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