PC APPROVED Minutes 03-27-14 Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers--City Hall,
March 27,2014
Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Bob McCaslin Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Steve Neill Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Mike Phillips
Chris Sneider
Joe Stoy
Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 27, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed
seven to zero. Regarding the March 13, 2014 minutes commissioners noted the vote for CPA-02-
14 was incorrect. Commissioner McCaslin and Commissioner Sneider's vote was recorded
opposite of their actual vote. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 13, 2014
minutes as corrected. The minutes will be corrected. Motion passed seven to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta reported the permitting
activity is increasing. The City is also seeing an increase in land use pre-application conferences
as well. Mr. Kuhta shared a flyer for an upcoming 2nd Annual IES-APA Planning Awards
Dinner.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Unfinished Business:
Findings of Fact: Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments: Chair Stoy introduced the
Planning Commission finding for the 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Vice Chair
Carlsen moved to approve the findings for CPA-01 through 10-2014.
Commissioner Sneider commented since the city center has been completely removed from
the Comprehensive Plan there didn't seem to be any strategic plan for the City's future. He
expressed his concern there no longer seemed to be a plan for the City's future. He hoped the
City would be able to come up with a replacement sooner rather than later, hoping the new
things which are happening near Sprague and Herald could be leveraged to help plan for the
future of our City.
Commissioner Anderson said he felt the findings for CPA-02-14 presented both sides of the
story. Commissioner Anderson noted one of findings said future property owners would be
permitted to build a building on the property if the change were approved; he said in fact
Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) would be permitted to do
that as well. He commented from the staff report statements which said 'this amendment will
provide an upgraded necessary animal control facility" and "if plans were to change the
proposed designation would allow for transitional uses more suitable to the Iocation that may
act as a buffer." Commissioner Anderson was concerned these statements are not reflected
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7
because it does not delineate there are possibilities of change which could occur, if this is
approved, which would be very negative to the residents and the residents would have no
control over these actions. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify if SCRAPS could use
this property to walk dogs as it is currently designated. Ms. Barlow said although Mr.
Palaniuk had previously answered yes it was inaccurate. This information was also clarified
at the Public Hearing. Walking dogs on the property would be an extension of their use as a
regional animal control facility and they currently are not allowed to utilize the property for
that purpose. He said in the findings under Attachment 2 (b)(ii) it states "SCRAPS is the
property owner of the proposed amendment site and a denial will inhibit the use of the site as
they intend." Mr. Anderson said there was testimony from Nancy Hill of SCRAPS,that there
was no original intended use for the property. She had testified they had to purchase this
piece of property as part of the overall land purchase. Mr. Kuhta said however they do now
intend to use the property and the report does reflect that. The City Council will get this
report and all of the supporting information to be able to make a decision.
Commissioner Phillips pointed out on the findings document that CPA-01-14 was listed in
the conclusions as the amendment which ended in a tie, CPA-02-14 actually was the
amendment which ended in a tie. Mr. Kuhta said staff would correct the error before
signatures were obtained and moved forward.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to amend the original motion by stating the findings shall read
"CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14 are not in compliance and CPA-02-14 resulted in a tie. The
vote on this amendment was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. The vote on the
motion to approve the Planning Commission findings as amended, seven in favor, zero
against, motion passes.
Mr. Kuhta shared that at the April 1 Council meeting Mike Jackson, John Hohman, Cary
Driskell, Erik Lamb and himself will be providing an overview of Comprehensive Planning
to the City Council. He said some of the items to be discussed will be the major update,
annual updates, role of the Commission, and public hearings. Mr. Kuhta encouraged the
Commissioners to attend,
B. New Business:
Study Session Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained contents of the Buffer Map Booklet provided to the
Commissioners and noted that it would be used throughout the Draft Regulations.
Ms. Barlow discussed the key points of the upcoming draft regulations. These regulations
will only be applicable to the City's shorelines. Ms. Barlow noted the gravel pits will not be
considered until all mining operations have stopped. Generally speaking the City does not
have a lot of shoreline. Sixty two percent of the shoreline in the City is public land, thirty
eight percent is privately owned.
Ms. Barlow said the draft regulations would be reviewed in three pieces, administrative
provisions, general provisions on April 24, and critical areas on or about May 8, 2014. The
regulations were developed in conjunction with URS, and in-house staff. She shared staff
would be conducting an open house closer to the public hearing, tentatively scheduled for
May 22, 2014. After the regulations have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, the
City Council will adopt them by resolution. After all of the pieces of the Shoreline Master
PIan have been adopted by resolution, the entire package, would return for the formal
adoption process. After the local adoption process has been completed, the Plan is sent to
Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE) for state adoption.
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Anderson asked who was expected to use the regulations stating they are
written in a difficult manner to read and use. He said there were too many cross-references
back and forth, it was confusing to try and read. Ms. Barlow replied both, staff and the
public, would be using the document. City Attorney Cary Driskell interjected this was an
internal and external document. There had been a concerted effort by staff to make the
document as readable as possible, while still making it as direct as necessary. Mr. Driskell
stated it was a technical document and it was going to be difficult for some people. Ms.
Barlow noted that generally property owners come to the city with questions about a project.
Staff works with them to explain the regulations. Staff is always willing to help our citizens
understand the City's regulations.
Ms. Barlow proceeded to review administrative sections of the regulations taking questions as
they occurred.
• 21.50.020 explains where the shoreline jurisdiction is, and who and what it applies to. The
regulations will apply,even if a shoreline permit is not required. In our City it would apply
to the river, Shelley Lake and extend 200 feet from the shoreline.
• 21.50.030 and .040 states the Community Development Director is the shoreline
administrator. It also notes he has the ability to consult with experts if needed to make an
appropriate decision, and explains the different types of shoreline permits.
• 21.50.050 lays out the process for a shoreline permit. A shoreline development permit
(SDP) requires a 30-day notice which is unique to the shoreline permitting process.
Appeals will go to the Shoreline Management Hearings Board. There was an option to
adopt a local appeal process, but after discussions staff found no value in this process.
Staff felt it would only extend the process,when the decisions could still be appealed to the
Shoreline Management Hearings Board. The section identifies permit procedures unique to
the SMP, as well as permit expiration dates noted in the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC). Commissioner Stoy asked why utility extensions and shoreline stabilizations only
required a 20-day notice. She said she recognized the difference but that it was straight out
of the WAC. She did not have the reason for the difference.
• 21.50.060 and 070 discuss how permit decisions will be made and possible conditions
which could be applied to the permits.
• 21.50.080 lists all activities and uses which are prohibited in all shoreline designations.
Ms. Barlow said these activities are prohibited, and one of the more flexible types of
permits, like a Shoreline Variance or a Conditional Use Permit to get permission to allow
the development or use. Commissioner Sneider asked why items in (I) construction of
breakwaters, jetties, groins or weirs, would not be allowed. He offered there are times
when a weir, or a spur dike, can be built to protect the shoreline. Ms. Barlow stated that
she thought the listing of prohibited activities was from the WAC and noted that she would
bring back additional information.
• 21.50.090 this section clarifies what minor activities are allowed without a permit, such as
regular maintenance of existing landscaping, creating unimproved trails less than two feet
wide, and planting native vegetation. It also mentions what cannot be done without a
permit, such as remove trees, bring in fill, earthwork, and area-wide removal of noxious
weeds. She clarified that this does not mean that these activities are prohibited, but they
require a permit.
Ms. Barlow covered the definitions of development and substantial development. Section
21.50.100 covers when a substantial development permit (SDP) is required. The WAC
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7
defines development as: any construction or exterior alteration of structures, dredging,
drilling, dumping,filling, removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving
of pilings; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature
which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of waters overlying lands subject
to the SMA at any stage of water level. Substantial development is defined as any
development which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $6,416 or any development
which materially interferes with the normal use of the water or shorelines of the state. The
dollar amount is adjusted every five years by the Office of Financial Management.
Commissioner Phillips asked if projects were considered as a whole and would not be done
in parts in order to stay under the minimum. Ms. Barlow said the rules apply to the project
in its entirety
A SDP is required unless it is specifically exempt. If the project is listed as an exempt
development, by the WAC, it means the project is exempt from the SDP process. It does
not mean the project is exempt from complying with the rules or the goals and polices; it
only means that it is exempt from the SDP process which requires public review and
comment,and a filing period with Ecology.
• 21.50.110 lists all of the exemptions from a SDP permit. These exemptions are straight
from the WAC. Although this section is lengthy, and somewhat poorly worded, staff has
been advised to stay with the WAC language because these exemptions, as written, have
been supported by case law.
Commissioner Carlsen asked what the current process and cost would be for a shoreline
permit. Ms. Barlow said the cost would vary because it would depend on the number of
permits required for the project, but a SDP is currently $840.00 and the SEPA is $350.00.
The process for notices and completeness review are in the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC). The SDP can be issued following the noticing and comment periods. ,
This takes approximately three months.
Commissioner Anderson questioned item G,personal docks. He asked if the legislature
hadn't recently changed the amount from $10,000 to$20,000. He stated the bill had just
been passed. Ms. Barlow said that new law would become effective this summer, and the
draft would be updated to reflect the most recent amount prior to adoption.
• 21.50.120 addresses Letters of Exemption (LOE). All of the exempt activities require a
letter spelling out exactly what is being approved. It will explain what the property owner
can do and what they cannot do. The LOE is also sent to DOE but they do not have the
opportunity for comment or review. The advantage is a homeowner can get the LOE in
approximately two weeks, if SEPA is not required. The letter can't go out until SEPA
review has been done, if it is required. Other jurisdictions charge for LOE but currently the
City does not. The LOEs can be conditioned, like a permit, but without the time for public
and agency review process. Commissioner Sneider asked if someone wanted to perform
one of the exempt activities, if they would need to have the LOE before they begin the
work. He stated there were many activities listed that many people may not know they
needed the letter before they did the work. He wondered how the City would let people
know. Ms. Barlow shared these are not new regulations; they have been in effect since the
SMA was enacted in 1971. She said the City did not go out looking for violators, but did
follow up on complaints received of people working in the shoreline areas without permits.
• 21.50.130 identifies when shoreline Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are needed, and notes
that if a proposed use is not listed in the Shoreline Use Table, or it is not addressed in the
SMP a shoreline CUP is required. In that case the City becomes a recommending body
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7
when it comes to the conditional use permit, and the final authority lies with DOE. A CUP
can't be used to allow a prohibited use. Conditions can be placed on a CUP.
• 21.50.140 addresses Shoreline Variances for a shoreline permit. A Shoreline Variance is
only granted when extraordinary or unique circumstance exist which create a hardship or
conflict with the SMA policies. It is not for a self-made situation. An example would be if
the lot was situated so a home could not reasonably be built on it without encroaching into
the shoreline buffer or setback. Commissioner Stoy asked if a property owner could get
relief for lot coverage and other similar things through an administrative exception. Ms.
Barlow stated not under the SMP, the rules are not written to allow those kinds of relief. A
Shoreline Variance would be required which also places DOE as the final decision making
authority.
• 21.50.150 speaks to non-conforming development in the shoreline in three different ways.
There are non-conforming uses, structures, or lots. Staff have written the non-conforming
regulations to allow flexibility for property owners. The definition is a legally established
use, lot or structure which no longer meets the regulations. A structure or use which never
got permits, and now does not meet the regulations, does not meet the definition. The non-
conforming regulations allow for new development but the new development must conform
to the current regulations. A use could be expanded or intensified but specific criteria must
be met. Converted or discontinued uses lose their non-conforming status, after a period of
time, which is in line with the non-conforming regulations in the SVMC, If a building
containing a non-conforming use is destroyed the building could be rebuilt, and the use
continued, as Iong as the building was built to regulations. A non-conforming building
could be expanded but not into the shoreline area. If it could be expanded landside, this
would be allowed but the non-conforming section could not be expanded.
• Ms. Barlow explained the SMP requires a revision to an approved permit whenever the
applicant proposes substantive changes to the project approved by permit. "Substantive
changes" are those that materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its
conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the SMP and/or the policies and
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act.
• 21.50.160 allows for minor revisions to a permit which the director can approve. The
criteria is very specific: if it is determined to be within scope and intent of permit,
authorized use does not change, no adverse environmental impacts will occur, no new
structures, no additional over-water construction except that docks, etc. may increase by
10%, ground area coverage and height may be increased 10%, revised landscaping is
consistent with SMP and permit conditions. If these criteria can be met, then a minor
revision can be granted. If the criteria can't be met then a new permit must be applied for.
Ms. Barlow said the next study session would cover general provisions, shoreline uses,
shoreline use table, modification activities table, no net loss regulations, and buffers. Ms.
Barlow stated she thought Mr. Kisielius from VanNess Feldman would be attending the
meeting to assist the Commissioners in understanding the regulations.
Commissioner Carlsen asked if she had missed the enforcement section. Ms. Barlow said the
enforcement is 21.50.170 which generally points back to the SVMC for enforcement
provisions. However it does highlight what a person could be required to do if restoration
activities are necessary. An example might be if you are party to a violation to a critical area,
you might have to develop a restoration plan.
Commissioners took a break at 8:00 p.m. returning at 8:10 p.m.
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7
Commissioner Anderson questioned, on page 3, 21.50.010 first paragraph,who came up with
the term "liberally construed." Ms. Barlow replied it came from the WAC. He wondered if
the term was necessary, he would like to leave it out. Staff discussed the language was
straight from the WAC and actually was beneficial to property owners and should not be
changed.
Commissioner Anderson said under 21.50.050(B)(1) it says The public comment period for
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAG 173-27-110.
21.50.050(B)(7) says For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the
permit without additional action pursuant to WAG 173-27-130. Mr. Anderson wanted to
know if the items could be reorganized so they could be lined up together. Ms. Barlow stated
the way the Iist is written right now it is Iaid out in more of a chronological list, instead of
like items together.
Commissioner Carlsen said on the same page 21.50.030, She felt references to the director
should not be gender specific. Mr. Driskell answered there is a provision in the SVMC which
states all references to"he"encompasses"she" as well.
Commissioner Anderson directed attention to section 21.50.060(A)(1) Basis for action,
"danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project." Mr. Anderson
wondered how this item carne to be included in the regulations. He felt this should be a
building dept. issue. He did not feel this was a purview of the shoreline regulations.
Previously staff and the Commissioners had been discussing a shoreline violation,where
there had been concern for the property owner's safety from work which had been done in the
shoreline area. This would be grounds for denial,
Commissioner McCaslin asked in reference to 21.50.050(A)(5) adequacy of the information
provided by the applicant or available to the Director: and 21.50.170(C)(3) The Director
may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional to determine if the plan
meets the requirements of the SMP. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for
revision and resubmittal,: he wondered how specific the process was, and what is given to the
applicant so they can know they have done what is required. Ms. Barlow explained the City
uses a Joint Aquatic Research Project Application (JARPA). The application is lengthy and
asks for very specific information required for these types of projects. Mr. Kuhta stated staff
works very hard with the applicants to help them and to get the information needed.
Commissioner McCaslin felt that was wonderful now,but if staff changed and it were worded
differently it might read better for the people who have to fill it out.
Commissioner Anderson said 21.50.090(A) Maintenance of existing landscaping, lie asked to
clarify the statement "Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not considered a
maintenance activity," if it should read "native trees and shrubs?" Mr. Anderson said if he
planted a tree before there was a buffer then that tree was his property, Ms. Barlow replied
the buffer is a restricted area and no activity is allowed without a permit. Mr. Kuhta clarified
the question, Mr. Anderson asked if the trees were planted before the enactment of the
Shoreline Management Act and the buffers were established, and he planted the tress, the
trees belonged to him and were not part of the shoreline buffer, he would consider them his
personal property. Staff explained after the SMA was enacted and the buffers established,the
trees fall under the SMA. Commissioner Anderson said it would be considered a taking. Mr.
Driskell said he would disagree with the statement. Mr. Driskell also said he would caution
the Commissioners with the terms they use for the actions taken by government. It isn't
considered a"taking" within the definition of the law. Ms. Barlow said legislatively the City
has the authority to regulate those areas, structures, uses, activities. The draft regulations do
say intentionally that a property owner can't remove trees or shrubs from their own property,
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7
in the buffer area without consulting the City. These regulations are restrictive on private
property rights, and the ability of the legislature and local jurisdictions to impose these types
of restrictions have been litigated and the courts have upheld theses rights. Mr. Driskell
explained that staff is trying to draft and adopt regulations which reflects the community's
values within the constraints provided by the WAC and DOE.
Ms. Barlow displayed a JARPA application to show the Commissioners the detail required.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Carlsen said she has been working with the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding clean-up of pre-1978 homes and lead based paint.
She asked who she would talk to see if the people doing work on these homes had the proper
certifications. Mr.Kuhta directed her to the City's Building Official Doug Powell.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
7-15Y GE - -
Joe Stoy, Chairperson
V
(11-4th3/
Deanna Horton, secretary
Date signed
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7