Spokane Valley Planning Commission (DOC)

Document Sample
Spokane Valley Planning Commission (DOC) Powered By Docstoc
					                   Spokane Valley Planning Commission
                           Approved Minutes
            Council Chambers – City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
                            October 23, 2008

    The Chairperson Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
    Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
    Commissioners Beaulac, Carroll, Eggleston, Robertson, Sands and Sharpe were present.
    Commissioners Kogle was absent and excused.
    Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development; Greg
    McCormick, Planning Manager; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative
    It was moved by Commissioner Carroll, seconded by Commissioner Sands, to move STV-02-
    08 to item one on the agenda. It was unanimously agreed to accept the October 23, 2008
    agenda as amended.
    It was decided to approve the minutes at the next meeting.
    There were no Public Comments.
    Commissioner Robertson stated that he attended a pan handling committee meeting and that
    the Mayor is looking for the committee to make regional presentations. There were no other
    Commissioner reports.
    Director McClung stated that the Council has changed the recommended location of City Hall
    from the original proposed location. Mr. Kersten, Public Works Director has determined it
    would be better suited based on street design, for the City Hall to occupy a parcel to the east of
    the previous location and negotiations would continue on the new site proposal. Council is also
    going to be discussing the traffic circulation issue relating to the Sprague/Appleway
    Revitalization Plan at the next Tuesday meeting, Oct. 28, 2008 The Director also stated that
    Council reviewed and emergency code amendment regarding surveying issues.
    New Business – Public Hearing, STV-02-08, street vacation of approx. 390 feet of 5 Ave
    between Newer and Progress Rd.
    Commissioner Robertson opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. Associate Planner Lori
    Barlow made a presentation to the Commission regarding the location, vicinity, the conditions
    on the ground and surrounding areas. There is a house located on the property that would
                th                                                            th
    have been 5 Ave at the end just west of Newer Rd. It was explained that 5 Ave. will probably
    never be able to go all the way through, based on the house being located at this intersection.
    Ms. Barlow stated that a plat, Short-Plat-17-08, which has received preliminary approval to

   10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                 Page 1 of 6
 divide a parcel west of the proposed vacation which will require improvement to one half of 5
 Ave. abutting the new parcel.
 Ms. Barlow reviewed the criteria for approving the street vacation. Staff’s recommendation is
 that the vacation be denied because the street could be used to serve future development.
 Public Works has also recommended denial for connectivity issues in the future.
 Arnie Woodard, 2511 S. Best Rd, Mr. Woodard stated that he has represented Mr. Elliott in
 the past, Mr. Elliott is the property owner of the western two parcels in the proposed area. Mr.
 Woodard stated that it would make more sense to put a street through north and south instead
 of east and west, when there would be no possible way to complete 5 Ave all the way
 through, with the house that sits right in the way. Mr. Woodard stated that Mr. Elliott is
 intending to put a street through north and south not east and west.
 Chair closed the public hearing at 6:18 pm. Ms Barlow stated that Development Engineering
 and Public Works were aware of Mr. Elliot’s proposal for his 4 parcels due to a pre-app meeting
 he has already had with the City. At that time they recommended that St. Charles be put
                th     th             th
 through from 4 to 6 Ave., with 5 Ave. still providing a connection from Progress Rd. It is still
 the opinion of both departments that the right-of-way for 5 Ave. is needed would still be
 beneficial to provide access to the back of the other two lots to the east of Mr. Elliot’s for
 redevelopment. , Although a turn-around for the fire department would still need to be provided
          th                                                                                    th
 even if 5 Ave were extended. It is still both departments’ opinions that the right-of way for 5
 Ave needs to remain in place. Commissioner Beaulac wanted to know if they could make a
 condition on the street vacation if it was approved they would require St. Charles to be put
 through as a cross street. Director McClung said the Commission can not place a condition on
 the street vacation that relates to future development.
 There was discussion regarding the turn around required for the short plat to the west of the
 requested street vacation. The short plat has preliminary approval, it is required to make half
 street improvements, and a fire turn-a-round is being planned on the property however if the
 street vacation were approved, a full cul-de-sac would likely be a condition of the vacation for a
 turn around, per Public Works.
 Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend denial of the STV-02-08, street vacation of
 a portion of 5 Ave. Commissioner Eggleston seconded the motion. Discussion began,
 regarding the following conditions: there was no reason to not vacate, there will be no way to
 continue 5 Ave. all the way to Newer Rd., if we vacate, there is nothing to hold the developer
 to building a north/south road, the road extension issue could be handled at the time of plat
 application and the developer would be held to conditions made at that time, , 5 Ave. is going
 to dead end one way or another, why not at the intersection of St Charles, and not against Mr.
 Elliot’s properties. There was concern about the impact to other lots, more in favor of half of a
 vacation, without a vacation they can not develop the lots, the developer gains from the
 vacation, put a turn around at the intersection of St. Charles with 5 , get half the vacation, give
 up half and get better connectivity all the way around. There would be an out to Progress, 4
 and 6 . And there would be a turn-around for the fire department. Vote is three in favor and
 three opposed. Motion fails. Planning commission will send it forward to City Council with no
 New Business – Public Hearing, Uniform Development Code Amendment, Title 19,
 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay
 Commissioner Robertson opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Planning Manager Greg
 McCormick gave a presentation regarding the history of the airport overlay zone. Mr.
 McCormick also discussed issues with the zone overlay, zone 6 is basically suppose to relate
 to a noise reduction issue, and the basis for the discussion for the evening. Currently the
 zoning in zone 6 is one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. The options for changing the density in the
 overlay zone are:
     Option 1 No Change and leave the density where it currently is

10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                   Page 2 of 6
     Option 2 Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay (AOZ
              Airport Overlay Zone) zone.
     Option 3 Allow density to be limited to the R-2 zoning district regulations within zone 6
     Option 4 Allow density of underlying zone within Zone 6, however development must
              comply with a minimum of one (1) of the following criteria;
               a. The site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to
                  the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley initial airport hazard overlay
                  regulations on 2-28-06 by Ordinance 06-002;
               b. Contiguous parcel with a minimum lot size less than or greater to underlying
               c.   More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence
                    used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent
                    with underlining zone to make conforming.
     Option 5, which was requested by the Planning Commission at the study session to leave
               the density north of Trent the way that it is and south of Trent at the under lying
 Commissioner Sharpe had requested information regarding vacant parcels, he wanted to know
 how many vacant parcels there were in the AOZ. The planning staff was able to provide the
 information, there are 80 parcels but staff can not tell what condition those parcels are in. Staff
 was also able to tell that there were seven dividable lots, once again not being able to tell who
 owns them or their condition. Staff’s recommendation is still option 4, allow the underlying
 density within zone 6, with the listed criteria.
 The Commissioners had several questions before they began the public testimony. How did
 staff come to the criteria listed? It is close to the criteria used for rezoning purposes. Why
 wasn’t this research done previously? Why isn’t it water and sewer? Did we hear back from
 the FAA as requested? Yes, they did respond and staff did meet with them. Did we do any
 noticing of the area regarding the possibility of changing the density then or now? Commission
 began the public testimony.
 Ryan Sheehan, 2303 S Tekoa St.: Mr. Sheehan stated he was representing the airport. Mr.
 Sheehan requested that the Commission post pone any action or choose Option 1. Mr.
 Sheehan stated that the Airport Board would like more time to review the impacts of the
 changes. The director, Mr. Neil Seelock, is asking for more time to consider proposed changes
 based on more which should be considered more on noise in the community as well as safety.
 Mr. Sheehan stated that the first the Airport Board heard about the proposed changes was mid
 last week, after receiving a call from Asst. Planner Karen Kendall. The Airport Director did not
 feel they had enough time to present what it would like to offer in the way of education
 regarding activity increases. Commissioner Eggleston asked how much time more time did
 they think they need? Mr. Sheehan stated they thought 30 days. A Commissioner asked if the
 airport received notice. A notice of public hearing was sent however there is no administrative
 staff at felts field and all administrative work gets passed out to Spokane International Airport.
 Jeff Hamilton, 3305 S High Drive: Mr. Hamilton stated he is the president of the Tenants
 Association for Felts Field, business or airport. It is the Tenant’s Association to protect the
 airport. Mr. Hamilton stated that they have submitted a letter stating their position. The
 Tenant’s Association is aware of airports closing more around the country. Mr. Hamilton
 wanted to commend the City for its standards, for the FAA and WADOT for being concerned
 about increasing density when it is not reasonable. Mr. Hamilton stated he is concerned about
 putting the airport at risk. Mr. Hamilton would like to ask for a comprehensive analysis, and
 respectfully ask to postpone this decision.
 Gary White, 10405 E Ferret Drive: Mr. White stated he was president of the Washington Pilot
 Association. Mr. White requested that the Commission adopt option 1 to postpone this

10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                  Page 3 of 6
 discussion in order to get more information regarding this regulation. Mr. White would like to
 encourage not to increase density around the airport. Mr. White has stated that he as seen
 other airports shut down because of density.
 Bill Faith, 7719 E Current Pt.: Mr. Faith stated that he owns a parcel which would be a little
 less than 3 lots which have sewer stub and water. Mr. Faith stated that he would understand if
 he wanted to build high rise in the flight path, but if you are concerned about the safety then
 worry about the houses across the river. Mr. Faith stated that there are trees and everything
 across the river, he does not see any reason for restrictions in this area.
 Carter Timmerman, Arlington, WA, WADOT: Mr. Timmerman stated he was an airport
 sponsor and that he supports Mr. Sheehan's request for more time. Mr. Timmerman also made
 an offer of assistance in the planning process. Mr. Timmerman said that most accidents occur
 within 5000 feet of the runway. Density in this zone does offer a risk, but the noise is the larger
 concern. Commissioners asked if any noise surveys done on that area, none that anyone was
 aware of.
 Larry Tobin, 8610 E Red Oak Dr.: Mr. Tobin stated that he felt that the airport very important.
 Mr. Tobin said he felt the airport carrot for the area and would not like to see the airport go
 away because people don't like the noise. Mr. Tobin stated that what the Commission was
 talking about zoning the around the airports, and asked that they give careful consideration to
 these regulations.
 Blake McKinnley, 4015 S Sunnerland: Mr. McKinnley stated he is an officer of the Chapter of
 WA State Pilots Assoc. Mr. McKinnley shared the airport data for Felts Field 70,669 annual
 flight operations which represents 22% more flight operations than Spokane International
 Airport. Both runways are used extensively on a daily basis. WADOT has stated that the
 economic benefit Felts Field provides to the area is 250 jobs resulting in $16.5M dollars in labor
 and economic value to the community on a annual basis. Mr. McKinnley stated that the
 Associations understand for the adoption of the AOZ and restricting certain land uses and
 density was to protect the airport and airport safety. By allowing density increase in the area, is
 not reasonable land use. The potential adoption would allow increase in noise and liability
 issues which potentially puts the asset of the airport at risk. The Association requests that the
 Commission delay its decision for more collaboration and a comprehensive approach for all
 parties to study this subject further.
 Mike Klein, Manager Orchard Ave Water District, 917 S Bowdish: Mr. Klein stated that it
 seems to me like the battle with the Water District and the patrons is with the airport not the
 City. Mr. Klein said this was new to him. Mr. Klein stated in the past the only restrictions have
 been height and radio frequency. Noise and density were a recommendations, this ordinance
 was acted on a recommendation. Mr. Klein stated he was here to inform the Commission that
 this decision has a big impact on the water district. With out an increase in density there will be
 no future growth. The density along the airport was UR-3.5 in the county. The safety zone
 does not want schools, parks, large gatherings of people and yet there are all of these things in
 the overlay zone already. Mr. Klein stated that on one is trying to destroy the airport, there has
 never been an incident there, but overkill hurts people. People are being hurt by the
 restrictions in this ordinance, hope the Commissioners can see this.
 Jeff Howe, 7101 E. Rudder: Mr. Howe stated that the City of Spokane Valley has been losing
 revenue by not allowing these lots to be divided. Mr. Howe stated that around the airport in
 Deer Park you are required to sign off a statement recognizing you are in a an airport zone, you
 must sound insulate you home and giving certain rights to the airport because you live in and
 around the airport zone. None of that has been implemented by the City of Spokane airport,
 the airport has a business to run, but the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Howe said he bought a
 property in 2006, he asked if it could divide it before he bought it, asked county if he could get
 extra sewer stubs, water stubs from Orchard Ave., he even got a building permit for a building
 on the property, which is much smaller than he would have built otherwise. Mr. Howe said he
 made several trips down to the City and he was never told he could not divide his property, paid
 more for the property than he would have, the City is missing the revenue. Mr. Howe stated he

10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                  Page 4 of 6
 thought that the change had been railroaded through the first time, when even the water district
 does not know about it six months after, he felt the Commissioners should side with the little
 James Bower: Pilots Association. Mr. Bower stated that he felt the Commission should
 choose option 1. Mr. Bower said he felt that the Commission should advise Council to protect
 the people living here. Talking about zone 6 is talking about noise, flying between 1000 - 800
 feet is fairly noisy, the noise is less at 1000-1500. Mr. Bower suggested that the
 Commissioners consider the job is to protect from noise. If you look to the future, some new
 home buyers may not realize the airport not there, even though airplanes are there 24 hours a
 day. Mr. Bower said even though we are talking about a housing only, this industry supports
 the schools, snow plows and other important activity in the City
 Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he didn't understand agencies coming to
 ask for more time, this is not about increase density. Mr. Hume stated he belived that Option 4
 reasonable, without further analysis. Under regulations, extra insulation can be required for
 noise suppression, new permit holders should have to sign an easement waving for noise.. Mr.
 Hume stated he felt that if the airport felt this was going to be damaging to them then they
 should have to come back with help and prove why the net increase is damaging, and could
 cause the closure of the airport.
 Joe Coleia, 8112 E Marietta: Mr. Coleia stated got letter from Marina (Marina Sukup, former
 Director) stating he would be able to divide the property or he would not have bought it. Mr.
 Coleia stated he had a lot of money invested in a little house and a lot that he can not split. Mr.
 Coleia stated he was upset that he had a letter that said he could do something we later said
 he could not do. The lot has sewer and water. Mr. Coleia stated he did not think if he split his
 lot, it would be any smaller than any other lot on the street.
 Sara Orrange, Spokane Realtor Association, 9124 N. Ash: Ms. Orrange stated she was the
 Government Affairs Director for the Spokane Realtors, which advocates housing options and
 not restricting housing choices. Ms Orrange stated that option 4, while it allows for housing
 density with some restrictions, it does not allow for as much as many housing opportunities, as
 some of the other options do. Ms. Orrange also stated it did not allow for the opportunities as
 the underlying zoning or what is allowed in the City of Spokane.
 Jeff McIntire 3816 N Park Rd.: Mr. McIntire stated he lives at the end of the runway and has
 no problems with the airport. Mr. McIntire purchased his property to divide, it has water and
 sewer, he is also a board member for Orchard Ave. Water District. Mr. McIntire stated that he
 is aware that planes make noise, he has lived in this area for 33 years and never had an issue
 with the noise. Mr. McIntire did state he was concerned that there had been no proper notice to
 concerned parties.
 Pam McIntire, 3816 N Park Rd.: Ms. McIntire stated that the Airport was a great neighbor.
 She also said that they like the airport, but that some of our properties are dividable, we want to
 be to do that. Ms. McIntire wondered why are we trying to change it now, when there have
 always been people there?
 John Stipe, 2820 N Center Rd.: Mr. Stipe stated that the airport would never going to make
 much noise. He said they can't bring in 4 engine jets, there is not enough runway length. Mr.
 Stipe stated he used to fly fighters but they had practiced to land the fighters Felts Field for a
 while however the runway is too short and there is no room to expand it, after Northwood was
 built they never used it again. Mr. Stipe talked about the new gyms at WVHS, and the people
 using the school. Mr. Stipe stated that the airport does not fly multiple flights out of there after
 10 p.m. at night. He stated that the most noise in the neighborhood comes from the railroad.
 Mr. Stipe stated he had enough land to divide, and believes he should be able to do so if he
 Sharon Panther, 8004 E Glass: Ms. Panther stated she had not received any information on
 this overlay. Ms. Panther stated she has sort of an acre. She stated that the county stated that
 the property could not be divided until sewer was in the area. Ms. Panther stated now she has

10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                   Page 5 of 6
          the utilities she was told now she can not divide the property now. Ms. Panther stated she
          asked the City is the change had been mandated by some other entity but could not get a
          satisfactory answer and would like the ability to divide her property. .
          John Dikes, 7323 E Marietta: Mr. Dikes stated he likes the airplanes, but if you stop the
          growth the water district needs growth to keep the costs down. He also stated he felt that
          growth spawned improvement in existing development. Mr. Dikes does not feel the noise of the
          airplanes is bothersome, he finds the trains far noisier than the airport. Mr. Dikes also has a lot
          he could improve and divide if allowed. Commissioner Beaulac asked Mr. Dikes if he were to
          develop his extra lot would he be willing to sign a waiver for the airport noise and provide the
          extra insulation for the noise suppression. Mr. Dikes responded that although he would be
          willing he was surprised that the airport noise was a problem for anyone, the railroad noise far
          out weighted the planes.
          Raymond Gunning 6215 N Thierman: Mr. Gunning stated he has a full packet, got had a
          letter from Marina Sukup, had the engineering done, sewer, brought in to submit it, can't do it.
          Mr. Gunning stated that he was in agreement with the land owners, as far as the airport, he has
          grown up in Millwood, and sells real estate, with the understanding that you have to enjoy the
          planes, trains and automobiles. Mr. Gunning stated he would never want to harm the airport
          but he also does not want to harm the water district.       Commissioner Beaulac asked Mr.
          Gunning if he would be willing to sign an agreement, and put in the noise abatement features.
          Mr. Gunning stated he would sign it and believed that the last 10 houses he has sold, that one
          of his customers would have a problem signing it either.
           The Planning Commission took a break and on their return, Director. McClung clarified the
          surrounding some of the questions and issues of the airport overlay zone. The Director also
          explained how the amendment would proceed through the City Council process.
          Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to continue the public hearing to Dec. 11, 2008, with a
          second by Commissioner Sands. Vote is unanimous in favor.
          Commissioner Robertson stated that the Council would be discussing Water Quality at the next
          Council meeting.
          The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

SUBMITTED:                                                APPROVED:

_________________________________                         __________________________
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant                 Ian Robertson, Vice-Chairperson

        10/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes                                                   Page 6 of 6

Shared By: