Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 09-27-12 .pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 27, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. �, IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager � John G. Carroll Cary Driskell, City Attorney Rustin Hall Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner Rod Higgins Steven Neill �--- � Fred Beaulac Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the amended September 13, 2012 minutes as provided. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Bates reported he had met with Mr. Kuhta the Monday prior to this meeting, which he does prior to every meeting. Mr. Bates said staff will work to arrange the public hearing for a subject closer to the study session whenever possible. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported the Ciry Council had adopted the changes to the Permitted Use Matrix. He said on Oct. 2, 2012 staff will be discussing the Comprehensive Plan docket Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 1 of 7 for the upcoming year with the City Council. Mr. Kuhta also reminded the Commissioners about the Planning Short Course which is being offered by the Dept. of Commerce and the Planning Association of Washington on October 5, 2012. The Commissioners were reminded to register if they were interested in training. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business B. New Business: Public Hearing on the Draft Shoreline Environmental Designations Report and Map. Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Commissioner Stoy read the rules of a public hearing for those in attendance. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow began with a presentation regarding the updated shoreline designations. Ms. Barlow said the shoreline designation map had also been updated. Ms. Barlow informed the Commission that on September 20, 2012 the City had held an Open House to discuss the Shoreline Designations with the public and had mailed notices to properties within the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the Environmental Designations are classifications of shoreline areas that reflect local shoreline conditions, including ecological functions and shoreline development. These environmental designations provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulations. The Environmental Designations are also a requirement of the SMP. Ms. Barlow then turned to the Environment Designation Map. She explained an alternate designation map with two shoreline residential designations and an aquatic environmental, waterward of the OHWM. She explained at the study session, there had been three designations on the map, Shoreline Residential (SR), Urban Conservancy (UC), and Urban Conservancy — High Quality (UC- HQ). She then talked about the comments which had been received since the study session. Ms. Barlow said the Designation Map and the Draft Environmental Designations report was sent to the technical review group. Ms. Barlow said the Ciry had received three comments, one from the Department of Ecology,from Avista and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. The comments from DOE said they would like to see the Urban Conservancy designation applied to public land utilizing a parallel designation, add an Aquatic Designation and modify the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Trailside Development Area (near Coyote Rock Development). Avista's comments asked to have the maintenance in the Urban Conservancy — High Qualiry area clarified. Avista has a transmission line in a UC- HQ area and are concerned about being able to maintain that line. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe did comment, however there were no technical requests made. Ms. Barlow explained to the Commission the suggested changes staff had made to the Draft Environmental Designations Report and Map since the study session. Staff had added three new designations: Shoreline Residential—Upland(which is property separated from the water by public lands, areas like Greenacres and Shelley Lake), Shoreline Residential — Waterfront (which would be property which has access to the water, areas like Orchard Ave and Coyote Rock) and Aquatic. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 2 of 7 Staff also added clarifying language for the Urban Conservancy — High Quality which clarifies Avista's maintenance issues, also added descriptive language to further define why areas were identi�ed as conservation in the report. DOE requested the City separate out the publicly owned land from the privately owned land and divide the designations, which resulted in the Urban Conservancy and Urban Conservancy—High Quality. The Map has been modified to show the Mirabeau Trailhead as UC,it was formerly marked as UC- HQ. Also, the area west of Barker Rd and south of the railroad right-of-way was looked at again and staff feels this area meets the criteria for UC not UGHQ. Ms. Barlow explained the likelihood of development in this area would be minimal because the area is mostly publicly owned lands. The designation of Aquatic lands has also been added. This would be land waterward of the OHWM. This designation is set to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the area waterward of the OHWM. The last change staff is proposing is DOE has requested to change the OHWM in the area known as Trailside � Development, which is near Coyote Rock Ms. Barlow stated DOE had been in this area on review recently, pertaining to another matter, and had made a determination the OHWM was actually in the location shown on the new map. DOE would like the OHWM in this area changed to reflect their determination. Ms. Barlow reported the draft report and map were sent to our outside legal counsel and Mr. Kisielius has reviewed it and found nothing of note or objection in either. Ms. Barlow also stated staff had received comments from Futurewise but had not had an opportuniry to completely review. However, she did a cursory review and she does not feel there was anything of significant changes being requested. She did offer to send the letter to Mr. Kisielius for legal evaluation. Commissioner Neill had a question regarding the aquatic designation, specifically the statement of only allowing overwater structures only for water dependent uses, single family residential docks, public access or ecological restoration. His asked if this would affect multifamily developments. Ms. Barlow answered yes, if one looked at the goals and policies they have established the City would not allow any over the water structures uses. She commented there would be some allowances for an overhang, or a family dock for a single family structure but otherwise no over water structure would be allowed. Commissioner Carroll referred to a comment in staff's memo which suggested UC — HQ, partly failed to meet the criteria for the Natural designation and he wanted to know what they were. Ms. Barlow replied the UC-HQ is very similar to the Natural designation, but staff felt it did not apply in our circumstance. This is mainly because, due to development along the shoreline, the Ciry cannot not say those areas are mostly intact. Staff felt those areas had been impacted along the shoreline and would continue to be impacted by uses like the Centennial Trail and Kaiser. Commissioner Carroll wanted to know what the difference between UC-HQ and UC. Ms. Barlow answered UC-HQ is intended to protect those areas which are mostly intact except in very rare cases, like public access type uses. UC acknowledges there are some areas which have ecological functions which should be protected while allowing some compatible uses. UC designation actually acknowledges there will be some compatible development within that area. The designation also notes that these are prime spots for restoration. Mr. Carroll wanted to know how close in comparison the UC-HQ was to the Natural designation. Ms. Barlow responded it was very close to the Natural designation. The Ciry Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 3 of 7 maintains it does not have areas of the shoreline were the ecological function has not been impacted. The Ciry does have some high qualiry areas, but some areas are already impacted, with uses like the Centennial Trail, but the Trail could need maintenance or might need to be expanded in some areas. The City has modified the Natural designation to reflect our circumstances. The City maintained a lot of the criteria within the Natural Designation. Modifications of the designations are allowed within the WAC, but must be consistent within the WAC and SMA. Commissioner Bates asked what other limited, low impact public uses would be allowed in this designation. It was the City's intention to restrict it to those very specific uses (the Centennial Trail, public access and maintenance for Avista utility corridors). The Ciry acknowledges with this plan the Trail is a huge asset. Staff wanted to create a designation to protect connections to it and to allow maintenance and did not want to create a barrier to it. This is the plan's most protected designation. Commissioner Bates had another question regarding the report. He said on Page 3, item C, in UC-HQ, it reports "single family residential shall be allowed within this environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited." Mr. Bates wanted to clarify such a use would be allowed in this area where the ecological function would be so highly protected. Ms. Barlow respond a single family residence is a preferred use in the designation, and all designations. Ms. Barlow also invited Mr. John Patrouch to assist in answering questions for the commissioners. Mr. Patrouch, a consultant with the URS Corporation, is assisting in the drafting and writing of the Shoreline Master Program for�he City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Patrouch, stated he would offer a few answers: Single family residential is in state law, these uses preempt just about everything else. URS does not see any development of this kind happening along the shoreline in HQ areas. Mr. Patrouch said he felt Ms. Barlow had explained the designations well about the HQ areas. Mr. Patrouch said one challenge staff faced was to designate on a map areas which look very good, which had high ecological value, but needed to be noted on the map. Mr. Patrouch said he felt these areas do not need a Natural designation but are very close and the City did want them protected. The Commissioners had no other questions so they began taking public testimony. Kitty HIitzke, Spokane Program Director, Futurewise, 35 W Main St.: Ms. Klitzke represents Riverkeepers, Spokane Lands Council and Futurewise. Ms. Klitzke stated her organizations strongly support the update of the SMP and the updated designations. Her groups would like to make a couple of requests as follows: Please change the reference to no net loss from a goal to a requirement. Please see Proposed Shoreline Environmental Designations p. 1 First Paragraph as such: This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect existing uses and � shoreline character so that the statewide �requirement for `No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions is achieved. Please change the UC-HQ designation to Natural. The groups feel this is more purposeful and still applies to the areas designated as such. Although the groups support the UC-HQ designation, they remember Spokane Counry had started with this designation as well but concerns were raised as to what would be allowed in these areas. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 4 of 7 Please modify the designation SR-W purpose so it is more consistent with the purpose � statement from the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) guidelines. Ms. Klitzke stated this purpose statement provides that the "purpose of the `shoreline residential' environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter." The proposed SR—WE purpose does not include the concept of being consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-waterf�'ont" environment is to accommodate residential uses on lots within existin,g residential areas where the lot is � immediatel�diacent to the shoreline'^�„� �';���' ����°° *^ ''^� ,�,^*��consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. Please modify the SR-U purpose so it is more consistent with the purpose statement from the SMP guidelines. Like the SR-W, the SR-U purpose tracks the purpose statement from WAC well but does not include the concept of being "consistent with the Shoreline Management Act." Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-upland" environment is to accommodate residential uses within existin� residential areas that are separated from the shoreline bv other properties consistent with the Shoreline Mana�ement Act. Please include the full range of management policies from WAC 173-26-2ll(5)(c)(ii) of the SMP Guidelines in the Aquatic Shoreline Environment. Ms. Klitzke said her groups support including an Aquatic environment. Such an environment allows the policies applicable to open water areas to be customized for the circumstances of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. However, the proposed aquatic environment designation omits several management policies required by the WAC and her groups are recommending they be added in. (ii) Management policies. (A)Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration. (B)The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use. (C)In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over-water facilities should be encouraged. (D)All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration. (E)Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 5 of 7 (F) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water qualiry and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. (G) Local governments should reserve shoreline space for shoreline preferred uses. Such planning should consider upland and in-water uses, water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing shellfish protection districts and critical habitats, aesthetics, public access and views. Ms. Klitzke also said her groups support the Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map with improvements because it better fits the City of Spokane Valley and the Shoreline Management Act. The Alternative Draft Map also included recommendations for Aquatic environments and for the use of parallel environment designations of Urban Conservancy for the state parlcs property along the river and Shoreline Residential for the upland residential areas. Her groups believe these suggestions also fit the needs of the City of Spokane Valley and the shorelines environment. Ms. Klitzke recommends the Mirabeau Trailhead retain its proposed UC-HQ designation. • The area has important vegetation that needs to be protected to provide for no net loss of shoreline functions. • It is a low intensity water-oriented recreational is allowed in this environment both by the SMP Guidelines and UC-HQ designation. This is the rype of recreation that occurs at the Mirabeau Trailhead. Lastly Ms. Klitzlce said her groups also recommend that the area downstream from Barker, adjacent to the railroad tracks, retain its proposed UC-HQ designation. The area has important vegetation that needs to be protected to provide for no net loss of shoreline functions. The old concrete structures associated with the past railroad do not disqualify the area for UC-HQ, rather it is the existing ecologically intact shorelines that qualify it for the UC-HQ designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Bates closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Neill moved to accept the Shoreline Designations as proposed. Commissioner Bates stated staff had done a great job of amending the draft report and map based on what he had heard through the presentation. He also commented that having the special council make no objection to anything at this point indicated a lot to him. However, after discussion among the Commissioners there was consensus to send the Futurewise letter to Mr. Kisielius for his consideration and possible comment before continuing deliberations. Commissioner Bates asked Ms. Barlow about the comments from Avista regarding the maintenance, and her reply was she felt it had been addressed through other intents. She also stated the City has been conscious of Avista's concerns and have tried to address them whenever they have arisen. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 6 of 7 Commission agreed to accept written testimony until close of business on October 4, 2012. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson � Digitally signed by Deanna Griffith D e a n n a DN:cn=Deanna Griffith,o=City of Spokane Valley,ou=Community Development, Gr i f f i t h c=USI—dgriffith@spokanevalley org, Date:2012.10.24 10:25:58-07'00' Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 7 of 7