary line adjustment does not create a non-conforming situation.

Chair Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. McCormick said the in regard to notice of application, it is required by state law and we do not have any option other than to notify the public of the application.

It was moved by Commissioner Kogle, and seconded, to recommend to City Council the Title 20 Subdivision as it is. Mr. McCormick asked for clarification if
that included the changes from the City Attorney as presented this evening. Commissioner Kogle amended the motion to Recommend to the City Council the Title 20 Subdivision changes as proposed. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion passed. C. Election of 2009 Officers Commissioner Beaulac nominated Ian Robertson to Chair, seconded and unanimously passed. Chair Robertson nominated John Carroll to Vice Chair, seconded and unanimously passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Chair Robertson thanked Commissioner’s Kogle and Beaulac for their service to the Commission, as well as staff. He also asked that his thanks be extended to Mr. Kuhta for all his hard work. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm SUBMITTED: APPROVED:

_________________________________ Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk

__________________________ Ian Robertson, Chairperson

12/11/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Page 7 of 7


								
To top