Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 10-09-14 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 review 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. IC/ . k Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 10-09-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5