Loading...
Agenda 11/13/2014 stiokane Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. November 13, 2014 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 9, 2014, October 23, 2014 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Study Session — CTA-2014-0006, SVMC 2030.060 Time Extensions X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, October 9,2014 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Carlsen Tadas Kisielius, Special Council Robert McCaslin Mike Phillips Steven Neill Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the October 09, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the September 25, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, seven to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow stated CTA-2014-0003, the batch Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) amendments which were just recommended by the Planning Commission, were discussed at a study session with the City Council. Ms. Barlow stated Director John Hohman expressed his thanks to the Planning Commission for the work they did on the amendments. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing,Public Hearing Draft of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Ms. Barlow said attorney Mr. Tadas Kisielius, special counsel to the City for Shoreline Master Program, would be helping the Commissioners in their review of the Draft SMP. She remarked Mr. Kisielius would be assisting the Commission with questions regarding the Shoreline Master Program, as he has done in the past. Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Ms. Barlow gave a brief presentation regarding the approval process for the SMP. Ms. Barlow stated there had been two comment letters submitted for the public hearing, one from Avista and another from Futurewise and the other environmental groups which they support. Ms. Barlow said the complete plan had been routed to the Technical Advisory Group for comments. These were the only two agencies which submitted new comments. Ms. Barlow stated Avista asked for more clarification on making sure their maintenance activities are exempt. Futurewise asked for more of the same from their comments previously submitted regarding docks and where they would be allowed on the river. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Commissioner Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:19 p.m. The Commission began deliberations with questions for staff. Goals and Policies first page, noted this comes from the WAC 173-26-186(5), the first sentence says: "The policy goals of the act, implemented by the planning policies of master programs, may not be achievable by development regulation alone." Commissioners asked about the intent of the statement. Mr. Kisielius said the intent is that development regulations will be instrumental in assuring that development projects do not create a net loss of ecological function. However, the 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 Department of Ecology (DOE) feels that there might be other possibilities for net loss throughout the Shoreline program. The Cumulative Impacts report is created to help cities look and see if what is going on is going to create a net loss. There are also other supporting documents, which are not development regulations, such as the Restoration Plan,the No Net Loss Report which will help counter balance any net loss. The Cumulative Impacts report takes the development regulations and restoration opportunities and includes what could happen on the ground including exempt development. That means that the development regulations are not the only thing a city would rely upon to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Goals and Policies SMP 2.5 states Ensure early and continuous site inspection, consultation, or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources. The Commissioners asked if the City has a rule which would address archaeological issues in development, regardless of the property being located on the river. Ms. Barlow commented there could be regulations possibly in the SVMC which address it but she was unsure at this time. Commissioner Anderson wanted to make sure if there was, they should be compared to make sure they are both saying the same thing. Ms. Barlow stated Development Engineer Gloria Mantz had reviewed the regulations for consistency with the rest of the City code. Mr. Kisielius said, even if it was not in the SVMC already,there is a state statute which would address it. Ms. Barlow also mentioned staff worked to not repeat items; if it was addressed it the code somewhere else, then staff made a reference to where it was already listed. SMP 4.11 Recognition of Centennial Trail - Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane Valley, the region, and the state. Future trail development on private property including trail extensions, new access points, whether public or private, shall be designed to have the least adverse impact. Future trail development on public property shall meet the same objective, but should also incorporate enhancement and restoration measures where appropriate. Ms. Barlow stated that this addresses access points to the Centennial Trail. This would apply when someone was developing an access point to the trail,whether it was on a private development or from public property, for example, a park to the Trail. SMP 5.6 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Upland uses on adjacent lands outside of immediate SMA jurisdiction (in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should protect the preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses. Commissioners asked about the upland uses on adjacent lands that protect the preferred shoreline uses, and questioned if shorelands was a better reference. Mr. Kisielius said the shoreline jurisdiction covered the shoreline and the 200 feet landward and shorelands were part of the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Barlow added that the policy states the SMP must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations. This allows the City the ability to control uses which were incompatible next to each other. Commissioners confirmed this policy would not make any properties along the shoreline non-conforming. Residential Development Standards, SVMC 21.50.370(B)(8) Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the setback area so long as it is directed away from the shoreline. Commissioners had a concern with the "directed away from the shoreline" asking why we would need to direct the light away from the shoreline. If safety was a concern wouldn't there be a need to add lighting to a path or dock. Ms. Barlow commented the intent is for the lighting to be directed away from the water,where excess lighting could be a problem for the habitats located in 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 the water and along the shoreline. Ms. Barlow said the shoreline ends at the water and the water is not owned by a private party so the light should not be pointed out at the water. Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) the Introduction first paragraph, The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Guidelines under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-186(8)(d) state that, "To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities". Cumulative impacts are not specifically defined in the SMA; however, they generally describe the impact of an action or project in conjunction with other similar, reasonable foreseeable actions. Commissioners questioned the last sentence. Mr. Kisielius remarked that the language is related to SEPA terminology however,the City must,on a continuous basis, evaluate how much impact development projects have on the shoreline. Where the first project might not make an impact, the second might not as well, standing alone, but combined they might impact the shoreline. The reason for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) is to look at the SMP as a whole, including the regulations, add in the projects we know about and give an analysis on how to maintain the status quo. Commissioners questioned if 2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk, the last sentence which remarks on water quantity/flow management should be re-written to take into account current stormwater regulations, since stormwater is implied but not brought up specifically in this section. Mr.Kisielius said that this would not be a concern because there are specific regulations which address this issue. Commissioners commented that Table 4.1 had more categories in it based on a very preliminary draft. Ms. Barlow said the table had been updated to match the categories in the development regulations. Mr. Kisielius commented that the conclusions in the CIA are supportive of the changes which have been made and they are sufficient to address cumulative impacts. The analysis says there are good strong regulations pertaining to docks. However in the last paragraph on page 21 there is a recommendation to enhance those regulations. The suggestion is to ensure there is a procedural step which would require applicants to at least pursue the possibility of joint docks. The CIA has a recommendation to make a change regarding docks on the river. It is not a requirement for a joint use dock, but it is recommending a procedural step be placed in the regulations which would address the fact that people need to at least inquire about the possibility of a joint use dock. The DOE and other agencies have spoken to this issue in the past, it will be one that will continue to come up until it is addressed. Other agencies have commented about prohibiting docks on the portion of the river between the Centennial Trail Bridge and Argonne Bridge. One way to help lessen the disapproval regarding this issue would be to place steps in the regulations which would memorialize the neighbors' attempt to make sure that-joint use docks are not be an option. This would just require the neighbors to explore the option. Commissioner Wood questioned adding a requirement to have to ask the neighbors about a joint dock. He expressed concern about where the dock would be located, people having access to his property, how would this access be controlled. He said he was concerned about having to ask another person permission for something which was legally permitted. He feels it is over restrictive and takes away personal property rights. Commissioner Phillips asked how the City would regulate joint docks if a person asked their neighbors if they wanted to have a joint dock, they said no, then the neighbor comes in the next week to get a dock of his own. Mr. Phillips stated he was in favor of adding something if this would help the DOE approve the plan, but he does not want to do it if the reason is we think DOE will require it. He was concerned that a neighbor could hold the process hostage. Commissioner Carlsen said there was a concern if the 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 first neighbor moves and the next one, you can't get along with them, what would happen then? Ms. Barlow said that the agreement would be recorded with the property, just like any other easement. She said the City would not say where the dock was located. The City is not making these rules to protect a situation. The City is trying to address a requirement from state law which says that when there are two or more homes, it should be a requirement to have a joint dock. Mr. Kisielius said this was not a way for one person to be held hostage. The idea was to provide the most opportunity for the City to be able to address this issue when there would be an opportunity to do so. The Commissioners decided to remove the words 'new' and 'of two or more dwellings'from 21.50.430(B)(9). By consent, the Commissioners agreed to have staff draft language for their reviewThey also agreed to add to the regulations which would require applicants to explore the options of a joint use dock. Mr. Kisielius said staff would draft language for this and have it ready for the next meeting. The Commissioners discussed with staff the comments submitted by Avista. Ms. Barlow stated that the concerns raised by Avista previously are very similar to this request, however this addresses critical areas. They are asking for the same changes to make sure their maintenance activities are covered. After discussion the Commission decided to accept the changes requested by Avista. The Commission then addressed concerns raised in the latest letter from Futurewise. Mr. Kisielius and Ms. Barlow commented that the requests mirror many they sent previously. Some have been addressed, some staff is not willing to change because some language is written to mirror state statues, and some do not fall into line with the City Council's preferred direction. • Expand the buffers to protect critical areas. This concern had been addressed previously. • Have bulkheads and other structures not allowed as a permitted use in Urban Conservancy areas. However the regulation addressing this is written to mirror the state statute. • List the buffer widths on the maps. The City has addressed this concern previously. • Request docks and piers be restricted from the area east of the Argonne Bridge and west of the Centennial Trail Bridge. This issue has been addressed in a change considered previously by the City. • Asked for a reference to the Department of Natural Resources Natural Hazards map be included in the listing of maps and inventories. Staff did not feel the necessity to list this map,the issues have been covered. • Critical area review and reporting. Futurewise feels that reporting should be completed for any buffer which might be in a project area, regardless of how small. Asked to change the wetland regulation to just say `buffers apply to all wetlands,' instead of'with associated listing in 21.50.520(C)(1) of when it would be applied.' Staff noted this concern has been addressed previously and no changes are recommended. • Asked for wider buffers to protect fish and wildlife habitat. This subject was discussed with the City's biologist and the changes being requested will not impact the No Net Loss report and the suggestions are not necessary. No change was recommended. • Priority habitats, requested to change the language regarding the reporting and when to request a habitat management plan. Staff said that these issues are covered in the regulations and no change is recommended. • Requested to change the regulation language for geological hazards. This comment has already been addressed. Staff stated the next step would be to return with the updated SMP along with the changes suggested: regarding investigating joint dock options and Avista's requests for change to the 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 wetland regulations to incorporate their maintenance activities. At the next meeting there will be time to discuss the proposed changes and then approve the Planning Commission findings. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners thanks Mr. Kisielius for his assistance throughout this process. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 4.. 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, October 23,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:05 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin,Absent-Excused Mike Phillips Steven Neill Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary Hearing no objection, the Chair excused Commissioner McCaslin. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the October 23, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the October 9, 2014 minutes as presented. Commissioner Neill excused himself from the vote as he had not reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Wood objected to page 4,paragraph 2 of the minutes which says: The Commissioners decided to remove the words 'new'and 'of two or more dwellings'from 21.50.430(B)(9). They also agreed to add to the regulations which would require applicants to explore the options of a joint use dock. Commissioner Wood said while he agreed to removing the words `new' and 'of two or more dwellings' from 21.50.430(B)(9) from the draft regulations,he never agreed to adding the language about the docks. He would like the minutes to reflect the fact that he never agreed to add the language. Ms. Horton stated she would go back and review the recording and change the minutes if required. The vote on the minutes was zero to six, the motion fails and a revised draft will be brought back to the Nov. 13th meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood said he attended the Planning Short Course on Wed. Oct 15 sponsored by the Washington Chapter of the American of Planning Association. The other Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued deliberations on the Public Hearing Draft of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Senior Planner Lori Barlow began explaining tonight would be a review of two proposed language changes to the Shoreline Master Program draft regulations. Following this review staff will take a break to prepare findings for the Planning Commission's review and approval in order to send the Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the SMP forward to the City Council. The first change is language requested by Avista to cover their maintenance activities in critical areas. The Commissioners did not have any issues adding this language since it clarified the intent in the regulations. The other proposed change is based on a recommendation from the Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA). The CIA suggests if the City is going to allow docks in the river between Millwood and the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge,to limit the number of docks should be limited to limit the cumulative impacts and address the state statute which requires development of two or more 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 dwellings, then the dock be a joint use or community dock, then the City should line out a process to encourage the possibility of a joint dock. From the recommendation of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Page 21 Public comments and prior lawsuits have alleged that allowing for multiple docks between the Centennial Trail Bridge and the City of Millwood have the potential to cumulatively affect native redband trout and their habitat. While the current regulations still allow docks in the SR-W SED, the potential is low for there to be numerous docks that would cumulatively degrade net shoreline ecological functions. The potential for such cumulative impacts is limited by the additional approval criteria. These additional criteria require that Applicants wishing to construct docks demonstrate site suitability, prepare a Habitat Management Plan, and provide an engineering analysis report that evaluates the stability of the structure with regard to the river conditions. Additionally, specific to piers and docks, the site suitability report required for all shoreline modifications must demonstrate that the river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and that any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks must demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Approval criteria added to specifically limit the potential for multiple docks is found in SVMC 21.50.430(6)(9). This regulation requires that new residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline jurisdiction located east of the City of Millwood and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge must provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. What would enhance the intent of this `joint use"requirement is a means to ensure that Applicants consider this joint use of docks as part of their application process. It is recommended that the regulations be slightly amended under SVMC 21.50.430 (8)(9) to include a provision that Applicants document their efforts coordinate with neighbors regarding joint use, and have neighbors sign their applications to indicate interest in docks. If neighbors are interested then the City can require the Applicant to demonstrate joint or community use. If uninterested, the City will have a clear record to limit future applications (and associated cumulative impacts). While it is unclear that an Applicant could demonstrate site suitability for even one dock, this additional approval step would further "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development" (RCW 90.58.020) of the shoreline in SR-3. Staff proposed the following change: 21.50.430(B)(8). Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(B)(4) and the following additional criteria: a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that: i. The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and ii. Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. b. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 shall include an analysis of the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. 9. A new pier or dock accessory to New residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. Application materials shall include documentation of the applicant's efforts to explore feasibility of and interest in a joint use dock with owners of any residential lots immediately adjacent to the applicant's sites. Such documentation may include copies of certified letters sent to owners of the immediately adjacent properties listed on title. Any proposal for a joint use dock shall include in the application materials a legally enforceable joint use agreement or other legal instrument, notice of which must be recorded against title of the properties sharing the dock prior to dock construction. The joint use agreement shall, at a minimum, address the following: a. Apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses b. Easements and liability agreements, and c. Use restrictions Commissioner Stoy asked if an application had been developed for this process. Ms. Barlow responded the City had not developed one, but staff would most likely use a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA). This application covers many different agencies which have jurisdiction in the water and shoreline. Once the SMP is adopted, then all necessary applications would be updated to reflect the most current regulations. Commissioner Wood asked if there would be a timeline included in order to keep the applicant's project from being stalled because he did not get a response back from his neighbors. Mr. Wood expressed concern that the neighbors would not respond to the certified letter. Ms. Barlow said the proposed language is not asking for a response. Commissioner Wood wondered if this was an exercise in futility or did the City want this to be a part of the regulations. Ms. Barlow responded the CIA said without attempting to try to limit the number of docks which could happen in that area then the City could not show there would be no cumulative impacts from a number of docks. The City has decided to approach it, by placing the burden on the property owner to attempt to reach out to the neighbors. The City does not believe this area is conducive to having docks, but not allowing them was not an option the Planning Commission was in favor of. The proposed language only asks for evidence of the efforts to explore the feasibility. Commissioner Anderson said he felt that (B)(8)(b) was a tremendous burden on someone, if they wanted a dock. However the alternative was to not allow them at all. At least if you have proof the effort was made,then it was good enough. Commissioner Neill said what he liked about the proposed language was it was vague enough if a neighbor happened to say they wanted to have a joint dock, but did not carry through, then the applicant is not stuck waiting for them to finish their project. Commissioner Carlsen said she liked the language because we wanted the option of docks. Having a dock requires some responsibility on the part of the land owner. She did not feel it was asking too much to require a copy of a letter which was sent to the neighbors asking if they wanted to participate. Commissioner Wood said he was against adding one more requirement to an extensive amount of requirements a person had to do to get a dock in the first place. Now we want to add on another 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 requirement of having ask the neighbors if they wanted to participate in a dock and then have to have the instrument recorded against the property was too much. He said those lots were established 50 yrs. ago and the developer bought them with the thought to add as an amenity and the restrictions we are placing on them already seems extensive. Now the neighbor would walk across "my' land to use the dock. This seemed overly restrictive to him. He said he understood what staff was trying to do to appease the EPA and everybody else, and he felt that the other regulations were enough to get the dock in the first place. But to add the caveat to have to ask your neighbors,which you might or might not get along with,if they want to share the dock. Then down the line,the neighbor changes and then you are stuck. He said he did not like this aspect. He said he was against this change but he understands why the change was being proposed. Commissioner Neill stated he understood Commissioner Woods' opinion and he agreed, but the Department of Ecology(DOE)had a very big hammer. Mr.Neill said a few was better than none. Commissioner Phillips said he did not like the requirement for a joint dock but he commended staff for the wording which is proposed. He said even though he is opposed to the requirement, he will support the proposed language. Commissioner Carlsen said the proposed language is not a requirement for a joint dock, it was only a requirement to send a letter exploring the feasibility of the neighbors wanting to participate in a joint dock. She said,we know the area is not conducive to docks,we know not everyone will want a dock in this area. The neighborhood is fairly well undeveloped right now, and there are few neighbors in the area. She did not feel in the end this would be a burden on the property owners. Commissioner Anderson said there is a requirement in the RCW for joint use docks. If it was not in the state law, then there would be no need for us to address it. He said that what we have here is as good as it was going to get. Mr. Anderson said there are many stipulations on a dock and this has been mitigated as well as we are going to be able to,if you don't want to share. Commissioner Stoy said he likes the way this has been written. There is the notification to the neighbors, but the applicant is not held up if for whatever reason the neighbor does not want to or cannot participate in a joint dock. Commissioner Stoy asked if there were any comments on the SMP as a complete document. Ms. Barlow said other than the 2 proposed changes,nothing in the SMP has changed. There was discussion as to how to approve the document, and Commissioner Wood requested to have a separate motion for the change to 21.50.430(B)(8) and (9). He offered if the document was approved as a whole, he would not be able to voice his objection regarding the language about the docks. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the language as presented 21.50.430 (B)(8)(b) and (9) regarding piers and docks. The vote on the motion was five in favor, one against, Commissioner Wood dissenting. Motion passes. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the language as presented in 21.50.480(C)(4)(a) and (b). Avista maintenance in critical areas. The vote on the motion was six to zero. Motion passes. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of the Planning Commission Draft of the Shoreline Master Program to the City Council. The vote on this motion was six to zero. Motion passes. The Commission took a break for staff to prepare the Finding of Facts for the Planning Commission. Upon return the Commission reviewed the findings of fact for the Planning Commission Recommend Draft Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Carlsen noted that finding #19 stated that the change 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 proposed in this fmding said as recommended and it should say as presented. Ms. Barlow said she would make that correction before forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for the draft Shoreline Master Program. The vote on the motion was six to zero. The motion passes. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Neill said he would like to commend staff(past and present) for all of the work on the Shoreline Master Program. He said he felt this was the best document, given the limitations and legislature we could have produced. He said he joined the Commission in order to be involved in this. He is proud for the time he has put in on this and it will be done when he leaves. Commissioner Stoy said he would also like to thank staff for all the work they have done on the SMP. He appreciates all of the outside help which has come in to assist. Commissioner Carlsen said with her school schedule it would be difficult for her to attend meetings and at this time she would be tendering her resignation from the Commission effective the end of the year. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business,the meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary I(IS111141111b' 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: November 13, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information® admin.report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.30.060 Time Extensions to change the granting of a single, one-year time extension to a three-year time extension with the Director granting additional one year extensions beyond the initial one-year extension. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 BACKGROUND: Staff has encountered recent situations in which the property owner/applicant is unable to fulfill the requirements of the preliminary plat even with the one year time extension.The first project involved a property that was located within the 6-year Sewer Plan boundaries,but the sewer was not available.A lift station was to be constructed by Spokane County Utilities in order to extend the sewer to the area.By the time this happened it was beyond the five year expiration date of the plat and the one-year extension. The second project presented different circumstances that involved the floodplain. The property owner has requested a floodplain map change with FEMA and has not received formal approval from the agency that their property or portions of are no longer in the floodplain. Currently the single,one-year time extension creates a difficulty for compliance with the Subdivision regulations when the circumstance is beyond the control of the property owner/applicant.The time limits have expired due to circumstances out of the developer's control. Going beyond the single,three-year time extension allows the Director to analyze the specific proposal with the established criteria as well as evaluating the good-will effort progress of the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendment on December 11,2014. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois,Planner ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Lori Barlow dated November 5,2014 CTA-2014-0006 RPCA for Study Session Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner From: Micki Hamois, Planner Date: November 5, 2014 Re: Plat Time Extensions Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Subdivision Regulations do not adequately address conditions which may require a Preliminary Plat Time Extension. This memo discuss recent project issues, SVMC regulations pertaining to plat time extensions, provides a comparison to other jurisdictions time extension regulations,and recommends a text change to address the code deficiency. Issue; Recently staff encountered two projects that presented circumstances beyond the developer's control. The first project involved a property that was located within the 6-year Sewer Plan boundaries, but the sewer was not available. A lift station was to be constructed by Spokane County Utilities in order to extend the sewer to the area. By the time this happened it was beyond the five year expiration date of the plat and the one-year time extension. The second project presented different circumstances that involved the floodplain. The property owner has requested a floodplain map change with FEMA and has not received formal approval from the agency that their property or portions of are no longer in the floodplain. The time limits have expired due to circumstances out of the developer's control. These are two actual instances,however other scenarios could occur. Background and regulations: Upon incorporation in 2003, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane County's zoning regulations on an interim basis. The interim Subdivision Ordinance, Section 12.100.118 (Extensions of Time) noted that if the application was submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short plat, binding site plan, or plat and all criteria were met, the Director could grant one three(3)year time extension. Additional one (1)year extensions could be granted beyond the initial three (3)years. In 2007, the City adopted the SVMC which included Title 20 Subdivisions Regulations. Time extensions are allowed pursuant to SVMC 20.30.060, if the application is submitted thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short subdivision,binding site plan or subdivision and all criteria have been met. The Department may grant a single,one-year time extension. The criteria requires that one of the following circumstances apply: 1. That some portion of the existing preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan has been finalized since the project was approved and the remaining lots would form a unified development. 2. That the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan remains generally consistent with the original plat or binding site plan that was approved, and the applicant has taken substantial steps toward finalizing the plat or binding site plan, which shall include at least one of the following: a. Surveying the lots within the development b. Arranging for public services to the site c. Obtaining necessary financing for all or a portion of the project; and/or d. Completing studies or other requirements which were part of the approval of the project. 3. That at the time preliminary approval was granted, development of the proposal was conditioned upon the extension of public services which were not yet available. This provision shall not apply to extensions of services that the applicant would normally pay for. Plats are regulated by RCW 58.17 Plats — Subdivisions —Dedications and the local jurisdiction. The following information identifies the state regulations which applicable to time extensions and also provides a short summary of jurisdictions which allow or don't allow time extensions. RCW 58.17.140(4)Time limitation for approval or disapproval of plats — Extensions states that nothing contained in this section shall prevent any city from adopting by ordinance procedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not contain additional or altered conditions and requirements. A review of adjacent jurisdictions and jurisdictions of similar size indicates that most jurisdictions provide for at least a one year time extension, while the City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County allow for a 1st time 3 year time extension. Spokane County and two other jurisdictions allow for an ongoing 1 year time extension, while the other jurisdictions did not provide for a second time extension. The table below summarizes the results of the survey: Preliminary Plat Time Extensions by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction 1st time rd time 3`d time,etc. City of Kennewick n/a n/a n/a City of Kent 1 year 1 year on-going City of Lacey 1 year 1 year on-going City of Liberty Lake 3 years No No City of Pasco n/a n/a n/a City of Spokane 1 year No No City of Spokane Valley 1 year No No Spokane County 3 years 1 year on-going City of Wenatchee n/a n/a n/a Recommendation: I recommend we continue with the initial one-year time extension but have the ability to review any additional one year time extension requests beyond that period.The criteria would remain the same Su22ested lanne: 20.30.060 Time extensions. An application form and supporting data for time extension requests must be submitted to the department at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan. Time extension requests shall be processed as a Type I application pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. The director department may approve an extension provided there are no significant changed conditions or changed development regulations which would render recording of the short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan contrary to the public health, safety or general welfare_; and provided one or more of the following circumstances is found to apply: A. That some portion of the existing preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan has consistent with the original approval; B. That the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan remains generally consistent with the original plat or binding site plan that was approved, and the applicant has taken substantial steps toward finalizing the plat or binding site plan,which shall include at least one of the following: 1. Surveying the lots within the development; 2. Arranging for public services to the site; binding site plan; and/or 'I. Completing studies or other requirements which were part of preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan approval; C. That at the time preliminary approval was granted, development of the proposal was conditioned upon the extension of public services which are not yet available. This provision shall not apply to public utility extensions which the project sponsor would normally fund. If the conditions set forth in subsections A, B or C of this section are met, tThe department may grant an sgle initial one three-year time extension. Additional one year extensions may be granted by the department Director beyond the initial enethree--year extension. Prior to granting time extensions, the director department shall circulate the time extension request to affected agencies for comments. Additional or altered conditions recommended by the dehe wanpartment or affected agencies may be required as a condition of this extension. Any time extension granted as a result of administrative delays . ... . This may also include new or updated City regulations deemed necessary to protect the public health,safety,or general welfare. City departments may also recommend additional or altered conditions. The department shall issue a written decision approving or denying the time extension request and provide copies to affected agencies, the applicant, and those parties requesting a copy of such decision. Appeals of a time extension shall be filed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.90 SVMC. irmr— sookane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Planning Study Session November 13, 2014 CTA-2014-0006 (Time Extensions) Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 20.30.060 Municipal Code Text Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LANNINGF DIVISION • Plats are approved fora period of five years. • Improvements are to be installed to the prior expiration date. Municipal Code Text Amendment 2 j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Interim Subdivision Regulations • Time extension request must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the plat. • One three year time extension with additional one year extensions. Municipal Code Text Amendment j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Current Subdivision Regulations • Time extension request must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the plat. • A single, one-year time extension may be approved. Municipal Code Text Amendment Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Criteria for Time Extensions 1 . That some portion of the preliminary short plat, binding site plat or plat has been finalized and the remaining lots would form a unified development consistent with the original approval. 2. The applicant has taken substantial steps such as surveying the lots, arranging for public services to the site, obtaining financing and completing studies or other requirements. 3. At the time of preliminary approval, development was conditioned upon the extension of public services which are not yet available. Municipal Code Text Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Comparable Jurisdiction's Allowable Time Extensions ris•ictio 15} tim'L ' time S City of Kennewick n/a n/a n/a City of Kent 1 year 1 year on-going City of Lacey 1 year 1 year on-going City of Liberty Lake 3 years No No City of Pasco n/a n/a n/a City of Spokane 1 year No No City of Spokane Valle 1 year No No Spokane County 3 years 1 year on-going City of Wenatche- n/a n/a n/a j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Staff Recommendation 1 . Three-year time extension 2 . Director able to grant additional one year extensions Municipal Code Text Amendment — sokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION • QuesLions • Municipal Code Text Amendment 8