Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 04-24-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, April 24,2014 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 Robert McCaslin Absent,Excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Deanna Horton, Secretary Chris Sneider Steven Neill Joe Stoy Hearing no objections, Commissioner McCaslin was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the April 24, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 27,2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed six to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reviewed the advanced agenda with the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments regarding subjects not on the agenda. Kathleen Carstens, 1804 N Hodges Lane: Ms. Carstens shared her history with the Commission and explained she now lives in a manufactured home she owns on rented property. She expressed concerns about the land owner's ability to be able to sell the land she and 140 other residents live on,and require the tenants to move. Currently the law only requires the land owner to give the residents a 12-month notice to vacate. Ms. Carstens said although she lived in a "mobile home" it wasn't mobile and if she had to try and move it she would lose everything she had, because the costs would be too great. She requested the Planning Commission put a request for a mobile home park zone on the 20I5 Comprehensive Plan annual update docket. Ida Mulkay, 1490 S Park Road.: Ms. Mulkay stated she was a member of mobile home park association. She said she too owned her home but rented the land to put it on. She said she and her husband were on a fixed income and would have nowhere to go if the landlord decided to sell the property. She appreciates the sense of community, manageable Iiving spaces her home allows, it is close to services, and it is less than renting. Ms. Mulkay said one of the requirements of the Growth Management Act is to preserve the neighborhoods. Ms. Mulkay requested the Commissioners meet to discuss the proposals of the Association of Manufactured Home Owners. Commissioner Stoy suggested the group could ban together and pay for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Planning Manager Kuhta explained to the Commission actions previously taken by the City Council regarding the Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHO) request. Previously, the group has requested the Council create a manufactured home zone, staff researched the issue and Council chose not to place the item on the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Docket. Mr. Kuhta informed the Commissioners that Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(A)(3) allows for the Commission to propose amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners requested information regarding the previous visits by AMHO to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen asked if an amendment was introduced to the Comprehensive Plan it would mean only mean policy direction and not regulations,which Mr. Kuhta confirmed would be correct. Amelia Odeen, 831 S Woodruff Road: Ms. Oden stated she is a representative of part of AMHO. She stated the group has previously spoken before the City Council asking for a mobile home park zone to be placed on the Comprehensive Plan docket. Ms. Odeen stated she had a hand out to share with the Commissioners, and would like to meet with each of them one-on-one or in pairs to discuss the information. 04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 City Attorney Cary Driskell stated he would have concerns if the Commissioners meet in small groups regarding this subject, or any subject, it could be considered a serial meeting. He also said phone conversations and emails could be considered the same. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow introduced special council Tadas Kisielius fi.om the firm of VanNess Feldman, who would be assisting in explaining how the regulations fit into the state statutes. Commissioner Anderson asked if the regulation does not specifically say it is being applied to the buffer area, then does it mean it is being applied to the whole of the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Barlow explained there are regulations which are general and apply to the shoreline jurisdiction and regulations which are for specific areas of the shoreline,for example the buffer areas. • 21.50.180 General Provisions — these regulations apply to the whole shoreline jurisdiction. All projects must meet the No Net Loss standard. New projects could be prohibited if stabilization for flood hazard is required. Commissioner Anderson asked about#7:Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and the shorelines from public lands. Mr. Anderson wanted to know how "manage to minimize" would be quantified. Ms. Barlow stated the intent would be to have a design which would have minimal impact to the environment as possible. She explained this would allow staff the ability to work with a project to gain as much cooperation as possible to limit the impact. Mr. Anderson voiced he also felt it could be used to restrict a project as well. He also asked about#8:Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers, exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline environment. In regard to the lighting Mr.Anderson hoped safety would overrule aesthetics. Mr. Kisielius stated it is worded to capture the statute but to allow for a bit of flexibility, otherwise it would require specifics. • 21.50.190 Shoreline Uses Table - This table details the shoreline uses and if they are allowed in certain environments. Commissioner Sneider asked where the Environmental Designations were defined; Ms. Barlow explained they were in the Environmental Designations document. • 21.50.200 - Shoreline Modification Activity Table—Ms. Barlow stated the modification activity table was generally where the property gets prepared for the uses. Mr. Kisielius said the difference is in the regulations,which the State has created. • 21.50.210 -No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing—This section sets the No Net Loss standards and all projects must meet these standards. • 21.50.220 - Height Limit Standards - Primary will be limited to a height at the peak of 35 feet and accessory structures will be limited to 15 feet at the peak. Commissioner Anderson wanted to know where the heights limits came from. Ms. Barlow responded the primary structure height limit is the same as it is in the residential code. The accessory structure height limit was set to limit to preserve the views. It was discussed within staff that a 15 foot height limit would allow for a standard garage height. Accessory structures are allowed, under certain circumstances to be in the buffer area, and the height limit is to preserve the views. Mr. Anderson was concerned the height would not allow for a garage which would handle a class A motorhome. Commissioner Anderson quoted "applies to all new or redeveloped" and wanted to know if redeveloped meant remodeled. Ms. Barlow said it also meant expansions, modifications. Mr. Anderson said he knew what remolded meant but he did not know what redeveloped meant and wanted terms the normal person could understand. Commissioner Stay asked an attached garage would have the same height limit as the house or the accessory structure. Ms. Barlow confirmed it would match the primary structure. Buffers, generally, will be maintained in their natural state and is a no development area, with few exceptions. During construction a buffer is required to be marked, and protected. If it is new lot 04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 development it may be required to be recorded on the plat and on the title notice. A buffer can reduced by a variance,for up to 25%,if the criteria is met. • 21.50.230 Buffers and Building Setbacks—The environmental designation determines the setback from the Shoreline Buffer. In some cases the Municipal Code residential setback was greater than the state setback for the buffer, so the greater number took priority. Care was taken to protect the Urban Conservancy-High Quality so a 15 foot setback was established to minimize any impacts. Ms. Barlow confirmed landscaping could be done in the setback. • 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction—This section applies to any proposals which intend to reduce flood hazards,temporary or permanent structures in the floodways, or may have an impact which cause the flood hazard to be increased. Commissioner Stoy asked about spring runoff bringing debris down the river and not being able to clean it up. Ms. Barlow explained the regulation is referring to natural rooted materials. Natural habitats need to be left in place as a benefit for the environment. • 21.50.250(B) Public Access — These regulations apply to public and private projects proposed in the shoreline. This replicates when it is required from the draft Public Access Plan. Commissioner Anderson asked if asked if access was required on a private development, who would be liable. Mr. Kisielius answered that it typically would be handled by an easement and be dedicated to the City. Mr.Anderson also had a question regarding 21.50.250.(B)(2)(i,ii,iii). Mr.Anderson wondered when these regulations would apply. Mr. Kisielius stated if the private development were to interfere with existing established access then it would trigger the City to have to use these regulations in order to create public access. Mr. Anderson had concern that a trail, which was not actually public but had been used by the public for many years, could be considered as such and would be required to be dedicated as an access point. Commissioner Carlsen inquired when access is required and how it should be memorialized. Mr. Driskell stated he would need time to research the subject and report back. • 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation -Projects which are asking for removal of vegetation within the Shoreline jurisdiction must have a vegetation management plan. The plan must have a site plan, condition of the vegetation to be removed, and a landscaping plan. Projects within the buffer also need to show the removal will meet the No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and that avoidance is not feasible. Commissioner Anderson requested the definition of native and non-native vegetation be placed into the shoreline definitions. • 21.50.260(C) Some minor landscaping activities are allowed without SDP or a Letter of Exemption, pruning and thinning for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if certain criteria has been met. Commissioner Stoy noted there were separate for utility corridors. Ms. Barlow mentioned that Avista has stated they know what they need to do, they know how to do it, and they have been doing it for some time and don't feel they need to have to get a permit to do it. Commissioner Carlsen noted the regulations say the maintenance could be done annually and it also says only 30% of a trees limbs could be removed. She said if 30% of the limbs were removed from a tree annually it would die in just over three years. She offered it could be clarified to 30%of the limbs over the lifetime of the tree. She said it would be easy to determine the tree had been cut previously. Mr. Driskell offered there would be a frequency limit in order to avoid that type of scenario. The regulation would need to have a reasonable standard and it currently would not be enforceable. Commissioner Phillips asked if a person would be able to remove trees outside of the buffer, Mr. Kisielius answered a property owner would, but they would have to submit a vegetation management plan for the area which was in the shoreline jurisdiction. Mr. Kisielius explained the trees and vegetation is very important to the no net loss component. DOE is very big on native big trees, they are going to try and protect that and the buffer is main area of focus. It doesn't mean you can't do it, but it means they are going to want to look at it, and replacement will be required to provide No Net Loss. If there was clearing involved,DOE is going to be concerned about it. 04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 • 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non-point Pollution -- This section applies to any pollution generating impervious surfaces. The section requires compliance with existing Stormwater regulations and chemicals applied within 25 feet of a body of water. A qualified professional is required to do the work. • 21.50.280 Archaeological and Historic Resources This section protects resources which are known sites, where resources have been uncovered, or have ground disturbing components. A qualified professional would need to be contacted in order to review the site and record it according to state law. Commissioner Stoy asked if the City had any archaeological sites, Ms. Barlow replied the Spokane Tribe has said there are. • 21.50.290 Gravel Pits — Ms. Barlow explained the City has gravel pits but as discussed previously, they will not be regulated until the mining operations are closed. Future uses will be regulated by the SMP and be designated as urban conservancy environment. The Commission took a break at 8:05 p.m.returning at 8:15 p.m. • 21.50.300 Specific Shoreline Use Regulations - 50.300 to 50.450 apply to common uses and types of development to the extent they occur in the shoreline jurisdiction. o 21.50.320—Boating Facilities—This applies to new and existing facilities, including launches, ramps and docks. Boating facilities are limited to water dependent uses or public access. It also addresses the accessory uses like picnic tables, benches or restroom facilities located at a boat launch. The facilities are limited to places identified in the public access plan. If a boat facility were to be installed, it must include a public access. The facilities are limited to size and height necessary for the uses and existing facilities may be maintained or repaired but not expanded. New facilities would only be allowed if a need can be shown. Commissioner Anderson said the regulations for boat launch ramps made sense, but he wondered if the regulations applied to boat docks. Mr. Kisielius said the boat docks had overlap in the regulations. Docks also have a separate section and all docks must comply with those regulations. The only docks which must comply with the boasting section are public docks or private docks which serve more than four residences. Commissioner Anderson asked about item (C) incorporate measures for clean-up of accidental spills and contaminants would apply to public and private boat ramps. It was confirmed this is correct. Commissioner Stay asked how many boat launches were in the City. Mr. Driskell said he was unaware of any boat launches in City limits. There was discussion of all known launches being non-motorized,official or unofficial,whether in the City's corporate limits or across the river at Plante's Ferry Park. Mr. Stay also asked how the current boats get onto the river. Mr. Driskell said this was currently an issue. There was a time when the boats were allowed in and out once a year near Felts Field. He said he was aware there had been negations with either the Center of Justice or the Sierra Club to stop the practice. o 231.50.320 Commercial Uses—These are design standards which apply to all commercial uses in the shoreline jurisdiction. The standards apply to all environmental designations. Standards night include such features as orienting the building toward the shoreline, screening loading docks from the view of the shoreline,designing the look to blend with the natural environment. o 21.50.330 Industrial Uses -- Industrial uses have the same standards as commercial uses along with adding avoiding visual impacts to the river and the Centennial Trail. Commissioner Anderson requested in 021.50.330 (A) to change the phrase "food stuffs" to "food products."Ms.Barlow said staff would look into to it but felt that the term was tied to WAC. o 21.50.340 In-Stream Structures -- All in-stream structures must conform to all regulations of coordinating agencies,such as the Corp of Engineers, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife,etc. o 21.50.350 Parking Facilities — These standards apply to all new parking facilities. Parking must directly serve a permitted use,and cannot be a primary use. o 21.50.360 Recreational Development&Use—These would recreational facilities for public use-some of the trail goes through areas which are UC-HC. o 21.50.370 Residential Development - A shoreline development permit would be required for spec homes but an owner built single family home does not require one. New development is not allowed if 04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 stabilization is required. Development in a buffer area is prohibited. Title notices are required for homes in the shoreline for all future homeowners to be aware of the restrictions. Fences are prohibited in the buffer area,critical areas and below the ordinary high water mark. o 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting — These standards apply to commercial and industrial development and associated lighting. It does not apply to single family residential development. o 21.50.390 Transportation Facilities—These standards apply to roads, bridges, bikeways and railroads. This does not apply to trails;they are addressed in the public access plan. o 21.50.400 Public Facilities and Utilities—The facilities are allowed by a Conditional Use Permit and must show why other location is not possible. New utilities are prohibited in the Urban Conservancy- High Quality. Commissioner Neill asked if a note should be made to say that unless the undergrounding of the utilities would cause more harm. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m, tkái A b(12- /1/(7 Joe Stoy, •ersoFlat/ Date signed C JY ) Deanna Horton,secretary 04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5