PC APPROVED Minutes 05-24-12.pdf Spokane V�lley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minu�es
Council Chambers �- City Ha11, 1170'% E. Sp�•ague Ave.
May 24-2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at b:04 p.m.
PLEDG� OT'ALL�GIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stoot� for the pledge of allegia�lce
ROLL CALL
G+DMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES-Cf�AIR JO��N HOHMAN,CD DIft�CTOFt
JQHl�r G,CAr�TioLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNIl�IG MGR,AICP
RUSTIN HALL LORI BARL0IL', SR PLANNER
ROI]HIGCxiI�IS HENKI'AI,�..�N,DEVELOPMENT ENGLNEER
STEVEN NEiLL
MARCIA S.4NDS-RECUSED DEAN GRAf'OS,COUI\TCILMEMB�R
JOE STOY-VTCE CHAIR ABSENT DEAI�'NA GRi�'FITH,SECRETAR'Y
Comnnissioner Cat7oll mac�e a motioz� to �XClk58 Commissioner Stoy which was passed
unanimot�sly,
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissionei• Higgins rnoved to approve #he May 24, 2012 agenda as presented� Tl�is motion
was passed unanimously.
APPRQVAL 4F MINUTES
Commissioner Neill mar�ed to approve the April 12, 2012 �ninutes �s presented. Tliis motion
was passed unanimously,
PUBLIC COMl'vIENT
The�•e was no public camtnent,
COMMISSION REP(3RTS
Conunissioners had nothing to r�port.
ADIVIINISTRAT�VE ItEPOItTS
Planning Manage�• Kulita stated the advanced agenda sho��s on June 14, 2012 staff hopes to
have the shoreline discussions concluded and to have a discussion regarding zoning and the
Planning Corrunission Rules of Procedure, which is a follow up to the sp�cial meeting held
May 7, 2012 with facilitator Stan McNutt.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Un�nis�ed Business;
Platuii►ig Commfssion Minukes 45-24-12 Page 1 of 8
Sr. Planne�• Lot•i Barlow began the contin��ed discussion regard�ng the Draft Goals and
Policies of the Shoreline Master Pzogram, Ms. Barlow explained to t�e Coz�lmission at the
May 10, 2(}12 meeting some questions �'egarcling certain goals and policies laad cotne rzp
and sh� would share the information she 11ad received fram the special council, Mz•. Tadas
Kisielius, fronl Van Ness Feldrnan GordanDerr, regarding tliose particular issues. Ms
Ba�•�ow also stated that the matrix Mr, Kisielil�s k�as built to address the comments received
��egarding the dr�.ft Goals and Policies had been updated and th� Commissioners would be
able to refer to it as t��a discussion continued. After the discussion on those issues, then she
would like ta begin a systematic disc�ission of one goal and those policies and see wliere
there might still be iss�ies and tl�en deterrnine wl�ere the Commission stands.
SMP 1.4 — Public Interest and Pzopet�ty Rights - Comrnissioner Carroll l�ad previo�tsl�
stated he felt this was writEen in and adversari�l tone. Ms. Barlow responded that Mr.
I�isi�lius re�iewed the language and felt it was wt'itten ta protect tlie interests in a mannez•
consistent fot• all parties. The suggestion is to change it to ��ead Balance the interests in
attainirlg the goals ---
Conimissioner Neill l�ad a suggested change to t�ie language and pi•oposed the follo�ving:
Balance the constitutional and othe�• legal limitations on the regt�latior� of p��ivate p�'a}�erty
with the interests of the�ublic in attaining the goals of the Siioreline Master Program
Commissioner Bates asked if the Commissionei•s needed to take a vote in order #o change
the language. Ms, Bariow responded alt�iough, that is a possibility, if the curre�t language
says �vhat the Commission waulci like it to accomplish, she would discotu•age word
smithing since there are 140 policies and it will take some time to do this to each one of
thern.
SMF 3.2 {Utilities) Plac� U��derground - Comrnissioners would like to add
"tjndergrounding shall �lot k�e requj�•ed if it results in a net loss of' shoreline ecalogical
functions." The Gommiss�o��ers felt it should be added in order to clarify, Staff and the
Cornmission discussecl the impacts which can be geeater than power poles, it can include
the clea�•ing af wegetation, under the lines and poles. This policy is fine as atnended.
SMP 3.� (Utilities) Maintenance Design - Commissione�s 11ad a qttestion about this policy
and correcting past impac�s. Mr. Kisielius had reserv�tiot�s ai�out coi�ecting past impacts.
Ivlr. Kisielius would �°at��ez� have the policy state `encoti�rage ta coi7ect past impacts'.
Commissioners wanted to knaw what the inipact of changing the ph�'ase meant. Staff
stated wheri the reg�xlations are w�itten it �vill not be required, Modi�y to read When
existing utilities facilities an�t right of ways are located within shoreline jurisdiction and
�'equire n�ain�enance.,.,.,.. encoura�eci to coz•�•eet pas� impacts
Staff explained placing `shall' in a poliey r�eans when you wz�ite the r�gulation you will do
it. If Commissione�s put `should' in a policy it would t�anslate into yo�� will do it unless
you can show a goad reason why not. Placiti� the word `encourage' in a palicy woi�id be
inteip�•eted as you won't have to do it tznless you wa�it to.
Comn�issioners asked if it was le�al to hold the public entities to a higher• standaed, anc� M�•.
Kisieiius l�ad �'espanded it is Iegal to hold public entities ta a higher standard than private
development.
Planning Comrnission Mim�tes OS-24-12 Page 2 of 8
SMP 5.2 Economic Develapment. The Planning Gomtnission had rec�uested a tnodification to this
poliey. Ms. �at•lo�v stated e�ceptipns�vould be�ioted in tl;e guid�lines. "Develapment si�ould be
designed to rnitumize tlte impacts to the shoreline aesthetic tht-ough architectural, landscape, and
other design feahrres.
Give preference to�.vaker-oriented economic development, tivliile limitin�,Iocati�on of�414 non-
�l�ore��e-tivatei�orie�ltecl-�3e�e�f#er��elements af tlie developrrrent�$t��se�l-ac-e�outside of
shoi'eliite itai•isdictio» �inle�ss tlye sil�_is i��i�����ri�te for����ite�`-orierited uses or tfie c�evelo�me�tt
� demgr�strabl�ontri�ute_s tc�tl��objecti�is��t th� Sho�•elii�e Man�»�ent Act. +t�+��-Encourage
design tl�at seeks to�•estore damaged or coinpi•omised shoreli�ie tiv�ougli ii�centi��es,
She also sl�az•ed this change n�imics the language in the st�tti�s. Commissionei�s tivanted to
know if it was not a requiren2ent, staff state�l the Commission tivould want ta be cansistent
with the guidelines.
SMP 5.10 Business anci In�i�stry Opezatiotis. Conitnission asked to c��ange the worc�
`enviran�ne�tal' to `aesthetic'. Stated they felt it makes a larger impact of the di�•ective.
SMP 5.6 Conzmission stated in th� matrix shows this policy k�ad been redlined. They asked
if this would mean this palicy will be �eleted. Ms Barlow explained ultimataiy, if the
Commission accept the recon�unendation, then yes this policy wo��ld be deletecl and the
follor�ing policies wauld be deleted.
SMF 5.12 Builciing Orientation — Tha Conunission asked if it would be legal to require
�levelopment to pi•ovide public access to the shoreline. Ms. Barlo�v expla�ned yes to some
extent, however there wer•e exceptions as allowed by Washington Administrative Code
(WAC). Ms, Barlaw pointed out in the t��atzix Mr, Kisislius expl�ins the detail as to what
the exceptions wol�ld ba. Staff could expanci the palicy to list all the exceptions l�owevei•
they are alr•eady listed in the statute wliich, regarciless of them b�ing listed in the policy the
City is still bound by.
Commissioner Higgins asked if it would be damaging if the Commission deleted this
policy. Ms B�rlow statecl it would �iot, and inany titnes policies are calleci out ta make a
note to t�ie public, liowevar even if it is �IOt acidressed in the SMP, it does not mean t��at the
rt�les in the RCW (Re�isec� Cade of Washington) are not go�ng ta be enforced, it j��st means
that the City is putting its own stamp of concern on this particular policy and }iiglilighting
it, Commissioner Carroll felt this policy ne�ded to l�e in the group and tl�ere needed to be
ana#lier which add��esses private cievelopments. Ms. Barlow ex�lained public development
is requi�•ed to p�'ovide access, private shoreline has greater flexibility. Mr. Cax�z•�11 wvanted
the separation Uet��een the public facilities and foz� it to be stated they are to be built and
designed to atk��act the cornmunity. Ms. Barlow explained if' t11e Commissioners wanted
tl�at then we can call it abot�t and break it down. Commissione�• Bates asked it the public
access piece �vas addi•essed someplace else, Ms, Ba�•low sk�ared the public access is
disctfssed in that poi�tion of the SMP, but that�his policy relates to Economic Development
and from the stand point that access to the river is an impoi�tant piece of oui• economic
viabilxty. ancl she wiil make an adjusttnent to t�iis policy to match tlie Coinmission's
request.
�MP 6.1 Are�s be Prese�-ved. Mr. Kisielius had cornmented this policy was more a bit
mare reaching than is required by statute. Corrunissianer Higgins suggested breaking this
po�iCy lnt0 pieces. Staff 1s sllggesting two approaches are suggested for discussion.
Planning Coinmission Minutes OS-24-12 Page 3 of 8
Areas tl�at provide o�3�,�}�a� scenic vistas ur;contribute to s�ioi•eline aestlfetics slio�ilel k�e
�eser�re�l consiste37t co��stitritiarial_�o��otkter ]e�al limit�tio�is that ma}�k��a���licable.; Ensure�to
net l�oss of shoreline ecological fu�ictions incl�ic�ing nah�ral vegetation and, fish acid�vildlife
habitat -or-
tlre�s that E]rovide oj�eti spaees, scet�ic vist�s, contribute to sh�reli»e aesthetics, natu��al
veget�f io�l
Staff did notic� after breaking this down that the language is �•epetiti�e of some ot��ez�
regulations in the goals and policies. Hawever �t does now adclress the Comznission's
�reference veiy specifically or it could be deleted and allow other policies to adciress this
conce�•n. The first suggestion is preferred. T��e ward `with' neecis to be added,
SMP 8.5 Risk Associated - structt�ral stal�ilizatian in the fuhue. The �olicy states to protect
existing homes. COlI1T1115S1011�1'S �vauld like to replace homes �vith structures. Dept of
Ecology carnments addi'�SS flltlll�e d�velopment should not happen. Tkte palicy is written ta
provide protection to existizig development, as long as it is a prima�y st��ucture, not
ancillary structu�•es. Commissioner Neill liad a question if the City �vot�ld be liable if foz•
ex�nlple a potting shed were destroyacl because the SMP did not allow shareline
sta�iilizatian and it was destrayed. Deputy City Attorney Korikright stated it would be
possible far the City to be help liable if the goal, policies ancl regulations da not meet the
requirenlents of the Shoreline Mas�er Pt�og��a�n, Commissia�iei• Neill wanted to knaw if
citizen could sue the City if they last a building because we would not allow them to
stabilize the shoreline, Mr. Kotilci�iglit stated he did not have a speci£'ic answer at that time
and �vauld h�ve to investigate and retui� �vith more information. N1s. Ba��low also
reminded the Cammission w11�n DOE testified they had said when they adopt c�ur plan tl�ey
becorne a pat�tner with the City and so wh�n the City takes a stand that cet�tain reqt�ests do
not follati�r ou�� adopted plan, then DOE will stand bahind these t•egulations and policies
with t�s and suppoi�t our ciecisions as a pax�knez•. Mr, Kisielius h�d commented that staying
within the g�iidelines would kee�the problem at hand...
Do not allow does last sentence trump the sentence above it. "do not allow sti�uctuzal
sha�•eline skabilization when it will result in a loss of s�ioreline ecological function" Ms.
Barlow discussed witli t��e Co�mnission memb�rs hor� these tiiitigs would be measured
a�ainst the Cumulative In�pacts Repo��t This policy addresses the report which will look at
uses and activities along the s�oreline and identi�y if thase will have a cumt�lative ifnpact.
Tf thei•e is na impact tlien it will be ok. Canunissione�'s askec� �what type of shoreline
stabilizations would o�' W011�fj not result in a no riet LOSS. COI111111SS1p11eT'5 asked the
possibility of daletin� the last sentence. Ms. Barlow said staff would ��ave �o ensure the
daes not allow us to came up with any i�egulations.,,john suggest wark on language.
Commissianer Hall asked if k�e caulc� clar�ify if the policies give an overall bi�oad statement,
you can't elo somethir�g if it causes a loss. If yot� remove function at this poi�it on the
propei�y, then you must find a tivay somew��e��e e�se on the prop�rty ta be able to give it
back, Ms, Barlow established this was correct. IVIr. Hall asked it the ciiscussion was a
regulation discussion nat a policy disct�ssion, and again Ms. Barlow agreed.
Comtnissian�r Bates asked even if the policy were deleted it would not di'Qp OUi' 017�1��'�IOTI
ta follow tlie statute. Ms. Ba��1aw stated this would be correct. Cotnmissionea• Bates stated
it was difficult to make some of t��ese decisians witho��t having seen any regulatio��s. Ms
Planning C�o��uiiission Minutes OS-24-12 Page�4 of 8
Barlow remarked that withaut the goals and policies there are no guici�lines foi� the
regulations to be written to fallow. Commissioners as�ed what would happen if we the last
sent�nce was removed, Ms Ba�•low stated she would have to check with M��. Kisielius to
see wha#his recammendation would be.
The Comn�ission asked what would happen if structure blirns do�vn in shoreline area. Ms,
Barlow said there are special guidelines as ta how a sfi•�ct�►re is to be rebuilt, but the
regulations in SMP wiIl be the g�zide.
SMP 12.14 Non-VVater Oi°ietited Industrial Uses — This policy was expanded in ox�tier to
�,llo�v change which mimics the language in the SMP guidelines.
SMP 12.20 Modificatio��s — Mr, K151�I1U5 commented it would be wise to limit
modifications as mt�ch as possible. Ms. Barlow remarked Mr. Kisielius and DOE differ on
what this poiicy does. Mr. Kisielius f��ls this �olicy may be a bit more �•est�•ictive tY�an
RCW90,58.020 rec�uires. The DOE �naintai�a� tlie listing of priorities, it is just a listing of
priorit�es and so this policy is r•ightly stated. Mr. �isielit�s has suggested the intent is not to
l7� T110I•e ��esti•ictive but to acldress limitatians. He commented unless they are necessary to
s�pport ar protect an allawed primary st��ucture oi• a legally existing s�ioreline use tliat is in
danger of loss or substantial darnage or are necessary for i•econf�gu��ation of the shoa•eline
far mitiga€ion or er�ancernent puiposes, then it should be re�ioved. Ms Barlow suggested
del�ting everything after `recluce the advez'se effect of allowed shoreline modifications,'
Co��nissioner Neill commented�ie liked the shortez�version.
Commissioners statec� t�iey felt th�t SMP 12.19 was repetitiv�e.
SMP 12,31 New residential development and how it relates to subdivisions. Propet�ty with
water front boundaries with n�ore than two dwellings would be able to provide a community
docks. The Commission said it yvould like to c�ange it from reqtti�•e �o encourage. Ms,
Barlow reminded tl�e Commissianers to think �rack to �vheie it was possible. She also
reminded them that I70E has said t�is is �ot something tiiat s�iould be encouraged, it is
rreqtti�•ed, howe�v�r this is not really an issue in �ur cammunity, becalise so little prope�-ty is
developable with actt�al water frontage.
Comtnissioner Bates said he felt at was mare restrictive, however legal cottnsel says leave it
open. He reniinc�ed the other members t1�e�'e were certain ai•eas where a person wil� no� get
a permit to get a dock. However, when it is possible people should be allotived to liave one
and ez�cour�age would s��pport that. Conunissianez Car�oll remarked that DOE says it is
required, Iie felt it �s their interpretatior�. Mr. Kisieli��s stated he thought it was �oa
restrictive, however the ��egulations will only apply to new subdivisians, of which there are
approximately one or two pa�'cels oi• so along the river in �vliicla this would apply. Mr,
Kuhta stated this would only be a condition on a new s�zbdivision. He said, if a new
st�bdivision goes in, tlien tlie City would X•eqtiii•e community docks, Commissiorier Higgins
said if the DOE will not challenge the lan.guage, then why nat leave it as encou�•age.
Cammissioner Bates said w� are then encou�•aging cammunity docks i°ather than individual
ciocks {in n.ew subdivisions) and to him this feels wrong. He stated he felt this was a��
individual property righ.ts issue, Ms. Barlow stated explained that if cornes up least
t�esri�ictive it could be �vritten would not get away with nothing less of encouraging
con�munity doeks. ,
Planning Commission Muiutes OS-24-12 Page 5 of 8
Ms. Barlow saici she �`elt that at tliis time staff had p�•obably provided the Commissio�i
everything they would need to be able to �nish making their decisions. At this tim� staff is
suggesting to review each element one at a time. If the Commissioners find tlley have a
specific item �vhich has not be adtiressed it can be c�iscussed, other•wise if the
Commissioners are comfortable with the recon�mended latzgu�ge then we will move
fo��ward for a recommendation to approve with changes. Since #here are so many pieces sQ
the SMP itself, the Commission needs to contint�e to mave fo��vard. Planning Managei°
Ktthta asked if besides the policies which had already b�en discussed could the
Comrnissioners think af any#hing othei� issues they felt they needed to bring i�p.
Camrnissioner' Carroll stated hc felt thei•e was a subset of issues which k�ad tiot been talkecl
about yet, wliich��elated to mo�•e critical areas.
Commissioner Neill woulci like to go ba�ck ta Policy 8,5�
Commissioner Bates �tated he felt like t�iei•e wei•e some brand new policies that neecl to be
discuss�d, such as t�e proposed 1.8 policy ��hich iias been suggested by Centennial
Properkies. Ms, Bat�law stateci this was not a new policy staff�vas recomme�tding atid so it
is not on the topic o�discussion un�ess the Cornmission tiad sa�ne desire to add it, staff was
not suppoi�ting the adrlition no�•is legal staff.
The Cornmission took a b�eak at 7.51 p,m, and retl�rned at 8;06 p.tn.
With the return of th.e Coznmissioii, Chair Bates asked the other members if they would like
to start with each goal anc� th.ose policies and make sw�e they have not ove�• looked an.y
concern.
SMP Gaal 1 and the policies follotivi�tg:
Policy 1.7- Comtnissioner Neill ask�d if#5 Pf�ovide prrblrc access to�irbliely otvtted ctj•eas
of si�o,�eliraes is �hat a mandate? Staff i��dicated this l�nguage miniics the language in
stat� gUidelines, The palicy itY�iicates the p�°eference is given to usars in the following
order, as tliey are listed in the palicy. The City's prio��ity a�id preference wil! be t�ie
same as SMA.
�'irst proposed Policy 1.8 Mr. Kisielius has suggasted to include khis policy. M��.
Kisiejius felt if the City �vas going to �•ecoguize t11e key elements from RCW90,58.020
then the other key elements shoulel be capt`�red and this policy doas that.
Second p��oposed Policy 1.8 has been suggested by Cente�ial Prope�`ties is not
s�ipportec� by staff as an addition to the Goals anci Policies
,SMP Go�l 2 anci fhe policies that fflllo�v: Comini�sianers had nothit�g to discuss
regarding any of the proposed changes ta these goals aK�d policies,
SMP Goal 3 and the po�icies that fallow:
Policy 3.2 Utilities. Legal is recommending no cifange to this policy. Require new utilities a��d
facilities that �nust be locaked �vithin the shoreline to be built undergrotanci, if feasible, if did
st�ggest a gatlzer add tlie language as s�eggest earliei�, The Plantfing Commission did uot
specifically direct staff to change the language to say undergrou��diiig slfali not be ��equirecf if it
res��its in a net loss of shareline ecalogical fi��7ctions. The Commission agrees to have ti�is
added to the policy.
Planning Commission M'v�l►kes OS-24-12 Page 6 of 8
Policy 3.6 - Starmwater — Cornmissionei•s agreed that this policy had �een covered
previou�ly and they ok with it.
�MP Goal 4 anc� the policies that �ollo�vc
Palicy �.7 Coxnxnissioner Neill reminded th�re needed to be a typo fixeci, addeci the
word 'no' added to the policy.
Policy 4.6 — Comrnissioner Bates �uggested no change and the Cotnmissian discussed
pa�king facilities again. Could t�ie policy be changed to recommend locating the
p��king lots outside of the Jurisdiction? Staff indicated this wotald be moz•e �'est�'ictive,
It cotrld it state `if feasible,' this would allow if nothing else tlie developez• could da
tl�en it ��ould be allowed to locate in th� jurisdiction. Commissioner Bates asked if
staff tivas inciicating the ��eg�ilation� wauld address this more directly, staff indicated the
exceptions wot�lci be in the r�eg�ilations, �t would be something similar ta locate outside
of the 200 foot juriscliction if feasi�le, if it isn't t��en what cat� bc done whicli would
have the least i�pact.
Second Policy�l.l 1 Commissio��er Carroil�voiild like to se�a changs the language to say add to
aesthetics of khe public aecess points-�ve kalked about it earlier t�iis change dro�the words
ne�v access points private access points �i�ovide-�'utu��e t��ail development incluciittg t�•ail
extensions, �te��e��������k�}�e-c�.=��;rt��E€;s�{-�-k�e-�k��s�t�r3-�-i���t--t���-]��s�
���L�,�ae�-P��ivate acc�ss poi��ts �vill �e des__,_,igi�ed to flave the l�ast adverse ii���acts.
Public access points�vil1 �nl�ance ---------
The firs�Policy 4.11 is actually Policy 4.10 -
Staff asked if the �•est of the Comrt�issior� ag�•ee to holding the public to a higher standard.
Staff felt the point is made eomp�etely in t�e entire docurnent do �ve need to separate tiieni
out in every policy? Cut7�e�tly we are �naking that distin�tia�� very clear at this point. Tn
this case it coulci be dealt with very evenly and Mr, Kuhta was concerned that adding
so���ething like a public trail extension i� being lielci to a lugher stan�larci �vauid make it
rnore difficult to get fund�t�g. He said it woulel l�e something to consider. Commissioners
as�Ced if iu writing the regulations, would ti�e �•egulations have to be totally different? Staff
responded yes, because they would need to add�•ess differe�lt �•eq��iren�ents. Staff stated
they believe they understand ttie direction the �Con�►mission is gaing and will address any
legal imp�ica�ions, take the coiicept hack to Mr, Kisielius, and tl�en return witli a
- suggestiox�,
Staff�vill wor•k to incaiporate the changes suggested so far and return witli con�nents and
amended policies at tlie next meeting,
B. Ne�v Busi��es�: Tliere�vas no ne�v business.
i
Plaruiing Camnussion Minutes OS-24-12 Page 7 of 8
GOOD �F TH� ORD�R
There was not��ir�g for the gt�od of tha orcler,
ADJOURNMENT
The being no other busin�ss the meeting was adjaurned ak 8;31 p.m,
� --
�— � �'�
�ill Bates, Chairperson
�;,:: . • �^ ,
� ', r, , ,.!
- �� - -- . ,
.
Deanna Griffith, PC S i �aiy
,��,
_, _
.;,,,
,,
;.. �`� ;, (
� � � ,- .
;
, ,
,
,
,�::,<;;� ';
,.: � _-
.�., `�l, ,
�\
�,�
���.',
����; .
�.;��:. � ,� .. �''�. �
1
Planning Comn3ission Minutes 05-24-12 Page$ af 8