Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 04-12-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Cammission APPRO�VED Minutes Council Chambers — City Ha11, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. April 12, 2012 I. CALL T"O ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m, , II. PLEDGE OF ALUEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audienee sfood for the pledge of allegiance � III. ROLL CALL Ct�mmissioners Bates, Cai�roll, Hall, Higgins, 1'�1ei1l, and Stoy ware present, Conu�issioner Sands was absent. Ms, Griffith reminded the Commissioners �hat at the last tneeting a merno was read into the �°ecor•ded whete by Ms. Sands is requi��ed to recuse h�rself from any discussian of the Shoreline Master Pi•og�•am by her employe�•, the Department of Ecolagy. The Commissioners had a question at the end of March 22, 2012 asking if it wauld be necessary to make a motion to excuse Ms. Sands at every meeting if she was recusing herself from the Shareline Master Pt•ogram discussions, Ms Griffitk� stated she had made some inquiries and that Robe�ts Rules of Order do not speak to this subject directly, however, it would be a requirement of tl�e ga�ei�ing docun3ents of the City to dictate this need. Based on this, the Co�nmissioners would need to make a motion to excuse Ms. �ant�s, that the recusal does not automatically excuse her. Commissioner Can•oil znade a motion to excuse IVIs. Sands frorn tl�e April 12, 2Q12 meeting. Commissioner Bates asked for arty discussion, there being none, he asl�ed for a vote. Being unabl� to determine by voice, tl�e Secretary �equested a sho4v of hands, the vate was two in £avor, four against, with Cornmissioners Bates, �iggin�,N�il1 and Stoy di5sen�ing. The motion fails and Ms. Sands is considered unexctis�d. Staff at�etiding the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Plarining Manager; Lari Ba�low, Sr. Planner; Nlartin Palaniuk, Planning Technieian: Arne Waodard, Councilmember: Cari Hinshar�v, Office Assistant: Deaiina Griffith, Adaninisti°ative Assistant IV. APPRQVAL OF AGENDA Gomr�lissioner Higgins made a motion to appa'ove the agenda as presented. This mation was passed unanimously. V. APPRQ'VAL (lF MINUTES Tk�ere were no minutes to approve. V�. PUBLIC C�MMENT There was no public cor�ment. Planning Commission Minutes 04-12-12 Page 1 of 8 VII. COMMIS;SI�N REP+QRTS Comrnissioner Bates reported he attended the Shoreline Master Pragram Open House on April 5, 2012 V�I�, ADMII`�iISTRAT�VE REPORTS Pianning Manger� Scott Ktrhta stat�d there has been an uphirn in �ommercial applications. Mx, I��ihta alsa stated the City's Shoi•eline attorney, Tadas I�isieiius, was scheduled to be here far the Planning Commissiosi's scheduled delib�ration meeting on April 26, 2012. Mr. Kuhta suggested any questions which th� ConYmission felt would be legal or pertain to foilowing �the laws of the state shouId p��obably be held until this m�eting. �X. COMMISSI�N BUSINESS �°� A. Un£inished Business: Thei•e was no unfit�ished business. � B. Nerv Business: �r. Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation regarding the Shozeline Advisory Group's Draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program {SMP} Update. Ms. Barlow explained the pracess for tl�e Shoreline Mastei• �rogram Update, what and who the Shorelin� Advisory Group (SAG) was, and how t��e SAG dr�ft goals and policies were put together. Commissianer Stoy asked how large a stream would need to be considered to be in the SMP, staff respflnded it would depend on the size o�f the stream. He also inquired if it would cover places in the floodplain, which staffresponded the floodplain is gove��ned by a different set of i�ules. Commissioner Bates asked i£the cuY�`ent comments received were included in t�e matrix which has been prepared by the Ci�y's special shoi•eline attorney. 1VIs Bai•low stated the attorney was warking to include the new comments but �ad not had the oppoi�tunity ta 'rnclude the camments which had been received in the last week. Commissioner Bates opened the public heai�ing at 6:31 pm. Cornmissioner Stoy read the rules for the public hearing. Nathan Smith, 422 W Riverside Ave.: Mr. Smith stated he was an attorney representing Cent��al Pi•e-Mix Coip�ratian (CPM). Mr. Smith stated Jana McDonald, en�ironmental manager for CPM had participated in SAG. Mr. Smith said the gtavel pits owned �y CPIVI being included far the first tirne ever in the SMP. Mr. Smith stated the gravel pits are being rtiined unde� a permit which has been issued and regulated by the Dept, of Natural Resaurces (DNR). 2v1�. Smitli also said ��.e liad subrnitted a comment Ietter to the Commission as we�l. Mr. Smith stated the gi•avel pits only need to be inclraded und�r the SMP after the reclamation had been taken care o£ Mr. �m.ith said CPM wottld like the Goals and Polici�s to be modifi�d to allow CPM to cantinue �iisiness unhindered until the opei�ations at the gravel pits have ceased. Commissioner Neill asked if Mr. Smith if he thought there had been a mistake made to include them in t�le �rogr�.m. Mr. Smith � replied he did not �"eel there had been a mistake made, and it is ok ta inventory them, however they should not be included in any r�gulations until after reclamation. Commissioner Cai7o11 asked if CPM still want ta mine them after reclamation. Mr. Smith explained it would not be the same kinci of opez�atians. Conunissioner Higgins asked if the permitting agency is the DNR, CPM is operating undez• that permit with approval fi•om DNR, he wondered why CPM would not walking away after reclamation, Iv�, Smith stated e�en if CPM was riat drawing aggregate out c�f the ground, they would sti11 PIanning Commission Minutes 04-12-12 Page 2 of 8 be using the area for batch plant. Mr. Smith said this is pr•ivate propei-ty and public access should nat be allawed where commercial o�erations are going on, The Commission asked if the opei•ations were water depandant, Mr. Smith stated not the same way as other water dependant operations might be. Conunissioners as�Ced if he anticipated water treatr�ent. Mr, Smith said he would differ to Ms. Jai�a MeDonald. Mr. Smith also stated one of the other attorneys fi•om his office, FJ DulPanty, had subrnitted comments as well regarding the SM� fi•om clients Centennial Properties and Pinecraft Business Pa�•k. Jana MeDouald, Centra[ Pre-Mix, �111 E Broad�vay; Ms. McDonald sta�ed the DNR pei�nits are applied for�vith a long term plan. DNR does a annual ar bi-annual inspection to insure the aperatians are in compliance with the pezrnif, Ms, McDonald stated DNI� will teixninate the pei7nit aftar CPM finishes operations and gaes tht•ough reclamation, Ms. McDonald stated CPM has a bond to insure reclamatioii is taken care of prope��ly, The Commission asked if CPM continu�s to pull aggregate ou� of the gr�vel pits a�•� they getting large�•, yes, Ms. McDonald answered they will continue to grow laa•ger. Kitty K�itzke, Futurervise, 35 W Main Ave, Suite 50: Ms. Klitzke stated she had submitted a cornm�nt letter an behalf of Futl�rewise, Spokane R�v�rkeeper and Lands Council. She stated she w�uld be speaking to the letter. Ms. Klitz�Ce stated she was a particip�nt in the SAG. shoreline enhancement, quality af li#'e. parking was addressed, public access, maintaining public ROW, access does not need to be on every sxte. feel pubiic shared dacks is the right way to ga, recammendations for improvement.... Ms. Klitzke shared she was cancerned that the gravel pits labeled as water dependant, the groups want CPM ta �e able to conduct business as they need to. Ms. Klitzke stated the groups would like to ensure that some things need to be done more thoughtfiilly. She shared that poitcies 12.43 and 12.44, wluch address in-stream stitiictu�•es, she felt it should b� modified to prohibit in-streani sta-uctures, consistent with state WAC. Bill Ambrahams,l.718 S Mamei: Mr. Ambrahams stated he had been a member of SAG, representing Trout Lirnited chapter af Spokane. Mr. Ambzahar�is stated the SM� was his entry into a goveY-nment process, he said he did not have a lot o�expe�'ienc� in a process like this however he stated he tried to use his perspective as a trout £'ishern7an. He also stated he was employed by a util'aty cor�pany. �- He shared he felt the jouzney was complex, the city staff gav� gooc� guidance, and there was goad pai�ticipation. Staff prepared draft and evetyone a�•otind th� table was able to discuss and debate, Mr Ambrahams stated that there was cornpromise on all sides fo� tY�e betterment of the City. He shared he attended eight rneetings in total. He also shared he spent tirne outside of ineetings studying �n order ta grasp the co�cepts. The con:�mxttee disct�ssed t�e topics in depth, and the result is before y�u. I learned about gravel minin.g and what it takes do their job, people who live along the river and don't want to hear baats and ATVs, and I hap� people learned about trout. I believe we had consensus. We all walked away supporting the result, We had a consensus and we compromised to get the result. The dec�sians we make do not have to be either or and they do not have to mutually exclusive. We do not have to chose between protecting tkxe river and building a develapment, we can do both. Mr. Ambraharns stated an example would be replacing the Sullivan bridge, the City should be able to replace the bridge and erihance the river at the same time, He said that it might cost more maney but w� should be able ta do it Plaiuur�g Commission Minutes 04-12-12 Page 3 af 8 to enhance the fishing which in turn should make it mflrre valuable, and bring in rr�ore tourists. This would result in money coming into the community. It is passible someone might want to lacat� here beca�ise of f sh. Mr. Ambraharns stated eco�.omic growth can come frorn being good stewards of the river, Robin Bekkedahl, PO Box 3727, Avista Utilities: Ms. Bekkedahl stated she was a rnember of SAG. Ms Bekkedahl comrnented Avista has transmissian and gas lines crassing on the bridges. She stated it is advantageous ta keep them thera so we can use our existing cat7•idors instead of having to establis�i new anes. Ms Bekkedahl stated maintenance and rights-of-way are very important to take care of She submitted a letter stating, that although everything in the SAG Goals and Policies did rneet th,eir needs Avista would like to request 3 minor revisions to SMI.'policies: SMP 3.2 Place Underground, Require new utilities and facilities that must located within the shoreline to be built underground, if f�asible, and utilize������- �� ,;�„ ,,, ��,,��re�cls-t��d-�-r�i=.�� , t�ie best constFUCtion and elesigi� me#hods to the extent�ossible. Ms Bekkedahl stated Avista ne�ded this change to allow foi• flexibilify to technological � changes. SMP 3.4 Maintenance �nd Op�ratia�i Design, whan existing utilities' f�cilities and ri�hts-of-wav are located within shoreline jurisdicfion ai�d require maintenanee or other improvements, the maintenance/improvement should be designed and implemented ta minimize additional ampac�s on the shoreline environnr�ent_ , ' � , tl�,ec-�-���}e-t�t�= Ivls Bekkedahl said Avista needs to keep the facilities and the rights-of-way in good, reliable, working conditions, inc�uding taking care of vagetation of the abave and underground lines. SMP 3,5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities, Give preference to established � uti��ty co�•ridors and rights-of-way for upgrades, mai�it�nan�e and i•ecanskruction of existing u�ilities and facilities, unless a lacation with less potentia� to impac� the shoreline environment is available. Corrtrr�rssione�� Ca�v�oll r�sked tivhy Avista tivoarld not tivc�nt to cof°i°ect pas�t problerr�s rf they co�rld? Ms Iiekkec�ahl statecl she }���rs not sar��e hoti��far�Avista coarld go bcrck ta frx certain p�•obler�rs. She shcrr�ed they hctve cleui�ed r•ights-of-lvAy. Cafrzrnissionef• Caa�a�oll scrid the policy says if possible, �i�hy i��ot�lc�yoir nQt }E�ant to do that? Ms Bekkedahl said it could be a pt•oblefn to go back a�acl p�rt rn large trees and large vegetrction. Carl�rriissionej� Bates scric� if fc�cilities need r•eper�r, best pf�c�ctices are goin� to be uery irrrpartant and to corj�ect�crst ir�apacts are going to be ifnportant. He shared he tho2rght it 3��oulc� be possible ta r�etivot•d the policy. M��. Bnte.� stated he thoirght that best practices�hoarlcl ahvays be irsed, hotiv titi�oarld those perst irnpercts be co��r�ecterl? tivhat tivas rrteant the��e, He stated he felt this falls on both pr•ivc��e ente�pr�ise crs �vell crs�irblic conarnirnrry. Conarnissioner Bates asked stc�ff if thef�e tivas cr camr��ent fr•am oar�• Shoreline attorney, Vc�nNess Feldrnan Gor�donDer•r�, there rnight be sorne irrtent to go beyond the lativ? He also c�sked staff c�s to the intent SAG, if there tivas a possibility this lvas tis�t•itten ns a gaiidance�olicy Planning Commissian Minutes 04-12-12 Page 4 of 8 Kevin Anderson, 1ll22 e 35t": Mr Anderson stated he would like to request the Plaiuiing Comn�ission exte�d the �n•itten comment period. He said he had been reviewing the Goal and Policies and two items stood out for him, things which would affects the private pz�operty side. Mr. Anderson stated he did not see a definition of"na ne� loss" Sr. Plannea� Bar•lotiv stated no net loss lvcrs not r�efined rn the Goals a�d Policies, staff hcrd c�efef�red to state lativ. She crlso shar�ecl it is standard to r�efer� back to state laiv and f•efer• bcrck to the invento�y co�rc�trcted in 2009, tivhich tivill ser�ve crs the baseline fn�•rrze�rsart•ing no taet loss fi°orri, Mr Ancle��son asked if the defi�rition r�efer�f�ed to in WAC 220.I10.020 �s�oarlcl be the one the Ciry �i�oirld be trsing. M�• Kzrhta, Plan�rrng Managef•stcrted yes, this worrld he the defrnition the SMP���oirld be trsing. Mr Anderson stated lie felt p�ivate propet�ty is veiy lightly discussed in the doc�iment. He said he did see fi��r�n statements regarding protecting property rights, protection of fair market value, however he did not feel there is as much in. the document about privat� pi•opei-ty i°ights as there should be. He again requested the written comment period be extended so he may tt�rn �n moi�e in-depth comments. Coirunissioner Cai�•oll asked Mr. Andei•son if he had read S�areline Policy 1.4 and what he thought of it. M�� ,Anderson stated he had read it and agreec� witti it, btxt it is not addressed thoroughly enaugh and it needs to be rnade mQre o� an emphasis in the document. Susan �cat#, 205 S Evergreen Rd: Ms Sco�t stated she r�as an owner of Lark docks, and she was concerned about th� propei�ty rights of water fiont property owners. M� Scott shared the many requi�•ements for haWing a doek, and that a JARPA pei�tnit requires many sign offs. Ms Scott asked the Comrnission not to make goals and policies more restrictive than the state requ�i�•es. Ms. Scott a�so stated she was dist�nrbed that na dock buildei•s w�re an the SAG, and no home owners who have docks and boats on the river were on the committee. She did share she had �pakE�to Ms Barlow earlier today and she had s��.ared the home awners along the rivez, wha have docks, were invited to participate in the SAG, k�owever no one responded. Cammissionex• Stay made a motion to extend wrcittsn con�nent until close of business on Tuesday April 17, 2012. This motion was approved unanimousiy. Commissioner Ca��•oll asked ta speak tn Mr. Nathan Smith. Cornrr��ssioner Car�•oll asked the problem, if tlie gravel pits were included in the SMP. Mr Smith responded they will be �•equired to come in and get several pe��niits, Commissioner Carroll asked if khe pits would not be grandfathered? Mr Smith stated he felt grandfa#herin.g is subjective, is it grandfathe�'ed as it now, however when it moves around the site, he was uncertain. Ms Barlow stated she would like to share some background on gravel pit issue. She stated the pits are a shoreline by definition. However, th�y are mav�ng targets beeause they are changing eveiy day. In the beginning of th.e inventory the Dept. of Ecology (DOE) stated they had to be included in the City's inventozy, So the decision was made to include the�n in the inventory, hawever there would be no �•egulations until they are not in use any longei•. Ms. Bariow said after a iater discus�ion with DOE it as decided not including the gravel pits based on the longevity of the operations, and staff will Planning Commissian Minutes 04-12-12 Page 5 of$ have more information to have a discussion with the shoreline attot�ney at the next rme�ting. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Chairman Bates closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Commissionei•s toaic a brreak at 7:30 p.m. and retui�ed at 7:44 p.m. Commissionei• Cai�oll made a motion to recommend approval of the SAG draft goals and palicies to the City Council. Tiiere was discussion among the COI11ri11SSI0I1�1'S &5 t0 how to tnove forward at this time. They talked about having not read th� written comments they �iave already received, waiting fo�• additional written comments, beginning discussion now and being able to have some topics to discuss with the shoreline attorney when he attends at the �ext meeting. Commissioners stated the maEti�ix and infoi�'nation inemo from the shoreline attorney is very helpful. The c�iscu�sion between Comm�ssion�rs �nd staff that followed regarded the following topics: • Gravel pzts: Cammissioners �vondered if they w�re a unique situation. Was it possible tQ have examples from somewh�re else? Staff stated it r�ight be possible to inquire fi•om Watcam County, bt�t not is the intention to regulate tY�e gravel pits. The City is actuaily blazing new trails alang this path with the gravel pits. • SMF Policy 1,1: This palicy mentions gro�zps flf people but does not mention pt°operty o�vners, especially waterfi•ont property owners. It �vas stated that is seems to suggests adversaiy rol�. SMP �ol'zcy 1.4 daes not. Staff stated that the polieies have different purposes. SMP 1.1 suggests the City should confer with the other groups to take into consic�eration their plans. SMP 1.� was considered by thc SAG and they want�d it to have the property rights stated in �t specifically. • SMP Policy 3.4: Avista rnentioned tY�e difficulty in fixing past zmpac�s and removing that pai�t of the policy. Does this apply to public utilities? Commissioners would like to have more of a discussion about fhis topzc. � Suggested fi•om Centennial Prope�•ties �o add SMP Poliey 1.8, would it be possible for the shoreline attorney to expand on his explanation? Staff stated they �'elt the SMP attorney will most likely be expa��ding on this suggested addition. It was noted type of policy is not found in any other SMP, and could cost the City money. • Flexibility Commissioners wanted ta know af the City w�tzld be chailenged on this word, The matrix conunents state allowing some flexibility wauld not be a good idea in some cases in reference to the law. In some places the flexibility seems ta be outside of the sco�e of what the state law allflws. The SMP Planning Commission Minutes 04-12-12 Page 6 of$ attoi-ney will be looking specifically at all cornrnents and if are they cansistent or outside of the law. � SMP Policy 7.3: eommissioners would like to understand this palicy bette�•, i� seems to k�e suggesting through the d�veioprt�ent regulations that the City come up with a reward system for a restaration ar enhancement. What exactly watzld that entail? Staff responded it couid allow for a greater range of uses or laz•ger setback„ for instance. Commer�t was made that Cornn�issioner Carroll liked the way staff stated it instead of the way it is ctx�7ently vn•itten. H would like to have more clarifcation, � 5MP Policy 3.6: Artifacts: If we have a project in the shoreline we are requi�-ed to in for the Tribe. They will then Iook tlu•ough their inwentory of known sites and inform us if they need to go out and inspect th� site. Cortunissionei°s wanted to know if they were not already designated in the inventary, staff responded the tribes don't tivant to advei�kise the sites. • SMP �'olicy 5.12: there was discussion about new private and public new projeets being designed to be att�-active to the shoreline environment. Also a qu�stion regarding whether a single fam�ly zesidence is supposed to be designed to allow public access. Staff responded this policy is for commercial projects and there are exemptions. There are exemptions for public access. An example was given o�going down the river and seeing big blank wa�ls along the river, having buildings de�igned to enhance the shoreline, like a restau�'ant. If a business is going to locate along the river th�n it should not turn their back to the river, it shauld enhance tl�e views. �'h.e (��ford Suites hatel was used as an exa�nple of big blank walls facing the river, Commissioner•s asked if it would it be safe to �ssume a regulation would follow up an this policy. • SMP Policy 5.13: Cornmissioners commented nn the fact that this policy states development i•egulations should have incentives for 'attractive' buildings. Wauld like to have more discu�sion about wh�t this wouid mean. • SMP Policy �.S:Protect fi•om risk associated w�th c��itieal areas, Commissioners refen�ed to the comrnents made about this policy from Gentennial Properties, which would like to �iave it changed from homes to uses allowed structural shoreline stabilization, allow limited structural shoreline stabilizatian to provide shoreline access and where it will result in no net loss add with appropriate mitigatian. Cominissioners refeil•ed to the SMP attorney's conunents and that the additions a1•e outside of tk�e statute. • Utility crossings: The Sullivan B��idge Praject— Commissioners wond��ed ifthe bridge repl:acement proj ect would accammodate other needs, like the utiliry companies issue to minimize the crassings as much as possible. Wa�ld the bridge designed to take care as many crossings as pc�ssible. Commissioners asked if they h�d questions before the next meeting or that they thought the SMP attorney should answer, to whom should they send them to? Staff di��ected the membe�'s ta se�d them to Sr. Planner Lari Barlow �ibarlow r�i spokanevalley,or� ) Planning Commissian Minutes 04-Z2-12 Page 7 af 8 7�. GOQD OF THE ORUER Cor�issioner Car7•oll stated he wanted to discuss the vote or� Ms Sands tonight. He stated he felt it was a slap at her, that the Commission failed ta recognize h�r �ong standing seivice and the reason she could nat attend the meeting. He also stated he �elt that the vote was a role without any kind of discussion to have four votes against her speaks that ther� might have been some sort of improper collabaration outside of this meeting. He stated he felt this was wrong and he want�d to go on the recard w�#h these comments. Chairman Bates ��esponded that it was ciuly nated. XI. ADJUURNMENT The being no other business t�Ye meeting was adjournec� at 8:35 p.m, �., � � �_ �-� ,�-� _' ;-L� Bill Bates, Chaiiperson � D�anr�a Griffith, PC ecretary Date signed ��3°'/�` �,��, ���:��� � :�' , ��.. ` �4 � � Planning Commissiom Minutes 04-12-12 Page$of$