Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 05-10-12.pdf Spokane VaIley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, l 1707 E. Sprague Ave. May 10, 2012 I. CALL'TO ORDER Chair Bates c�lled the meetic�g to order at 6;OQ p.m, II. PL�DGE OF ALLEGIANC� Caniiiiissio»ei's, staffaiid audience stoad for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Depufy City Attorney Konic�•i�ht remir�ded tha Comanissionez•s Cammissioner Sands l�ad recused lierself and tiferefore tivas e�ccused fro�ii all Shoreline discussions. con�MissioNE�s CITY STAFF BILL BATES-CHA1R SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP JOHl�I G.Cf's.CtROLL LORi BARLO�V, SR PLANNE�t RUS'I`IN Hf1I,L MARTIN PALANIUK,PLANNING T�CHNICIAN ROD HIGGINS TADAS KiSIELIiJS, SPECIAL COUN'SEL- SHOREI,INE STEVEN NEILL MARCIA SANDS—RECUSED CARI HINSHAIV,OF�ICE ASSiSTA1�IT JOE STOY—VICE GHAI�2 ABSEI�fT DEANNA GRIFFITH,S�C�ETARY rv. aPPROVaL or a��lvna Comtnissia�fer Higgins tnade a motian to approve tjie May 10, 2012 agenda as pt•esanted. Tl�is �notioti �vas passeci unariimously. V. APPROVAL OF MIN�TT�S There�vere na minutes�o approve, V�. PUBLIC COMM�N'I' Tl�ere�vas no public comment. VII. CONINIISSION REPORTS The Commissiouers l�atl nothing to report. VIII. ADMI[+IISTRATIV�REPORTS Staff thanked the Cotnmission for attending t1�e special rneeiing an Moiiday May 7, 2012 with facilitator Stan Mcl'�Iutt to discuss Plaruiing Comtt�issiori palicies and procedures. Staff inform�d th� Commission they�vould be amending the ad�anced agenda ta �vhen more cotz�pone�it� of the Shoreline Master Plan 4vere available. IX, C�MMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinisheci Business: Delibei•ations of the Shoi•eline Adviso�y Gi•oup Dt•aft Goals and Policies far the Shoreline Mastey Pragram: Plaru�ing Com�nission Minutas OS-10-12 Page 1 of 8 Comrr►issioner Bates �nade a poitrt to complimant staff on the excellent 1ob of compiling the comment niatrix. Mr. Bates s�ated ha felt it was extre�nely lielpfiil. Sr. Pianti�r Bat�lo�v explained the evening's discussions �vould be a cotstinuation of khe draft Gaa1s at�d Poiicies for the Shoreline Master Progr�tn (SMP) deli'berations. Ms Barlo�v introduced spec�al co�►iicil sliareline atkoz•ney M�•, Tadas I�i�ielit�s �vho �vould �e l�ere to assist ti�e Cocnmission in Y•evie�ving the goals and policies, comments received a��d ho�v they �vill celate ta tlte state statt�tes. Ms. Baclo�v stated the Cotninissionez•s should cansider concentratitig on the goals ancl policies tivlfich they felt they needed expert advice on items �ve need to address, take care of�vhatever you need to cliset�ss �vit�� Mr, Kisielius. Ms. B�rlaw said not all of the policies ara not on tiais lis�, if did not receive a commeiit, then clid riat make a note of concarn. She said for the Commissionei�s tty to only disctiss issues tivhile Mr. Kisielins is here issues of the greater concern for flfe Cotnmissionet�s tivliich might require legal guie3ance. 1'oints of dised�ssio�7 are as follolvs: • Policies �.1 and 1.2 Commissioner Neill stated tltese policies state they are to l�ave coorclinated pla�ining, �vlfo �vith aiid �vheti. Mr. Kisielius explained tlie city is sYipposed to invite, coordinated plaf�t�irfg. • Commissioner Neill wa��ted to kno4v if the City did this, �►vas tlie City baund fo follo�v that �la���fing, Mi•, Kisielius stated tl�e City �vas settic�g up a process tivl�ich tvould need to be follotved, IV1i•. Kisielius �ns�ver�d this I�nguage �vas app�°opriate for° a policy, yes the City tivould have ta follo�v them, once you ac�opt tlfe�ii, and it was cansistertt �vitlS the state stakt�e, • Cominissioner Neill i�vanted to lcnow �vitio �vould d�tei•tnine limits. Mr. Kisielii�s said tlie SMP �vas consistent �vitii the Compreltensive Plai�, «hich �vas like the blue print, ciekail comes later. Tl�e Goals at�d Policies are the big picture, etty �€ts to choose and this docuznez�t pro�ides tlte direckion and guidance. • Policy 1.3 is on klie list rega��ding the protection of c�•itical areas in the shoreiine aeea, it rvas discussed this standard is establislied by stahie. The concept of no tiet loss is difficult to ai�tict�late, so it is sim�ler to mie•ror tite statute. T�ie City does ��ave an option to tiy to ai�kicialate the no net lost co�tce}�t itself, • Commissioner Carroll would like to discuss Pojicy 1.1 again. It states consider the plans of ottier non-gowe�•rfine�ita�organizatio��s (NGO}. H�asked�v}iat does tl�at meati. Ms. Barlotiv shared this policy �vas rvritteri �urposefi�lly to deter•mine �vhat plaits tkie Ciry ltad to consider, plans could l�e considered a�fd�vl�at plans the City should coar�dinate with and yet �vould not have to incor}�orate them if they did jiot �vork for the City as a �vl�ole. Mr. Kisielius saicl it sounded like the `consider' �yas a bit of relaxed langi�age. The City cot�ld i•avie�v the plans of suri'ounding j��t�isdictio��s and not liave to reinvent the �vlfeel tivithout l�avi►ig to bi�ld ti�e City adopt evei°ythii�g i�� other�lans. CoaY»nissioiier Hall brought up an exam�le of tlie County fairgrautids. Tfle policy said the City slioiild laok at rvhat the NGO has in it plan �nd cozisider �vhat tl�ey are doing but �va do not �lave to take it into accoiizit �yhen we are plari�iit�g. • Co�nmissionerNeill askeci abot�t Policy 1,3 �vt�ere it mentions critical areas and �vhat is the distitiction beriveen critical areas. Mi•. Kisieli�rs said it ��as referring ta a big pichn•e coticept and should be deferred to the regulations, tiawever main one cQncern �vot�ld 6e fish and �vildlife. He said most sliorelities are cansideret� critical areas however not all areas along the sliareline qualify anc�tttere tnusk be some distinctioi� as to�v�at does and does not qi►alify. • Policy 1.4 Mr. Kisielius stated tl�is was a foundation concepk, This policy is concerned abo�it making sure tliat there is a nexus (a connection) beri�een �vhaf you are trying ta Plamiing Comnussion Minutes OS-1�-12 Page 2 af 8 regulate and the conditions you are ttying to irnpose. Mr. I:isielius said the key ��ote here ��ould be that this �vill not co�ne u� here, but at the reg��lations level and tl�is policy is the guiding review. M�•. Carl�oIl skated he liad a problem �vhen �ie felt readi�ig it, it assumes an advez•sely concept between the pt�blic and flie city ta take care of the shorelir�e. Mr. Kisielius stated it �vas possible to strike `the public'. Balance intet•ests of the public anci attaixi the goals o� the sl�or�line master program in a ma�i►�ai• cot�sistent �vith all constih�tional legal litnit�tions. • Cominissio��er �iggins inquired a�out a statement ir� Mr. Kisielius' mema, pai•t C on page 4, tl�e�•e is a publication fi•om tlia aitor��ey generals offica r�f�t°encecl, of�vl�ictt �ie �vould liice to have a copy of. Mr. Kisielius agreed to provide a copy to e�ch Planning Comt�iissioner. • Discussion about No Net Loss — exatnpl� was gi�en tlfe iinpact of a p��oject, city could ��equire the impacts of a project to be mitigated. Mitigation, handling t�te act��al imp�cts created by a pr�oject. Handliug tlia actual im��acts of ttie development bei��g proposed, as opposed to restoration is going one step fi��-�her, to impi•ove beyond ji�st�.vliat you are doing to the g��ound. Tj�is is a key distinction to make in ordei• to �3nderstand this concept. The City �vould have the po�vei� to im�ose conditions �vhicl� requires we share the burden, We don't �vant to be in a position to share the burden and sat'rsfy tl�e goals af tlie �ct, restoration, find unique �vays ta restore, diffe�•e�rt tltan «ays ta ensure no net loss, Cammissio�ier Bates saicl lie��as having a tlard time with the difference beriveen alteratio��s and resto�•ation. • Comn�issioner Cart•oll l�ac1 a question ��ega�•ding I10I1-CflI1�01'I]]lilg USeS, tl�ere is a policy �vhicli addi•esses nan-conforming structures, a«d opporhi�ity ta re6uild eveti if non- confortning, bl�t�vliat if it was a non-conforming use. � Commissioner Carrol� asked if er�tiancing zvas different than prat�cting in i°egard to the public ai�d p��ivate bn►•den. � Commissioner Neill asked abot�t Policy 1,7 and if it ci�eated a mandate for the City� Skaff t•e�lied language is mi��roi•ing ttie statutes. * Commissioner Higgii�s asked �vhei•e the 200 feet buffer comes fi•om, staff attswered it is in tlte sk�t��te. Mr, Higghis wo��dered if the 20Q �oot b��ffer kias ever been challenged? • Policy 3,2 Caznrnissioner Neil] saad the c�i�•�•e�lt language says utilifies �vi11 be puk underground, but doesn"t c�iggij�g a huge trenc�i cause mo�•e proUle�us in a area like this, znoN•e tl�ac� poles atfd tivira overhead. Staff ans�vered that LID {lo�v infpact desigtt) �vauld capture most of those issues ho�vever it tvas not a legal questions but an environmental question, • Mr•. Neill inquired about the definition of "if feasible." Ms. Barloiv staked "feasible" is defined in the WAC, and "feasible" is used repe�tecily in the statutes. (IS) "Feasif�le" �lreafts, fof� t1Te p��ipose of tlris cha�ter, t1�at �rri actiofr, st�cli as c� develaprrtetrt pf•a�"ect, »titigatiort, ar pj•eser�vcrtioat r�eqtrir�er�terat, meets erll of tlae follativr�ag cotaditio�as:(a) Tl1e c�ctio�r carr be acconrplislre�ivatla techfaologies atad niethods tliat hcrve beeia irsed rfa t�re past Ji1 Sll)llIC17• circu��rstc�nces, ot� st:rrlres or tests I�ave derno�rsta'C�IBCt� 1F� 511111TA'l� cij•caurrsta�rces thcrt strch ap��•oacl7es �rre cuf�f�erltly availr�ble a��d likety to aclaieve the iirtefa�ecl resirlts;(b) �'he rretion�t�ovides a rec�sorral�le lrkelihoocl of c�e/rievir�g its i�rterr�ed pzarpose; and(c) Tlze actio�i rloes not physically precli�de achievi�tg tlre project's�ritrra�y irrtenc�ed legal zrse. Irr ecrses �vl:ei�e these grridelr`ftes j•er�rrir�e certcrtrt c�elrotts trrtless they c�i�e rr feasible, the btn•�le�t of�f'OVlit� ljtfeasibility is o3� tlre a�plicr�ftt, Ir1 detef'1)ll7llf7� [l17 C1CtlOf1�S i�rfsasibility, t11e Pla��ing Commission M�nutes OS-10-12 Page 3 of 8 revietiviarg agerrcy may tiveigh tlae rtctiorr's rslative �ublrc costs a�rd publre berrefrts, cortsiclerecl itt t11e sliort-crftc�lorrg-tet�nr tiure fr•rinies. � Mr Neil1 also shared WAC 173.2G.420 (13} "Ecological fucictions" or "slioreline functions" means the work perfo�med or role piayed by the physical, cifetnical, and biafogical pA•ocesses tl�at contribute to tl�e maintena��ce of the ac�t�atic �nd tert•estz•ial eriwiranrneitts ttiat constiti�te tlfe shoreline's ti2itural ecosysteti�. Policy 3.�1 in regards to �vhere to put utility lit�es, he felt it ti�as going beyo�id the nexus. Mi•. Kisielit�s stated a public entity cannot assei-t a takings claitii ivhen cor�sidering a�iotlier�ublic entity, • M�•. Neill�votild ratl�ea� it said- �vhen tnoney is or•w�fe��possible--ha ciid not�vazik lar�guage put in the policy�vhicl��vould require the utilities to have to restore and her felt it neec�ed to l�e addresseci, Ms. Baz�totiv shared Avista has al�vays gone �eyand in their restoration efforts bi�t she could cha��ge the worditig to encaiirage. Comn3issiotfer Ca�•rall stated �ve shoi�ld be halding tlYe u�ilities to a higl�er skandaE�d, t�iey sl�oukd addi•ess past irnpacts, hope ttiat encoiii•age them if possible and provida a bene�t, x�eskoration, Mr. I�isielius shareci the goal in the `to restore tire sl7oreli3ie to get back the ecological fiinction', �vould be iit ti�e cietails, and the regulatians ti�ill address this rnot�e closely. �nforcing private property awners to do restoration is difficult, but c�oes i�ot apply to piyblic entities. The Commissiojiers �vere cancerned tivit�f t�ie City Ifa�ir�g to sliare the b��i•de�i of restoratiou, Mi�, Kisielius stated the Commission 4vas tallcing abo�at nva different things. This policy is asking to �iave the develope�•s sllare the burden. Cominissionei• Hall suggesteci usit�.g aziother�voi•d change if possible, to encourage. • Policy 4,7 - parkiilg Facilities. Parking fots should not be allo�ved as a prima�y use in tlfe shoreline. This�vould be developed�vitl�inore teeth in ti�e i�egulatioa�s. Tliis tivoa�lcl alsQ be addressed site by sike. Staff stated thex•e are fe�v parcels that do not liava room to pravide parking ol�tside of the shoreline buffei•. Even tl�e public access section adci�•esses ather uses fi��st before parking. Even Policy 4.11 regaeding the Centennial Tcial, it is i�npoi�tant and yet �vheti design neti�r sections it should be «ith tlie least arno��nt of ia��pact. One of tl�e Commissioners asked about access to tlie river, staff responded st�ting the act does uot i•�quit•e pliysical �nd visual access, only ane or the oklter. Commissioiier Caa•roll said least adverse im�act, seemed �fegative to l�im could it be t•e�v��itte�t so it so��nds pasi�ive. Staff stated if you fli� and re�vx•ike, tvauld it imply something els� and s��ggestec� �vhe�•ever pass�ble. • 5,2 design of Eco�7omic developmeYrt. �zo�i-sl�oz•eline tiises should be encouraged to nat locate nea�� the rvater. Tl�is policy not t�ec��iu�ed by the act, fu�ictians tliat do��'t l�ave atry �vater t�elated uses shot�id be discoura�ed jn ordea• to save uses �vhicli stiould be along the shoreline t��e oppoi�tunity to locate the�'e, Comtnissioner Carroll ask�d if 4.7 Pat•kit�g Facilities tivo�ild tri�mp this one. Staff ans�vered yes, it �votild tliis a�ie is broader, �2iles of statutaty constution t��e niost i•estrictive. Parking woi�ld �e a permittecfi use and in st�p�oi�ting a permitted use, if you had no altei•tlative, t1�en the parking lot tivould be allo�ved, if you cau pt3sh it aut of t�ie shoreline jurisdiction it �vould be Uetter, The Comtnissioners ��oridered if it «QUId not ba befter if sentence struck oi�t. If the Coi�itnissi�n�r�vere precluding�vate�'depenciatit iises,iioi�vever it is the stat��te. b The Cointnission took a break at 7:3� and retu�ned at 7:45, � Commissioner Hall asl�ed to tisve Policy 4.7 - look again, rnissitig a �vo�'d �vhich makes a significa��t differe�ice. + Policy 5.6 -e �vhat is tlie conce�t tivhen dise�issing Econoi�iic Developme�lt. This is paraphrase of RCW 90,58.020. it celates to a �vi�e range of co�feepts, t�e policy is a Flacmiii�Conunission Minukes OS-1(}-12 Page 4 of$ i�eyuirer��ent ancl consistent �vith but a paraphr�ase of the RCW. Comn�issio��er Neill as�Ced if this forced the city to evaluate each project for shoi�t and long tei•�n goals. He felt thei•e i�eeded to be same kind of para�neters i��place to evaluate tlte projeets agai�fst. He �e�t this �vas #oo bui°det�some, too mucla iniscliief to 6e put iii. He wondered if there could be �1�ojeck specific review, Staff ans�vered not here but regulations could. Commissione�• Carroll slfared it does not say rvhak to do �vith it and who ti�ill evaluate the projects. Ms. B�rlow stated l�o�v and when staff revieti� projects �vill not chaj�ge. She also stated if tl�is policy �vere deleted, it��ro��ld not change �nything. Mr. Kisielius has al��eady �tated tl�at it is already covered in the la�v and regardless if the policy is in ttie SMP or tfot it does t�ot lessen the burden to folla�v the stat� statukes. Tlfere��ras discussion af removing this policy and what it�vould change, because the state la�� is still there. If looking at Policies 5.7 and 5.8 they do nat say tivho �vill be requi�•erl. Tlie pz•oject did nat overlook the ionpact of the development of the long te�'m approach. The idea is to find �ong term benefits over shoi�k ter�n gain. Policies 5.6 ai�d 5.7 look at extra emphasis of t�iose issues. Even if tltose were struck, they are atre�ciy in tl�e state la�v, � Planning Manager Kuhta statecl�co�iomie develo�tnent i►i context of the t�iver is more�boi�t draiving people to ti�e river, Tlie concept is bt�ilding with big blank «alls along tlie river. Mr. Ki�ialius sitared t��ere are �vays to address the conceriis. Encaurage the develo�ment to enitance the shoreli�te. Comrt�issioner Hall suggesteti �ve need to clesign projecks to attract people, saying that attr�ct atici att�•active are rivo different things. This policy �vould be t�e��orded just a littie bit. Comrnissio�iei• Cat•ro�l said he tliought tliis �vas trying to hold tl�e public anei pi�ivate to the sama stan�lard. He feels the Gity should hold pubIic entities to liig�ler sta�ada�•d, e Policy 5,10 this policy rec�t�ests encourages sho��eline indast�y maintain an atti°active appearance for tiie users of the river aud trail. Staff stated t�iat if tl�e concern was about the ph�•asing�vas just the�vord environmental, ik could be str��ck and be replaced aesthetic. + Policy 5.16, svas ziot ia� ox•iginal draft and is being proposed by Centen��ial Properties.- this coi�ld fit�n tivitl�all the othet•ED policies. • Palicy 6.1 co�nbines in one policy in one place praseive, ope�3 spaces, scenic vistas, contribi►te to shoreline aestl�etics, �fatural vegetation and, fish and r�vildlife ��abitat maybe that «ord ��light not be the right �voi•d to use. This policy does not just pet�aiu to �ublic areas. Commissioners thought this �vould ti�is cotzfi�se tize issue, felt the stanc��rd is diffez•ent foz•each t�ii�ig, a�id felt ttie policy slfould separaTe thern out. + 6.2 vegetation buffers and setbacks. Comnzissianer Neiil suggested addi�ig"introduce netiv tecl�t�ic�ues atid exploi�a injtovative design ..." He also tivondered about not being able to have docks because of shade, b��t �Ilow#��ees, wvliich creat� shades so sl�ould the City allo�v docks. • Policy 6,3- use the 2010 shoreline in�e�ftory as the baseline. Cenfennial P�•opez�ties is st�ggesting the Ciry allotiv pi°ivate property o�vners to pz•epar�e and use theu• otivn iuventoiy. Tl�e City's inventoiy is doiie, No aue is s��ggesting there is something tvrong �vitlf it. T��e Inventoiy is a differe�it tool it is ho�v the City dater���ines titie base line far No Net Loss. The i��ventoiy has bee�� doa�e in order ta help draft the regulations. Property o�vner specific inventoty is only appropriate �vlien a developtnent proposal was being discussed. Staff rvill proposa netv language tivlficl� can l�e cansidered. Cornmissioiiei• 5foy wondered�vl�at �vauld be the process for when City and the private davelopment feel tlte high �vater mack in a different place and �vanted to clf�nge the 204 foot mat�k. Ms. Barlo�v stated the 20Q foat jui•isdictian is the 200 foot atid is not c�iangeable, The 200 foot mark is establislfed Planr�ing Commassion Minutes OS-1Q-12 Page S of$ ��egtilation in the statute and sets if you are in or otit of�he ju��isdiction. Commissiozier Hall said he feels t1�is «as more like a regi�latio�i instead of a policy. Corlrrraissio�ael• Carroll f�roved to extefrd the nreetirrg zrjrtil 1 D;00 p.��i. after a 1�it of�liscirssro�T tlre f�totiota passes ivitla a vote of 6 i�r frn�o��, afad 0 rrgrri�ist. • Policy 12.�49 The gravel pits. T1ie regulations alreariy state zio net loss, but not fi�om t�ieir current operation bt�t fi�om the encl of their operations. Witl�the instances the City has l�ere, they do not need to ��egula#ed until �fter th�y l��ve fit�islied their reclamation work. CQIT1TT115S101181' H1��1115 5fc�t�a �1� f�lt tlle Cil�! S�1011lf� oi�ly regulate after the reclatnati�ozl plan is complete, after DNR signs aff. Mr, Higgins stated ll�e likes the ne�v langi�age. Ms. Barlo�u stated that DOE zs lleacled in a ne�v directioj� and�vill not t�egulate active gi•avel pits tmtil DNR signs off. Commissioners asked tlten �vhy do Sve liave ko ha�e t��is in aui• pla�i. Than �v�iy leave tihe policies in? Staff respondec� because the City alraady has thetn in tlte iu�e�ftoty, �ve 13ave to �lan far t1�em, this says we �vill plan for tlie�n, staff�vouid have r�moved ttiem ho�vevei• 6ut because listed in otliei• places stating they are shorelines af ti�e state. � Policy 12.50 is�io longei�necessaiy after cliangi�tig 12.49. + Policy12.5 - non-conforiiiing uses... Conur�issioners again disciissed to what degree are going to be allo�ved be znaintained or expanded. Single family Residetices are �ozlsicler•ecl conformi�fg unc�er the lativ. As long as usa does not inc�•ease tiie degc�ee of non-co��formiry it �vould be allo�ved to ex�aud. The use tivoulc� be allowed ta expanc� oukside t��e buffer, Currently noti-conformi�ag iises can expand to a parcei �lext, Ms. Barlotiv sliai�ed, 6ut does get limited in tite sl7oreli�ie, and this tru�nps the c«i°rent code, She sliarec� that because of the SMA, you l�a�e a different legal sta�id�rd that must be complied ��ith. The DOE l�as «ritten a lot about rvhat you can do ��ritli non-confol�ming uses. T�iey can expauc] oy� tlfe outsicle the�uffe�•, Mr.Kisielius stated the 24D jurisdiction is differeatt than a buffer or a set back. • Policy 12.27 docks, Coa7�missioi�ers �vanted to talk c��70l11 �vhere can fhe docks wez•e ailo�vec�. Docks are allo�vecl�vith i�esidential structures. Staff discussed �vhak the�vould do atid tivlfat the ageiicies are going to rec�uire an someone gefting a cloc�C. Tliere are plac�s oii the i•i�e�• �vlie�•e there are safety iss�ies, generally areas �vhich �vere fi•ee flo�ving. These ar�as are no# appro�riate, l�owe�er areas east of Mill«ood,�vhich ace in ttfe bacic��ate�•fi-om � tl�e dam, it�vot�ld Ue�•ig��t tfiere. Staff conferred witlz the Slielley Lake Horne O«ners Association and they do not tivant docks a�i the lake. Cet-tain areas of ttie z��ver are not rigiit for docks but some areas of the 3•ivez•are appi•opi•iate�vith lake fike settings. Commissionec Car�•o11 haci a question about#he last state�ne��rt -severely ecalogically itnpacted shozeli�ie �reas �vitl� adequate }�ublie access.... Wfry�vould an area like t�iat I�eve a public accass • 12.31 joint use docks... minimize ciocks ininimize itnpacts, development of more tl�an one lot and it is tivithin the ciky's �t�rvie�v - issue tivas litigate recei�tly, a��11C� 1S (JUS�1lTlg t}11S ISSllO, DDE 15 �lUl'SLLlllg c�tlC� t}1B C�2C1SlOri Cal]1B OL1t IaSt �Yee�(, (�1C� 11Qt COri1B OLIf - Cl0 IlOt have precedence - but DOE is ��ishing this issue. clfar�ge the «ording to encourage ratlfer tlfa�i z•equire. • Conimissioner Neill asked if Polici�s 12.24, 12.25 a��d 12.48 - is tlfis public csr private oi• both. Mr, Kisielius replied they are intended to be both. The City should look for opporhmities for restoration but relative ta shorelina tnodi£�ications, Restoration is a �iece of ttie S1VI1' but is jiot something �vlfic� tlie Cify is planning far must be tivith'tn the n�xus. Plarmi��g Cotnmiss�on Minutes OS-10-12 Page 6 af 8 Reskoration is a concept in the SMA and there is a mechanism ta look far grants and fi�nding sources to do ti�is�vork, • Policies 12.29, 12.34 and 12,31 are all limiteci by 12.26 (dacks} Any �vhere residential cieveloptnents and a single family home is allo��ed docks ace allo�ved. They can go any�vliere docks are allo�ved on the if khere a�'e more than t�vo single family residential homes then they�re required to Itave a cornmimity dock. Commissioner Bates asked based o��this policy then ho�v many docks 4�ould be alto�ved? • Policy 12.27 would not impact the resident�al dock outside of tl�eir house. Policy 12.27 ��ould coi�trol �where on th� river you could laava a dack to begin �vith. If yat� have a dock izi tltiose��•eas the�f t}�e t•est of tl�e policies;�ould come into pIay. Why do you have to liave adequate public access in �n area tvhich tivas already severely itnpacted? Wotildn'f a dock be a bigger problem. The City is not encour•agisig an access just any place along tiie i•ivei•. This policy is not encoin•aging docks alo�yg�he river, Mi•. Bates made the cor�i�nent that tife gener�l se�fse is that docks are f�ot allo�ved in eveiy setting. Policies 12-29, 12-30 and 12- 31 aee almost moot poii�ts. Staff��esponded the policies �vould apply if the dock �vere in ane of thase spots thaf �llorv docks. Single family i•eside��ces are called out because they ai'e allotived by statute. Cainmissioner Bates askec� if the City cui-rently ltad a policy in �vhich tl�ere �vere places on the river that are not allosved to iiave docks. Staff respondeci the City did and after Commissioner Bates tl�etf ��anted to l�lo�v �vho liad tnade that decisio��, staff��esponded Spokane County had done sa in tlie 1970's. Staff also diseussed tl»t the size of tlfe dock is c#etermined by the floev of tlie�•iver or ttle size of the��ater body. • Policy 8.5 Mr. I�isielius disct�ssed �vith kl�e Commissioners tffak this policy is consistent ��ith the state guideiines. Commissioner Carroll stated this policy is based on homes, e�isting ltom�s. Only allo�v shoreline stabilization �vhen relocation or reconsteuctio» is infeasible, Centennial Propet-�ies ���ould like tjiis policy expanded to allo�� for usas. Mr. Kisielius shared the reglilations do have an �mphasis o�� a single farnily residences, pz'olfibits slioreline stabilizations, The �iiain fflcus of this stakute is on hom�s, which�vatiIc� allo�v struc#ucal sltoreline stabilization, bi�t for homes only Cetrtennial P�•o�arties would like it modified to for i�ses, DOE says �or lio�nes only. Commissjoners �vondered if it should extend fi•o�ti homes to all st�•uctt�res, ex�sting stilzckures, and `vould mitigation need to be acided, Ivlr, Ki�ielius stat�d�o proteet an existit�g use zs a bit more beyonci wltat tlfe statute is covering, Allawing uses woulci be like tiyiiig to protect tlte svhole backyarc�, �vhich is beyond�vhere DOE would like the protection to apply. • Ms Barlow stated that slie could pull the tiotes from tlte meeting notes to refi�esh �v1iy this discussion can�e up in t[ie SAG meeti�igs. She shared t��is comes from DOE in reg�rd to geo liazards and usi�ig shoreli��e stabilizatioii in cet�tain areas. Commissio��e��Neill �vai7ted to kno�v �vhere claes the city's liability come in if tive da�f't allo�v people to �rotect their prope��ty, using a pottitig shed for instance if it needed stabiiization. Cominissioner Bates f�lt the m�mbat•s needecl more info����aation on tlfis topie. • 12.14 - nozl-tivaker industrlal uses, Non-�vater related, o�• non-w�ter dependant usas, t}iese uses cio riot requi�•e locatio�� along the water. This policy i� a bit �noz•e reskrictive tl�an is required, �DOE does alloiv some non-waker z•e�ated uses, ho�vever feels they should t�y and locate someplace else. Co�nmissioner Neill feels this is too prohibitive. He staked he felt the o�vne�• should ba allowed ta use tl�eir o�vn property how they�voulci like. Mr,Nei�l said if the ��•operky o�vn�r�yill protect the river��liy should tiiey nat be allo�ved to Iocate ther•e. Com�nissioner Neill would lik� to ehanga `pi•ohibit' ta `discourage°. Commissio�fer Ba�es staked he thougtit tlie Co�nznission sltou�d follotiv Cammissioner Hall's guidance if more restrictive then back off, and follow the WAC. Cflmtnissioner Bates said tltis �olicy is too Planning Commission Minutes OS-10-12 Page 7 of 8 i � restrictive, and �voutd like to do as Mr. I�isielius has stated, �vhicli is also to follo�v the WAC. • Policy 12.20 Coir�missioners feel this is tnore restricti�e than j�eyui��ed and have asked staff to come back witti socnet}aing a fittIe less restrictive. • Policy 12,22 - no nef loss. Commissioners asked about Centennial's request to j�emo�e tlie stateine�it "giving preference to tl�ose types of s�ioi•eline modific�tions that have tiie least icnpact on ecological functions......" shoreli�ie modifications, the Commissianers svanted to kno�� if the po�icy �vas talking abont u�es, or actually changing the shoreline, re�l ill0{�1�lC�tlpI1S� ti1FOLl�t1 CIeV810�111013t. TJ115 15 1'8f21'I'lll�t0 c'1Ctl1r�L I110C�1�Cc1t10i�S MI'. KlSlellll5 i-epliecl, tnore of� bulkltead, �vhich is gei�ex•ally i•etaining �valls, soft structut•es, plantirrgs, tfle policy is not talking aboEit the uses. Geuerally tha policy is referring to z•ock �vork at the shoreli�ie edge, plaiatings, construction,t��ose kinds af modific�tiat�s. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Ca�n�xlissioi�ea• Stoy infoi�iied the Commission th�t he �voi�ld be unable to attend tlie May 24, 2012 Meetilig. XI. ADJOURNMENT ��, .. Tl�e being no othei•b�rsi�ess the meeting tvas acijourned at 9�56 p.tn. � � '�. 1 . � �� � -���� ". ` '`�� Bill Bates, Cliait�ei•son , �;!�, � � Deanr� Griffith, PC Secre Date signed. �� ��,�C�"" t Planning Commission Minutes 45-10-12 Page S of$