Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 05-08-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, May 8,2014 Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roIl and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Christina Carlsen Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin Tadas Kisielius,Special Council Mike Phillips Noah Herlocker,Environmental Consultant Chris Sneider Deanna Horton, Secretary Steven Neill Joe Stoy,Absent- Excused Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stay was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Carlsen noted there were no minutes to approve; Commissioner Neil moved to accept the April 24,2014 agenda amended. Motion passed six to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Phillips reported he attended City Hall at the Mall and the State of the City address given by the Mayor. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reported on City Hall at the Mall,the State of the City address by the Mayor and the advanced agenda PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments regarding subjects not on the agenda. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Study Session Spokane Valley Municipal Code Amendment CTA-01-14: Planner Micki Harnois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b) Light Industrial district to change the required side and rear yard setbacks from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential use or zone. The request is to also change Table 19.60-1 Commercial Development Standards to specify the minimum side and rear yard setbacks adjacent to a residential use or zone would be 20 feet in the Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zones. Mr. Kuhta explained the proponent has a piece of property in the Light Industrial area, however this subject was on the list code review subjects in the Light and Heavy Industrial areas and this request brought it to the forefront. Ms. Harnois showed some examples of lots in the Yardley area of the City where some of the lots are only 50 feet wide. It would make it difficult for people to develop a lot this width with the current 35 foot setback against a residential property. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners this would affect all of the industrial properties in the City,which could also have unintended consequences. Commissioner Anderson asked where the 35 foot setback came from. Mr. Kuhta stated he was unaware but the staff would attempt to find the answer and have it in the staff report, Commissioner Carlsen said when multifamily is next to single-family homes there is a provision in the SVMC, which requires buildings to be step-back in height from the property line. She asked if this would apply in the industrial areas. Mr. Kuhta said there is no step-back allowance for industrial buildings. It was also noted an industrial building could be built up to 60 feet in height next to a residence, with no step-back required. Commissioner Carlsen asked how people who lived next to the industrial areas would be notified of this change, if it was approved. Mr.Kuhta stated there would be a notice in the paper, but that individual property owners would not be noticed this 05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 amendment did not fit into the noticing process of that type. Commissioner Phillips asked what the regulations were in other jurisdictions. Mr. Kuhta stated the staff report, which would be ready at the next meeting,would offer the surrounding jurisdictions regulations regarding this subject. B. Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations: Senior Planner Lori Barlow introduced Special Council Tadas Kisielius and Consultant Noah Herlocker, Senor Biologist from URS Corp., who helped the City develop some of the earlier shoreline documents, such as the City's Shoreline Inventory, No Net Loss Report, Cumulative Impacts Report, and the Critical Areas Ordinance. Mr. Kisielius is again here to assist with questions regarding the Shoreline Management Act and how the law impacts the City's regulations. Mr. Herlocker will help explain the Critical Areas regulations,which is the next piece for review. • 21.50.420 Shoreline--Slope Stabilization--this applies to stabilization activities for shoreline and slope stabilization. A Shoreline CUP is required and specific criteria applies. Existing shoreline stabilization structures maybe replace but Shoreline Development Permit(SDP)is required. • 21.50.420(13)(8)A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM, unless all of the following apply: a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992; Commissioner Anderson asked where the date came from. Mr. Kisielius stated it came from the WAC 173.26.231(3)(a)(iii)(c). • 21.50.430 Piers and Docks — Applies the construction or expansion of piers and docks. The standards apply to docks serving four or more residences, new docks are allowed for water- dependent uses or public access, a new dock shall be the minimum size necessary based upon the needs of the applicant,but cannot exceed 55 feet in length or a total deck area of 320 sf. A Letter of Exemption is required for all private docks for single and multi-family residences. The Shoreline Modifications table would tell where a dock would be allowed. Any other dock requires a SDP. Commissioner Phillips questioned the size saying they were fairly small. Ms. Barlow stated it was from the WAC but had been modified to say not greater than 320 sf. Mr. Kisielius stated the concept on docks is to make them as small as possible to the purpose. • 21.50.440 Dredging and Fill — Applies to all dredging and fill waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required when it is allowed. There are fill standards and dredging standards. • 21.50.450 - Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancements Projects These projects requires a SDP or LOE and the project must demonstrate the main purpose is either enhancing or restoring natural shoreline functions. Commissioner Anderson asked if gravel pits were putting in fill, would these regulations apply to them. Mr. Kisielius reminded the Commissioners the gravel pits are noted in the regulations but are not controlled as shorelines of the state until after all mining operations have ceased. Ms. Barlow stated Mr. Herlocker would use his expertise to explain the next section of the Shoreline regulations to the Commission being the Critical Areas (CA) regulations. Mr. Herlocker explained to the Commission in most cities,the Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)is taken from the municipal code and put it in the Shoreline Program as the Critical Area regulations. The City's CAO was confusing and hard to follow. So it was decided to rewrite it,streamline it and make it applicable to the City's shorelines. • General Provisions — if a project being proposed will affect one of the CAs, the process for the report required to document what will be done, how it will impact the CA, what will be done to mitigate the impact and who can prepare the report. Commissioner Anderson stated the WAC does not have a definition of a CA. He said the definition the City has; states it is a result of GMA. Mr. Kisielius stated originally CAs were adopted as a GMA requirement. The SMP is tater recognized as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. When someone asked about CAs in the Shoreline, there was litigation over who was in charge of them, the compromise was what is in place today. After the SMP update is done, then 05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 CAs within the Shoreline are governed by the SMP, and are governed under the No Net Loss standard. All other CAs are governed by GMA. Commissioner Carlsen asked if there were maps of the CAs. The City has maps which show each of the CAs. Ms. Carlsen asked if the SVMC would be updated to reflect the new regulations in the SMP for the CA. Ms. Barlow said the SVMC would be updated to mirror the new CA regulations in the SMP but she was not sure how soon staff would be bringing the amendment forward, Commissioner McCaslin noticed the topic of public access appears many times in the document. He wondered if this would be a problem with property rights. Mr. Kisielius said the bigger concern seems to be more requiring public access on private development. The public access plan was mirrored from the earlier portion of the regulations and because the City already has great public access by way of publically owned lands it will not be a problem. The project would need to show nexus in order to require it. • Wetlands —the only wetlands which the City is aware of are at the inlet of Shelley Lake. This would be an instance where the shoreline border was stretched, which is allowed by the WAC, to reach around the whole wetland to keep it under one set of regulations. Although there are many regulations, they would only come into effect if there was a project proposed around the wetlands at Shelley Lake. • The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) largely encompasses the whole City. The regulations are written to attempt to be not overly limiting but focusing on items which could have the potential to leak into the ground and through to the water table. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the City's whole shoreline was a CARA. Mr. Herlocker explained the entire shoreline jurisdiction as well as most of the City of Spokane Valley is considered a CARA. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was any liability for the professional if the mitigation doesn't work, such as a wetland restoration. There is no certification for wetlands professional but the state is looking into requiring a license, where in other professions they have them, such as biologists and geologists. There are also requirements for bonds and sureties. Mr. Anderson asked if mitigation fails, would the City require the property owner to do the work again and not the professional who did the work. Mr. Herlocker stated the project would be planned out well in advance, following the strict guidelines in the regulations. Ms. Barlow reiterated the reason for the plan and plan review was to make sure the project would succeed. Mr. Herlocker explained the reason for the performance sureties was for protection in the case the project did not work out because there is no insurance for some of the professionals who perform the required services in the regulations. • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (FWHA)—Mr. Kisielius stated the regulations were copied from the good work done in the buffer report but the focus is additional fish and wildlife habitat beyond what the buffer section addresses. Mr. Herlocker stated he was not aware of any endangered species in the City. These regulations would cover anything which might be discovered in the future. This would cover all riparian areas in the river. • Geologically Hazardous Areas — This covers highly erodible soils, or soils over a certain grade where it would be risky to construct anything. He stated there are some erodible soils along the bank of the river near Mirabeau Park and the Trent Bridge. • Frequently Flooded Areas — Mr. Herlocker stated these regulations are tied in with the City's current floodplain regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was related to the FEMA 100 yr floodplain. Mr.Kisielius said yes,they were closely related. Commissioner Anderson asked where the definition of buffer came from. Mr. Herlocker said the State of the Science document which Ecology produced about buffers which described them. Mr. Kisielius stated its meaning and definition is determined by the regulation which defines it. Depending on the buffer to which is being referred,the definition can change. He said it more refers to a tool and how that tool is used in a particular application. Mr. Anderson asked if we considered our buffers to be no touch zones. Ms. Barlow stated the City's buffers are intended to remain in an undisturbed state. There are a list of exemptions however after that,it would be considered as such. 05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 There was a considerable discussion regarding the definitions `shoreline' and`shorelands' and how the two intermingle in many instances. Mr. Anderson asked if Senate Bill 5451. is that going to be included in our program, regarding legally conforming structures. Mr. Kisielius explained how the bill came about, that it was addressing residences that might become nonconforming due to the updated shoreline plans. The legislation allowed jurisdictions to make all residential structures legally conforming. Mr. Kisielius said the City's buffer is following the contours of the vegetation on the ground, and does not encompass structures as was being done in other jurisdictions where they were applying a standard size buffer along the shorelines. Mr. Kisielius stated he did not feel the City needed a regulation which would make any legally conforming structures because they had taken care to avoid the problem. Mr. Anderson commented he felt it was still necessary in order to protect personal property rights. Mr. Kisielius said he felt this would only cover the structures, and it says the buffers as established in the map and the map is designed to avoid this problem. Commissioner Neill asked what would prevent the river from meandering in the City limits. Mr. Herlocker stated it was the dams and the geology of the river. The river is geologically deeply entrenched below the surrounding prairie and the darn controls the river. The Centennial Trail floods in a couple of places along the Coyote Rock are and along an area near Flora Rd. Those would be the only infrastructure issue the City would have relative to flooding. Commissioner Carlsen asked if all the geological hazards were on private land and Mr.Herlocker said he was not aware of any. Ms. Barlow stated the technical review group was returning comments and the public hearing had been noticed for May 22, 2014. Ms. Carlsen asked who would be receiving notices regarding the hearing. Ms. Barlow stated the City has been keeping a list of interested parties, the City has a list of people who ask for notice for all Planning Commission activities, it will be noticed in the paper, the notice will also be posted to the City's website. Mr. Kuhta stated the formal adoption process and there will be additional opportunities to comment. Ms. Barlow noted the City has noticed all the property owners along the shorelines more than once and the response from those property owners has been very limited. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. " (0 tif I „„,„ Christina Carlsen, C rairperson Date signed ItogieltD Deanna Horton, secretary 05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4