Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 06-08-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, June 8,2015 Chairman 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 Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Kelley Marty Palaniuk, Planner Mike Phillips, absent excused Susan Scott Joe Stoy Elisha Heath, Office Assistant Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Phillips was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 8, 2015 agenda. The vote on the amended agenda was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the May 28, 2015 minutes as presented. The Commission approved the minutes with a vote of six in favor, zero against. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the regular meeting scheduled for June 11th was cancelled; the next meeting will be June 25, 2015. The City Council has had a study session on the site specific Citizen- initiated Amendment Requests (CARs), and will take action on these items during their June 9, 2015 meeting. The Council will have a study session on the text and overlay CARs at the same meeting and will make a decision on inclusion in the analysis at their June 23`d meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Update Text and Overlay Citizen-initiated Amendment Requests (CARs): Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process. She explained where the City is in the process, what the Citizen-initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) are, how they are being used as part of the public input process, what the evening's public hearing would cover, what would be the process after the public hearing. Ms. Barlow stated there had been 26 CARs submitted in total to the City. Nineteen had been site-specific map requests and the public hearing for those had been held on May 14, 2015. This evening's public hearing would cover the CARs for the text and overlay requests. Chair Stoy read the rules for a public hearing. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Marty Palaniuk gave a brief overview of each request and then testimony was taken on that specific request. (The following testimony will be taken verbatim as had been done on previous the CAR public hearings, but cleaned for readability) CAR-2015-0021: This is a proposal from Mr. Dwight Hume. This is a request to allow multifamily development as a permitted use in the Office and Garden Office zoning districts. 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mountain View Lane: Mr. Hume stated the purpose of the request was to create a more useable Office zone. Currently you allow apartments but they have to be on a vertical mixed use basis, and it probably hasn't been implemented yet. A more practical approach is to allow, the Garden Office zone, which is a more restrictive office zone, to limit it to MF-1 apartment option, then in the full Office zone allow MF-2. From a practical standpoint since you allow apartments, what you are saying is office locations are suitable for apartments. Indeed they are, the infrastructure and requirements for arterial frontage are the same. Why not make it a little easier to implement and infill some of your residential population that Growth Management requires. To put your mind at ease over the idea further, the fact is that Spokane County doesn't even have an office zone. They allow apartments,they allow offices in apartment zones,there is just no Office in the zoning code. So there would be some similarities as well there. I think it is very compatible, it is already an allowed use. It is a little more realistic way of using it. It probably would allow, and spare you, annual amendments to rezone to multifamily on Office sites, and perhaps give an earlier start to a project and a little better tax base, rather than just waiting for the market to come back in the Office zone. That is the idea behind it and I hope you will consider it. Commissioner Anderson wanted to confirm that in the Office zone offices were allowed above retail on the ground floor or non-residential on the ground floor. Mr. Hume corrected to say that apartments were permitted above non-residential on the ground floor. Commissioner Anderson then asked that in the same space,then apartments would be allowed on the ground floor. Mr. Hume confirmed this, and stated since it would be an outright permitted use, you would be able to build apartments instead. CAR-2015-0022: This is a proposal from the Greater Valley Support Network. The proposal is to expand affordable housing options and create more incentives for developers. The proposal suggests other incentives might be height and bulk bonuses, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions, expedited permitting. Mr. Palaniuk stated there is currently a bonus density in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and there are height and setback requirements in the SVMC. He said to his knowledge no one has taken advantage of the current incentive. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was subsidized development or subsidized housing, in this application in the way we are using the word affordable. Mr. Palaniuk stated the SVMC has a definition for affordable housing which is "Affordable housing: Where the term "affordable" is used, it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one-third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate- to extremely low-income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. " Commissioner Anderson confirmed we are not discussing subsidies from either the City or other public agencies, meaning tax dollars, to make the housing affordable. Mr. Palaniuk said the proposal was only discussing incentives to developers to build affordable housing. Commissioner Anderson said to add more units to create affordable housing how does it, because we are not talking a large volume of housing. Mr. Palaniuk said under the current incentives in the City's code a certain number of units are set aside for affordable housing and the developer has other market-rate units he is able to rent as well. A percentage of the available units are for market-rate and a percentage are for affordable housing. The proposal would provide more incentives to build affordable units. Commissioner Scott asked if there was an acre of land and it qualified for this incentive, how many apartments could they put on it? Mr. Palaniuk stated the request was to place a policy into the Comprehensive Plan which would create a situation requiring the municipal code to be changed. The municipal code must support the Comprehensive Plan. Currently there is nothing in the development code which states what the incentives are and how they would be addressed. Mr. Palaniuk stated he did not know how height or bulk would be addressed,the request is just for additional incentives to be added, and these are some suggestions as to what could be incentives. Commissioner Scott asked if we should know what the incentives should look before they are placed in the code. Mr. Palaniuk said nothing was being placed in the code right now, that 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 the proposal was just to review this for further study. Commissioner Scott asked to clarify that when it was added to the SVMC then it would return with specifics as to how it would be addressed. Mr. Palaniuk stated if this proposal should be added to the Comprehensive Plan and regulations were to follow, then it would come with very specific guidelines as to how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked if the definition for affordable housing meant the cost of the house or if it included the utilities. Ms. Barlow interjected the discussion was becoming too detailed, the SVMC already allows for the density bonus. If someone were to come in and they had one acre and could make the numbers work and able to get 22 units, she noted she did not feel it was possible, and meet all the other regulations, and they proposing affordable housing units to families at or below 40% of the median income then they could get a density bonus of 40 percent. So if they could meet all of the standard regulations, they would be allowed a density bonus of 40 percent. Ms. Barlow stated someone needs to bring in a proposal before the City is able to calculate the numbers. When staff says they can't tell you what the density would be, it is because someone has to bring in a proposal before staff can do the math. It isn't because we don't have the tools to tell you, it is because the question is dynamic. The proposal is to expand on the tool which is already available for affordable housing, a density bonus, which is what is captured in the request. Cindy Algeo, 315 West Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that she represented the Greater Valley Support Network,the organization that submitted CAR-2015-0022. The CARs submitted were based upon the data that we have found of people residing in the City of Spokane Valley. We found that 24% of the households have incomes of$25,000 annually or less and 63% of the households have two persons in their households or less. There are a fair amount of citizens in Spokane Valley that have relatively low income and so our objective is to expand affordable housing options. That option is hopefully enticing for-profit developers to make a portion of any multifamily housing development affordable to people with incomes less than $25,000. We want housing options available to them. We were proposing to add additional incentives to for-profit developers as they develop multifamily housing in the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Graham asked where the data on the 24% was drawn from? Ms. Algeo stated that it was from the Spokane Valley Library District data sets. Commissioner Graham asked if the information came from the 2010 census. Ms. Algeo stated that it would have come from after the 2010 census. James Johnson, 13224 East 4`" Avenue: Mr. Johnson stated that he wanted to draw attention to comments made earlier in the evening. With density bonuses, if I understood what Ms. Barlow gave for data earlier, if a density bonus is allowed in a high density area it goes from 22 to 31 because they get a 40% bonus. Correct? Ms. Barlow replied it would be possible. So, that means if you are changing an MF1 to an MF2 you are increasing the number of people allowed per units per acre by two and half times. Just want to keep that in mind. CAR-2015-0023: This proposal is from Greater Valley Support Network. The proposal is to add housing policies that support a broad and diverse range of housing options including micro-housing and co-housing. Ms. Barlow added for clarification that this would be a Comprehensive Plan policy not a regulation. Mr. Palaniuk stated that it would lead to something in the development code to address the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if we already encourage variety in housing. Mr. Palaniuk stated that we allow multifamily, single family, duplexes, and triplexes. We do not address micro-housing, which does have its own set of challenges. We allow manufactured home parks, they have certain requirements but they are not applicable to micro-housing. We have had people ask about micro-housing. We do not having any policies or regulations to address them at this time. Commissioner Anderson asked if the discussion was of micro-housing developments. Mr. Palaniuk stated that our code does not address micro-housing. Commissioner Anderson asked about co- housing under current multifamily housing code would not prevent co-housing? Mr. Palaniuk stated that there are currently buildings with co-areas. Ms. Barlow stated we allow for group living. That 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 there are some emerging trends that current policies in our current Comprehensive Plan that would not prevent a variety of housing. This calls out some specific emerging trends, that pushes us in the direction to look at them and afterward, develop regulations. We are pretty traditional in our housing regulations with little flexibility. Cindy Algeo, 315 W. Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that this is the second application from Greater Valley Support Network (GVSN), the objective is to expand affordable housing options to residents of the City of Spokane Valley. GVSN is a body of 250 organizations that come together on a monthly basis, with the objective to insure support for Spokane Valley residents, especially residents of low income. This policy statement would move the city in the direction of considering other options. We want to expand the options as much as possible to insure that there is the right kind of housing, especially affordable housing for the residents of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification of the wording "other types. " Ms. Algeo stated that there was not any particular type of housing where the word "other" is used. Just to have a policy that will permit the City to look at various options as they emerge. CAR-2015-0024: This proposal submitted by Greater Valley Support Network. Request to develop and establish best practices and protocol between developers and neighborhoods. The City would develop the protocol and it would become part of the building(permit) process for a certain threshold of development. Creating a process for communication between existing neighborhoods and developers, developing new projects within that neighborhood during early stages of development. Cindy Algeo, 315 W. Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that she was representing Greater Valley Support Network, another policy that offers a wide range of housing option for the citizens of Spokane Valley. This protocol would not be limited to affordable housing it would be for any multifamily housing development that is proposed by a developer. The emphasis is on early, very good communication and coordination. With a specific protocol there might be better outcomes in the provision of housing in the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Anderson asked if this would be a city controlled and monitored policy and not something that is monitored by a third party or independent group? Ms. Algeo stated that the City would take the lead on this. She had not thought of a third party, though it might be a possibility. Commissioner Scott stated that this would require a funding source, and stakeholders to write the protocol to establish a community neighborhood association. Ms. Algeo stated that could be an option, though not an essential component of establishing a protocol. Commissioner Scott followed up with the question what would the association be empowered to do? Ms. Algeo stated she had not thought that far down the road and that it was not a necessary component to developing the policy, rather it would be focusing on communication between developers and neighborhoods. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. Barlow about what might a developer need to do to notify the neighborhood that they are intending to put up a multifamily housing unit, if it required a zone change. Ms. Barlow replied that we were not talking about a zone change, rather talking about actual (building) projects. A zone change is not necessarily a project. The city of Spokane has processes, have a series of activities that the developer has to complete. They also have neighborhood groups that are very active. That is probably our next planning step over the next 20 years or so to engage our neighborhoods on that level. It's a very common practice to have developers of certain size projects reach out to neighborhoods and engage them early on and keep them informed. CAR-2015-0026: This is a request by Naomi Eisentrager to add specific language to our development code. The specific language would require manufactured home park owners to create a relocation report plan. The emphasis is to assist individuals residing in mobile home parks if the manufactured home park were to close or if it were to be redeveloped. It would require the City certify the relocation report plan before the owner of the manufacture home park can close or redevelop the park. RCW 59.20 and 59.21 detail what a manufactured home park owner is required to 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 do under state law and it is very similar to what is being proposed in this CAR. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification if we have a state law that already addresses this issue. Mr. Palaniuk stated that is correct,this (request) would just add some local regulations with more protection for the mobile home tenant but it does put an additional burden on the park owner. Commissioner Anderson asked if the burden was greater than the state regulations. Mr. Palaniuk stated it would, due to the relocation plan. Commissioner Graham asked for confirmation that the state requires a 365 day notice before closure. Mr.Palaniuk confirmed that it does. Naomi Eisentrager, 2601 N. Barker Road.: Ms. Eisentrager stated that this proposal is due to everyone who lives in a manufactured home, owns their home in our community, most communities they own their own home. Many of them are too old to move and where even the ones which are newer, like ours and in very good shape, there is no place to move them to. Which creates quiet a problem if a place(the manufactured home park) were to sell. If you can't find a(new) place or can't afford a place to move to, you lose your whole investment. There is nothing you can do and they don't pay for those homes. So I have a question for the panel, do you know how many low income units the Valley has at the moment? No? Last I heard was just like about 300 (units). That's not enough to take care of, I live at River Rose Village and there are over 100 lots (there) and they are all homeowners. If that were to close, a year is not enough for all of them to find low income housing, so that is part of this proposal. Randy Chapman, 8900 S. Mullen Hill Road: Mr. Chapman stated he is the president of Manufacture Home Owners Association (AMHO). The issue here is with the relocation assistance, the state has no money to help that along. If a community is sold and the residents are forced to move they have to pay to have the home moved up front,then they can apply for reimbursement. It doesn't work the other way around and that is why we are asking for this text amendment to strengthen that a bit. There are 1100 households in the Spokane Valley that live in manufactured homes. Many of them are veterans, senior citizens, and young families just starting out who want to live within their means as good citizen of the city of Spokane Valley. That is just a drop in the bucket to the 75,000 households in the state of Washington that live in 1,600 manufactured home communities across the state. We are proposing this and the other proposal here in a moment, to ask you to consider the affordability of our homes and our largest asset in most cases. Should a developer come in and tell us he's purchased the property and we have a year to move: we have six months of denial, and six months of trying to find a place to put it and it doesn't always work. Please help us out here. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the state assistant money not being available upfront rather after the fact. What are you asking for? Mr. Chapman said we are asking that you strengthen the pot a bit,having a developer maybe pay a portion of the relocation fees. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the owner of the property not just a developer would be responsible for payment. Mr. Chapman stated that yes the owner or new developer that wanted to develop something other than a mobile home community. Then the new owner would be liable for those fees or that assistance in some way to move the homes. Commissioner Anderson said but the owner could decide not to be in the business anymore, close and go through the evection process; you would expect the same steps? Mr. Chapman stated that it was important that this last bastion of unsubsidized housing is still available to us. For the most part those 1,100 households are pretty proud of their small investment that they've made in that community and that home. And we'd like to keep it that way. Commissioner Graham asked in addition would you expect the owners of the property to assist in finding new locations for the manufactured homes to be placed? Mr. Chapman said they may have a better source to do that than some of the elderly homeowners. To move my double-wide would cost an excess of$10,000. And as a low income home owner where am I going to come up with $10,000 to move my home. Commissioner Wood asked if the older ones (manufactured homes) built before 1978, can you still move those, the single-wide's are they still permitted to be moved? Mr. Chapman stated that he could not answer that question. He has heard stories of yes they can, no they can't. Commissioner Scott asked if a lease is signed upon moving into the park. Is there anything for 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 terminating that agreement? Mr. Chapman stated that it is a one year lease, according to RCW 59.20. It could be a month-to-month tenancy provided both parties, the homeowner and park owner, agree . If I decide to buy it and move it in six months, something like that, it has to be both sides. If the new owner is going to develop it other than a mobile home park, he has to give the one year notice of closure which is under 59.20. The other thing that we are trying to do under as AMHO on a state wide basis, in the six years I've been involved in AMHO, helping the communities set up home owner associations within the community. Register with the Secretary of State as a nonprofit, and should the park owner sell to a nonprofit, and it's built into the law, he doesn't have to pay the 1.78% excise tax on the sale of the property to a nonprofit. So it could be sold to a housing authority, the homeowner association, they would purchase it and run it as a co-op development. We understand nationally there are over 1,000 of them in existence right now. Not a one of them has ever defaulted on their loan. So there is pride of ownership there. We are trying to develop that idea as we go along, as we get into a community where there are issues with management. We are trying to appease everyone, it isn't easy but we attempt to get the answers and get the right answers. As far as your pre `761'78 move ability, I'll work on that and get back to you. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the requirement of a one year lease under RCW 59.20, is that a minimum or maximum lease. Mr. Chapman replied that it is a minimum lease, renewable year to year automatically. There are some twenty-five year leases out there;there are some thirty-five year leases that we've heard of. I'm not certain but I think Mission Meadows off of Barker Road, some of those might be twenty or twenty-five year leases. That's a little different set up, but they still come under RCW 59.20. CAR-2015-0018: The applicant is CPM Development Corporation. There are two components, one a text proposal which is to add a mineral resource land chapter, and a map proposal which would be to create a mineral resource land use designation and designate sites as mineral resource land. There are five locations highlighted for consideration. Ms. Barlow pointed out that the City recently established a mining moratorium. Mr. Driskell added that in addition to adopting a mining moratorium that the City has adopted a work plan to look at this issue in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on the five highlighted sites, seeing only four on the map. Ms. Barlow pointed out that two of the sites are close in proximity. John Pederson, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue: Mr. Peterson stated he was with the Spokane County Department of Building and Planning, speaking on behalf of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners, who had authorized him to do so. He would submit a letter to the Clerk of the Board concluding his statements. As you know you are considering comments on CAR-2015-0018 tonight as part of your City's Comprehensive Plan Update. The purpose of this letter is to encourage the commission to consider other areas designated as mineral resource lands, consistent with the Growth Management Act. As Mr. Driskell and Ms. Barlow referenced we are well aware of the City of Spokane Valley's moratorium that was adopted on February 24th and we've provided oral and written comments to the City Council at that time and those comments are also attached with this letter to the Planning Commission Members. In the letter we point on the need that on or before September 1, 1991 each city planning under the act shall designate mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth that have long term significance for the extraction of minerals. In the (RCW)36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify ag lands, forest lands, mineral lands, and critical areas and requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other stakeholders. (RCW)36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of ag, forest and mineral lands under RCW. And as you know and has probably been briefed by staff, your current Comprehensive Plan and municipal code does not identify or designate resources land or mineral lands as mandated and consistent with the Growth Management Act or adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands. We bring that to you attention as information to consider in your review of your Comprehensive Plan, your development regulations and also the site specific CAR-2015-18. The County has reviewed CAR-2015-18 and after review 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to designate mineral resource lands of long term commercial significance. In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned by Spokane County be designated as mineral resource lands. Those properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the Flora Road Pit, and we provide the parcel number for that site and also the Eden Pit Site. We also provide you with the parcel number of that site. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth Management Act for designation as mineral lands of long term commercial significance. Prior to creation of the City of Spokane Valley, those parcels were designated by the previous Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and official zoning maps as mineral lands. In summary, we reiterate our previous comments regarding the moratorium, adopting Ordinance 2015-0009 and urge you to designate the above referenced properties consistent with the Growth Management Act as part of your Comprehensive Plan Update process and also adopt a mineral lands chapter of your zoning code to provide the appropriate development regulations pertaining to mineral lands. I will submit this letter to the Clerk of the Board and you will have copies. That is all I have for you unless you have any questions. Commissioner Graham asked in the letter dated March 24, 2015 to the Spokane Valley City Council the final sentence reads: "Finally it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley Road area". Can you further explain why the mineral resource land, where the conflict is there? Mr. Pederson stated, we have a need to utilize those pit sites for minerals resources and I believe the City of Spokane Valley was desirous of us to work with the City to extend some sewer lines on that property; and without having that mineral land designation, it would be very difficult for the County to work with the Valley in providing those kind of sewer services that we have some initial discussions with the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Anderson asked about both pits in the discussion of Flora Road and Eden, are either operating as active mining pits currently? Mr. Pederson stated that he would let Deborah Firkins from the Spokane County Engineers Office address the pits. She is also here, and she can address that. He believed the Flora Pit certainly has some of that ongoing activity, and the Eden Pit, were just some initial processes, I believe applying for permits and going through the SEPA process with the City of Spokane Valley, Deborah has more information on that than I do. Commission Anderson asked if Spokane County owned both of those. Mr. Peterson responded that yes they do. Commissioner Anderson asked if the County owned the mining rights or the mineral rights. Mr. Pederson said Deborah could clarify that as well. He stated that he was here speaking on behalf of the situation designating them appropriately as mineral lands and having the appropriate regulations to allow for the mining activities. Commissioner Scott asked where exactly was this Eden Pit. She could see it was on Tshirley but what was it north/south. Mr. Peterson he said he had a parcel number, he was sure staff could identify it for her. Ms. Firkins stepped up and gave Mr. Pederson a larger map. Mr. Pederson said it was an extension of Eden which is east of the extension of Tshirley, north of Euclid, west of Barker, and south of Trent and east of Flora. Commissioner Scott asked if it was within the City limits. Mr. Peterson responded that yes they were both located within the City of Spokane Valley or they wouldn't be here. Deborah Firkins, 1026 W. Broadway Ave.: Ms. Firkins stated she was with the Spokane County Department of Engineering and Roads. The Spokane County Roads Department asks that per Washington State Growth Management Act that the City designate natural resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned while under the County's jurisdiction as mineral lands. The first parcel is Floral Pit, parcel number 45121.9015. Spokane County acquired this property on August 12, 1965 and has operated it as a pit with a district shop and a dog pound. We have continually mined this site for the last fifty years. When the City's mining moratorium came into effect we were in the process of setting terms for the sale of this property to Central Pre-Mix for their operations. The lack of safeguards for mineral resources is very detrimental to us. If the County retains ownership of the Flora Pit, we will continue to mine it without taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards a year. The second parcel is Eden Pit, 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 located approximately 1600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street and Euclid Avenue, parcel number 55065.0190. This property was zoned for mining since 1980. The County has been preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. We have completed an environmental assessment which included a cultural resource survey for the site. We also completed a SEPA review for mining for 39 of 44 acres the site has. A determination of non-significance was issued on December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under review by the Department of Natural Resources which includes an SM-6 surface mining permit application signed by the City of Spokane Valley on August 2012. This site we estimate mining for the next 65 years and removing around 25,000 cubic yards per year. Spokane County is in favor of CAR-2015-0018 and asks that both the FIoral Pit parcel 45121.9015 and Eden Pit parcel 55065.0190 be added to the mineral resource lands that are designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Are there any questions. Jana McDonald, 1121 S. Harmony Court: Ms. McDonald stated that she is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington and the Corporate Environmental Engineer for the parent companies of Central Pre-Mix and Inland Asphalt. I've been with the company for over 22 years. I'm here to speak in favor of CAR-18 which is a proposal to add resource land protection policies to the Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan. I ask that the Planning Commission recommend this amendment request move forward to the Comp Plan Update. I also hope to provide you with some information and education about the mining industry. The Central Pre-Mix sites we are requesting the mineral overlay for, are fully permitted and functional since before the City was a city. These sites were permitted through Spokane County, designated and protected as a resource of long term commercial significance under the committee that reviewed and ultimately designated, under the County's Growth Management Act over 15 years ago. I sat on the initial technical committee that reviewed and ultimately designated these as mineral resources. These sites are still mineral resources and need to be protected as required by Growth Management Act. Aggregates are literally the foundation and connection to economic viability. We all use the equivalent of ten tons of aggregate per year in some form, in our houses, our roads, our work places, our schools, our water and sewer systems. Their many uses are fundamentally necessary for today's society as we know it. Secondly, the City has described the mining process to have permanent irreversible effects on the property, which in most cases that is not true. Mining is an interim use of the property and often prepares the site for future development. While all sites are not reclaimed to an income generating status, all sites are required by state law to have a reclamation plan and be reclaimed. Example of reclaimed sites in the Spokane and Coeur d' Alene area have been put to residential housing, commercial or mixed use developments include the River Run Facility over on Fort George Wright, with the Real Life Church by the Community College, that site was mined for over 40 years and is now an active housing development. Windermere Development, up north was old gravel site and is now a successful commercial retail facility. Additionally the River Stone Development in Coeur d' Alene is an old gravel site that is now a condo and retail establishment, as was Ramsey Park by the Krock Center in Coeur d' Alene which houses baseball and softball fields. Lastly as Growth Management mandates protection of resources, the City should also be looking at setting criteria and look at other applicable mine sites and protecting them. It is important to remember that resources cannot be relocated and must exhaust and be mined where they are located. Because of their uniqueness, the City can't pick and choose where mining occurs, the resources drive the designation process. I urge you to approve and protect these resources, not only designate the four sites identified in our CAR request but also approve the text amendment and support designating other appropriate properties including the resources the County has mentioned; specifically parcel number 55065.0190 which Central Pre-Mix actually holds the mineral rights to. We've owned the mineral reserves long before the property was in the City. The original intent was always to mine the property as a mineral resource. Commissioner Anderson asked how does an overlay provide more protection to your existing sites. Ms. McDonald stated that right now they are not protected in any way, shape or form. They are zoned heavy 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 industrial. There is no mining zone. Commissioner Anderson stated that you have the mineral rights. Ms. McDonald stated we own the mineral rights but under Growth Management they are supposed to be protected with some sort of designation. There is none of that happening right now. Commissioner Anderson said that still doesn't answer the question; even with mineral rights we could prevent you from operating your facilities. (Mr. Pederson approached Ms. McDonald and they conferred.) Ms. McDonald stated under the designation or overlay you guys would be able to set criteria as to what would be allowed or as Mr. Peterson pointed out their mineral designations allow mining to penetrate the aquifer. So you can set criteria and standards for that with an overlay. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on mining penetrating the aquifer. Ms. McDonald stated new sites within the County rules cannot penetrate the aquifer. Commissioner Stoy pointed out that most of these sites are right over the aquifer. These are real close to the river as it is. The way that our aquifer runs these are generally right over the existing aquifer belt anyway. How are you proposing this overlay, how is that going to protect the aquifer from any further damage that may have already been done? Ms. McDonald stated that those controls have already been determined by previous approvals. We are fully permitted through the department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology. There are other agencies that regulate water quality and the mining activities. Commissioner Wood asked where in the Comprehensive Plan those are quoted so he can look it up. Ms. McDonald stated that the RCWs were quoted in Mr. Peterson's letter. He referenced the RCWs that require the Growth Management Act to designate materials. Is that what you are asking for? (yes) It is in the RCW quoted in Mr. Pederson's letter. Commissioner Anderson mentioned he didn't get you there; then he asked if they expected the proposed policies to be challenged in the long term. Ms. McDonald stated that she would hope that the agencies or companies that have the interest actually work with the City to be able to help develop those policies to move forward. Commission Anderson asked about the odds of these policies being the gospel in the final rendition, do you expect that to be unchanged? Ms. McDonald stated she had no expectation, I mean, that is what we proposed. I would propose to be able to work with the City or a committee to further develop those and be involved in the process. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification if a zone would be as effective for protecting the mineral rights and resources on those policies. Make it a mining zone or a mineral resource zone as opposed to an overlay which when reading their goals and policies seem to put a lot of buffering and restrictions on the adjacent properties that are not zoned mineral resource but are within this overlay. It seems like you are putting off a lot of things that would cause conflict off on to adjoining property owners. Ms. Barlow stated that remains to be seen as to what is the most effective way to deal with this. Right now the question before you is should the City be looking at this further in our analysis? We know that we have issues because our regulations do not adequately address it. The only way we address it right now is in our matrix, and in our industrial zone we identify that in the heavy industrial areas mining is allowed. Once we get beyond that, we defer to the Department of Natural Resources to handle all the details. That is not enough to protect our interest because we have more of a vested interest than that. We know we need to be more involved; is it an overlay zone or is it a special zone, we don't know. We are not sure the best way to handle it. They have proposed policies; they proposed an overlay zone and include several different aspects for text considerations, Comprehensive Plan policies. In the past we've worked with CPM on several different issues and I'm sure after the analysis is complete we will continue to work through this. This is an issue for the City and we know that we need to work through this. How is it going to look in the end, I'm not sure if it's going to be an overlay or a zone. That remains to be seen. We know that it warrants further analysis. Commissioner Scott said then we don't have much choice than to move it forward. Ms. Barlow stated that the Council is definitely interested in what the Commission's thoughts are on the issue but the Council has already identified this is an area of concern and a direction they need to go. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. McDonald, that during your statement that one of the City's main concerns is that it is permanently irreversible. Mining is an interim use and all sites are required to have a reclamation plan in place. Who bears that cost of the reclamation plan? Ms. McDonald stated that the company does and we are required to hold a 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 bond to cover reclamation cost if we were to default on the permit. Commissioner Stoy asks how long permits are good for. Ms. McDonald stated either till they are revoked for some reason or the site is depleted and reclaimed. The DNR does do annual inspections and does request bi-annual inspections and requests updates as necessary. Commissioner Graham asked one of the concerns could be that a permit could be revoked at will if there is no protection in place, is that some of what is driving this proposal. Ms. McDonald replied no,the DNR acts independently of the City. Stacy Bjordhal 505 W. Riverside: Ms. Bjordhal stated she was present on behalf of Central Pre-Mix and CPM Development Corporation. I wanted to offer some general comments that are somewhat responsive to the questions that have been raised and some of it might reiterate what has already been stated this evening. Point number one is that the Growth Management Act does mandate that cities and counties designate and protect mineral resource lands, so it is a nonnegotiable item. The City has honestly and openly stated they have not done that yet. These sites were previously all designated when it was pre-incorporation of the Valley. So they have been in existence, I believe in particular I believe Ms. Firkins mentioned since 1965, been around for a period of time. The policies and the designation criteria submitted as part of the application that was actually pulled from Spokane County's Comprehensive plan so it mirrors that very closely if not identical to that. Certainly they went through an exhaustive process with the technical committee to develop that criteria. It's been vetted. It's gone though a hearing process and has been deemed GMA compliant. So, it's a good place to start in terms of the policies. These mineral resources are unique in the sense that they are intended to be designated but protected from incompatible development encroaching upon them. Because of their unique nature and the inability for these resources to be relocated. They are located where they are. The idea is to identify those resources, exhaust them until they are depleted, then go and mine new areas. That's just the economics of the resource itself. I wanted to add those comments, if you have any additional questions I am happy to answer them, but you have been briefed very well and asked a lot of really great questions so it is clear you are on board and understand the issue which is before you. Commissioner Stoy asked other than these locations that have been indicated on the overlay map that we have, is Central Pre-Mix looking for any new additional sites? Ms. Bjordhal replied no. Just to clarify Jana McDonald had indicated another site in her presentation. CAR-2015-0025: The applicant is Naomi Eisentrager. They are seeking to establish a manufactured home park overlay; create a land use designation for manufactured home parks for the Comprehensive Plan.; and create either an overly or a manufactured home zone. Commissioner Anderson asked if it was called map overlay that property would stay forever as a manufactured home park and could not be converted. Mr. Palaniuk explained the process of an overlay, the underlying zone then the overlay regulations would also apply over the zone. Commissioner Anderson asked about current locations of mobile home parks, many are not located in just multifamily zones. The overlay would supersede all those zones. Mr. Palaniuk state that the overlay would apply no matter what zone was underneath. Commissioner Scott asked if the mobile home park owners were notified of this CAR. Mr. Palaniuk replied no. Randy Chapman, 8900 S. Mullen Hill Rd: Mr. Chapman requested that the Commissioners go to the website www.wamaho.org to see the Tumwater Ordinance and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that came down a couple of years ago. A lot of what you'll be dealing with and deliberating on will be in that decision. It is very comprehensive and answers a lot of your questions. The City of Tumwater was sued by the park owners association because they did not like some of what the City of Tumwater had done. They had designated certain of their mobile home communities in a either a zoning or overlay and they threw out a couple of them because they were a small community of six or eight units. They were in commercial development. In the long run the City of Tumwater prevailed. There are other ordinances in Snohomish County, city of Marysville, and other west side of the state cities. Earlier I spoke of the one-year notice of closure and with the zoning in place a developer 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 comes in, maybe he wants to develop a piece of property with a mobile home park on it, it may take him up to five years or he may have to change the zoning back. It gives the mobile home owner more time. That is all we are asking there. Again, save our seniors, protect our vets and protect our young families with young children who want to live within their means. Commissioner Stoy closed the public hearing at 8:03. The Commission took a Break from 8:05 p.m. to 8:11 p.m. and then began their deliberations. CAR-2015-0018: (mineral resource land chapter and overlay) Commissioner Graham moved to include CAR-2015-0018 in the Update. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not understand the overlay process as being a benefit but understood the City needed to address this. Commissioner Graham said she agreed in regard to the text proposal, not necessarily to the map proposal. She said she understood according to the Growth Management Act (GMA) this was a requirement, relating to mineral resources. Commissioner Stoy agreed this needed to be addressed. Commissioner Graham asked if the proposal could be split and Ms. Barlow stated there would be no benefit to breaking it up. Mr. Driskell advised it needed to stay as a unit. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passed. CAR-2015-0021: (text amendment to allow multifamily in Office and Garden Office) Commissioner Anderson moved to include CAR-2015-0021 in the Update. Commissioner Scott stated she was concerned about existing single family residences which are in multifamily zones or are going to be in a zone which could become multifamily. Commissioner Anderson thought the proposal was for a different standard for this, but Ms. Barlow stated this was just a request to allow MF-1 and MF-2 in the Office and Garden Office zones. Commissioner Wood said he thought it would create flexibility, to which Commissioner Stoy agreed. The vote on this motion was five in favor, one against, with Commissioner Graham dissenting. This motion passed. CAR-2015-0022: (density bonus incentives) Commissioner Scott moved to exclude CAR-2015-0022 from the Update. Commissioner Scott stated creating additional bonuses which might include height, bulk, and parking, affect the existing neighborhoods. She felt there are plenty of incentives in place, so there is no reason to create more. Commissioner Stoy commented there was only one incentive currently, which is a density bonus. Commissioner Graham said she thought Mr. Palaniuk stated there were also height and setback waivers available, and to his knowledge no one has taken advantage of them. Commissioner Scott commented if the parking was reduced, it would put the parking out in the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson stated the increase in density is a factor to lower the unit cost of any existing structure, everything else would not lower costs, but raise costs of development. He said if the current system is not producing incentives, then he did not see how the proposal would create more. Commissioner Graham said she appreciated what the Greater Valley Support Network is trying to do, but all she can picture is tenements when she thinks of the type of incentives being proposed. The vote to exclude this CAR was six in favor, zero against, motion passed. CAR-2015-0023: (add housing type policies) Commissioner Anderson moved to exclude CAR-2015- 0023 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson felt we have diverse housing types, felt some of the other types, Co-ops or tiny houses, don't have a sense of fit in a community residential area here. He did not feel either of those as being positive. Commissioner Wood said he thought this would add layers of confusion, when we have different types of housing already, and does not feel the other types are necessary. He has heard of micro-housing but does not know where it would fit. Commissioner Graham she said she felt we needed to be aware of our low income families but she wasn't sure if this proposal was the way to go about it. She felt that micro-housing or co-housing were fads and what would happen to the development after the fad. She supports the exclusion of this CAR application. Commissioner Stoy agreed with excluding this CAR, he felt the micro-housing 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 was a trend because a 300-500 square foot home would get very small quickly. The vote to exclude this CAR was six in favor, zero against, the motion to exclude passed. CAR-2015-0024: (develop protocol for neighborhood engagement) Commissioner Wood moved to include CAR-2015-0024 in the Update. Commissioner Anderson stated he had concerns about this request. He said as long as this was City developed, City controlled, City monitored to make best practices he would support it; but if it was a third-party function, he would not. Commissioner Wood said he liked open government and the earlier we can notify people of what is going on, and communicate earlier in the process,then you eliminate problems. The more we can do that the better. Commissioner Stoy said he agreed with that. He said in the work he has done with developers he has found talking with neighbors early develops rapport with them instead of having a tense relationship later. Commissioner Scott stated she agreed with what the Greater Valley Network is trying to do, but feels they are making it over-complicated. She stated Spokane County has an informational handout which might serve to do the same thing. She feels there is a better way to handle it. The vote to include this CAR was four in favor, two against with Commissioners Kelley and Scott dissenting, the motion passed. CAR-2015-0025: (develop manufactured home park overlay) Commissioner Scott moved to exclude CAR-2015-0025 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson said he thought this was a tough subject but he felt this was stepping beyond what a city should be doing for its citizens. Commissioner Wood said he agreed with Commissioner Anderson, and didn't like bringing in new rules to a property so the owner could not sell it. Commissioner Scott stated she felt the property owners who were listed on the map (owners of the manufactured home parks noted on the overlay map) were not notified so they could speak to this request from their perspective. Ms. Barlow noted one of the site specific requests was to have a manufactured home park changed to a higher density. The vote to exclude this CAR was five in favor, one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, the motion passed. CAR-2015-0026: (Adding manufactured home policies) Commissioner Stoy asked if Mr. Driskell knew what the state requirements were and Mr. Driskell said he was aware of the year's notice regarding closing the manufactured home park (MHP). Mr. Palaniuk stated there are many requirements at the state level under RCW 59.20 and 59.21 in regard to MI-IP and their tenants. There are very specific requirements, notifications, relocation submittals which go to the Department of Commerce. Mr. Palaniuk said the proposal somewhat mirrors the state requirements but the submittal is more specific with asking for help with relocation and relocation assistance. There are public funds available through the state, but they are after the fact, not upfront costs. They are asking the City to administer and certify their plans. However, it is too early to try and analyze this now. Commissioner Wood wanted to know if we were to implement something like this but we conflict with the state, how would that work. Mr. Driskell responded, the City can make stronger regulations but cannot conflict with state regulations. Commissioner Anderson moved to exclude CAR-2015-0026 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson said working through the state would be a better solution than adding an additional layer of regulations at the City level. Commissioners Wood and Stoy both said they agreed. The vote on this motion was five in favor, one against, with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: A JOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. '—�' (O/ ) Joep C r rper on Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12