Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 10-23-14 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 Stay 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 PIanning 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(B)(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 (B)(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 Carisen 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 Carisen 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 finding 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. t'2 - fit- , 4 Joe Stoy, Chairperso Date signed 4110,0 Deanna Horton, Secretary 10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5