Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 07-10-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, July 10,2014 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 roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney Robert McCaslin Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Steven Neill Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton, Secretary Sam Wood Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stoy was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the July 10, 2014 agenda. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 26, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed,five to zero. This was Mr. Wood first meeting. he was ineligible to vote on the minutes of a previous meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Wood reported he attended the recent Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA) meeting. Mr. Wood noted interesting comments were the Call before you Dig law will now apply to political signs where it has not in the past. Also, homeowners who are putting political signs in their yards which will penetrate more than twelve inches will be required to call as well for locates. Previously "Call before you Dig" had only been enforcing the law based on complaints but they will now be actively looking for violators. Mr. Wood also reported Mr. John Pederson from Spokane County Spokane spoke at the SHBA meeting regarding the Growth Management Act. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr. Hohman reported the group of amendments which staff is currently working to bring forward would not be ready for the next meeting. He offered, since there would be nothing for that agenda,the Commission could consider canceling the July 24,2014 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment was offered. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations. Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented to the Commission the Planning Commission recommended draft of the Shoreline Master Program regulations. The Planning Commission recommended draft regulations reflect the Commission's requested changes except for the changes which have been proposed related to docks on the river. The Planning Commission had previously stated it wanted to allow docks in both the Orchard Avenue and Coyote Rock area of the City. Both the Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and Futurewise have requested the City not allow docks in the Coyote Rock area of the City. Based on these differing opinions staff crafted the proposed regulations in the draft copy. This version would allow docks in the Orchard Avenue area, as has already been allowed in the past, however docks in the Coyote Rock area would require a site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that (1) the river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and (2) any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. As well they will be required to submit a habitat management plan for all proposed docks to prove no net loss of ecological function. This draft would also require joint use or community docks in the Coyote Rock area when feasible, rather than allowing 30 individual docks. 07-10-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 Commissioner Phillips had a problem with `feasible,' saying he felt it would be a subjective term. Ms. Barlow commented the definitions include the Washington Administrative Code's (WAC) definition for feasible and that some common sense would also be used to determine if a community/joint dock would be the best solution. She also said the goals and policies state that it would be to encourage the use of joint/community docks. However, the requirement to demonstrate no net loss of ecological function and that the river could accommodate the dock in these locations would be more of the deciding factors. Commissioner Anderson stated that the legal definition would be difficult for people in the field to enforce, Ms. Barlow responded that DOE would be a consistent partner in the enforcement of all of the regulations, including the dock regulations. Ms. Barlow said the only other new information was the standards included from the Spokane County Shoreline program for pathways and trails as had been requested by DOE, and had been discussed at the previous meeting. Commissioner Anderson asked where the standard width of 14 feet had come from. Ms. Barlow stated she believed it was the width of the Centennial Trail. Commissioner Wood said 21.50.170 (C)(2)(b) Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; he felt that risk of personal injury should be eliminated and not just minimized and that the last two words should be removed from the sentence. He said he did not feel after taking care of a problem someone had created they should be allowed to leave a problem which could cause injury at all. The consensus of the Commission was to have the sentence end at eliminated. 21.50.250(B) There was discussion regarding being able to make public access for disabled and physically impaired persons. Accommodations will be made whenever possible but there could be times when the terrain could make it physically impossible for it to be safe for some people to be safe on an access to the river. 21.50.280 Commissioners asked if there were maps which would designate areas as historic or archaeologically significant sites. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Driskell stated there are maps which show areas of potential significance. Staff route all projects to all interested parties, including the Spokane Tribe and should they have any questions they would contact staff and let us know if they have concerns regarding a development. Commissioner Wood noted that 21.50.500(D)(6)(b)should read ordinary high water mark. Commissioner Anderson noted the definitions are still missing for native and non-native vegetation. 21.50.150(A) Classification Criteria —A use, structure, or lot is nonconforming if it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or regulations. Lawful uses, structures, and lots that are deemed nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section. After a discussion of nonconforming it was decided to add "appurtenant structures"to the classification criteria to make sure that all structures were covered under the nonconforming 21.50.180(A)(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. After some discussion it was agreed to add to the end of this sentence "which are within the shoreline jurisdiction, excluding any public roads." In order to make this only encompass the shoreline jurisdiction. 07-10-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 21.50.220(B)(2) The Commissioners agreed to change the height of an accessory structure which would be allowed in the buffer setback to be 25 feet in height at the peak. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline regulations to the City Council with the following changes: • 21.50.150 add"appurtenant structures"after legally established structures, • 21.50.170(C)(2)(b),remove "or minimized", • 21.50.180(A)(7) add "which are within the shoreline jurisdiction and excluding public roads",21.50.220 (B)(2) change the accessory height limit to 25 feet, • 21.50.500 (D)(6)(b),change to read ordinary high water mark, and • add a definition for native and non-native vegetation. Commissioner Wood stated he felt the 25 foot height limit on an accessory structure was too high. Mr. Wood said an RV would only be 14 feet tall, and the extra 11 feet is too much for a building. He felt it would make it out of scale. Commissioner McCaslin stated he felt that since the height for the residential structure could be 35 feet,the 25 foot height would be fine. Vote on the motion was six to zero, motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commission decided to cancel the July 24, 2014 meeting, since there was nothing for that agenda. ADJOURNMENT: T i e meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. (2/ Al Christina Carlsen, Chairperson Date signed al41- Deanna Horton, Secretary 07-10-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3