Agenda 09/13/2012 S�'TYol�ane
p
Valle �
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
Sept 13, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23, 2012
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Study Session: CTA-03-12, Proposed amendments
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR 70HN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER
JOHN G.CARROLL
RusTiN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: September 13, 2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business � new business
❑ public hearing ❑ information � admin. report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-03-12
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session — Amendment to Chapter 19, Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane
Valley Municipal Code sections 19.40.060, 19.40.070, 19.40.080, 19.60.070 and 19.60.080 to include
standards for multifamily development when it is adj acent to single family development.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 1930.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The City has processed a number of contentious,privately initiated, site-specific map
amendments through the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) process. As a result, staff has
researched changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to mitigate the impacts of multifamily
development when it is adj acent to single family development.
NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was placed in the Spokane Valley News
Herald on September 21, 2012. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with
applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80.150D.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC 17.80150(F) provides approval criteria for text amendments to the
SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment.
OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented, recommend approval with
modifications,recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council.
STAFF CONTACT:
Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff report
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
`�T}°F PLANNING DIVISION
pokane
� V�I.Il�.'y� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT DATE: August 30, 2012
HEAx�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: October ll, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
FILE NUMBER: CTA-03-12 Figure 1
PxoPOSAL DESCx�P'r�o1v: The City has processed a number of ��
contentious, privately initiated, site-specific map amendments i __ _ , �
through the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) i _ ,,- _
process. As a result, staffhas researched changes to the Spokane i
Valley Municipal Code to mitigate the impacts of multifamily !
development when it is adjacent to single-family development. - � � ! � �
The proposal is to establish a relational height limit to single �
i -
residential use or zone. Where new multifamily development is i
abutting an adjacent parcel with a single family use or zone the i
minimum setback will be 10 feet from the property line and a 1 i
to 1 height-to-setback ratio will be established(see Figure 1). �� !
A city initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane , ,
Valley Municipal Code sections 19.40.060, 19.40.070, � � � �
19.40.080, 19.60.070 and 19.60.080 to include standards for
multifamily development when it is adj acent to single family development.
APPL�cANT(s): City of Spokane Valley
APPxovAL Cx�TER�A: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions.
STAFF PLANNER Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
REVIEwED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPL�cAT�o1v PROCESS�1vG: SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The following
summarizes application procedures for the proposal.
Process Date
Published Notice of Public Hearing: September 21, 2012
Posted Notice at City Hall and Main Library Branch: September 21, 2012
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria
a. The proposed privately initiated text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-03-12
Finding(s):
i. Goal LUG-1: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential
neighborhoods.
ii. Policy LUP-1.L Maintain and protect the character of e�sting and future residential
neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use
regulations and j oint planning.
iii. Policy LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential
uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the
City's land use regulations and j oint planning.
iv. Policy LUP-13: Review and revise as necessary, e�sting land use regulations to
provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments,
accessory dwelling units and in-fill development.
v. Policy LUP-2.4: Residential development should be designed to provide privacy and
common open space. Open space areas shall be proportionate to the size of the
residential development.
vi. Policy HP-1.3: Establish development regulations and incentives for greater
diversity of housing types, costs and designs, that may include bonus incentives,
clustering, and transfer of development rights.
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment
Finding(s):
i. The proposed text amendment will assist in mitigating the impacts to single family
residential development when it is adj acent to new multifamily development.
ii. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by
ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and
policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
2. Conclusion(s):
a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and
the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150F.
b. The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and
development regulations shall be subj ect to continuing review and evaluation by the City.
C. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
L Finding(s):
a. No public comments have been received to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
a. Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-03-12 in accordance with adopted public
noticing procedures.
D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Finding(s):
a. No agency comments have been received to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
a. No concerns are noted.
E. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed text amendment is consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act)
and City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-03-12
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the proposed code text amendment to mitigate the impacts to
single family residential development when it is adjacent to new multifamily development.
G. RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-03-12 to mitigate the impacts to
single family residential development when it is adjacent to new multifamily development, to the
City Council.
H. ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Text Amendment
Page 3 of 3
19.40.060 R-4—Single-Family Residential Urban district.
A. Low density residential development intended to preserve the character of existing development
subject to the dimensional standards of this chapter. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
B. Supplemental Permitted Use Re�ulations
1_Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Familv Residential uses or zonin�
a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1)
i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-familv
use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more
than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the
applicable property line (creatin� a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin� sin�le-
family use or zone.
b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line.
19.40.070 MF-1—Medium Density Multifamily Residential district.
A. The Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MF-1) designation represents an opportunity to provide
a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth.The increase in population,
decline in average family size, and increased cost of single-family homes have created increased
demand for new housing types. Multifamily residential zones with densities not to exceed 12 units
per acre should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses such as commercial
and office to lower density single-family neighborhoods. Additionally, medium density residential
areas should be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routes. (Ord. 07-
015 §4, 2007).
B. Supplemental Permitted Use Re�ulations
1. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin�
a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1)
i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-familv
use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development mav not increase bv more
than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the
applicable property line (creatin� a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin� sin�le-
familv use or zone.
b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line.
19.40.080 MF-2—High Density Multifamily Residential district.
A. The High Density Multifamily Residential (MF-2) designation represents an opportunity to provide a
range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth with densities not to exceed
22 units per acre. Multifamily residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher
intensity land uses, such as commercial and office, to medium and lower density single-family
neighborhoods. High density residential areas should be located near services and high capacity
transit facilities or transit routes. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
B. Supplemental Permitted Use Re�ulations
1_Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Familv Residential uses or zonin�
a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1)
i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-familv
use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more
than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the
applicable property line (creatin� a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin� sin�le-
family use or zone.
b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line.
19.60.070 MUC, Mixed Use Center district.
A. The Mixed Use Center designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or
horizontally mixed and includes employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential
uses.
B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations.
1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) shall apply to the MUC
district.
2. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet, except as otherwise provided.
3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling
unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for
improvements on the same basis; provided, that:
a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and
b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet
of a public park.
IA fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open
spaces to meet the needs of the residents of this district. This assessment will be determined by
the council and reviewed on an annual basis.
I4. Indoor kennels, doggie day care facilities and kennels associated with veterinarian clinics;
provided, that:
a. There are no outside runs or areas;
b. The structure(s) housing animals is adequately soundproof to meet the requirements of
Chapter 173-060 WAC;
c. One parking stall provided for every 10 animal confinement areas; and
d. Compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173-
60-040 has been demonstrated by the applicant. (Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 § 4,
2007).
5. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin�
a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1)
i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-familv
use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more
than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the
applicable propertv line (creatin� a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin�
sin�le-family use or zone.
b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-familv use or zone shall be 10 feet from propertv line.
19.60.080 CMU, Corridor Mixed Use district.
A. The Mixed Use Center designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or
horizontally mixed and includes employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential
uses.
B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations.
1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) shall apply to the MUC
district.
2. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet, except as otherwise provided.
3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling
unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for
improvements on the same basis; provided, that:
a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and
b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet
of a public park.
IA fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open
spaces to meet the needs of the residents of this district. This assessment will be determined by
the council and reviewed on an annual basis.
I4. Indoor kennels, doggie day care facilities and kennels associated with veterinarian clinics;
provided, that:
a. There are no outside runs or areas;
b. The structure(s) housing animals is adequately soundproof to meet the requirements of
Chapter 173-060 WAC;
c. One parking stall provided for every 10 animal confinement areas; and
d. Compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173-
60-040 has been demonstrated by the applicant. (Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 § 4,
2007).
5. Recycling facility; provided, that:
a. All recyclable materials and equipment must be contained indoors;
b. All activities must meet the noise requirements of SVMC 7.05.040(L);
c. When adjacent to an existing residential use or residential zone, screening in SVMC
22.70.030(B) shall be required;
Id. The site must have frontage on an existing arterial or state highway and access will be
limited to such frontage; and
Ie. No dangerous or hazardous materials as defined in Appendix A shall be recycled or
processed on site. (Ord. 11-021 § 1, 2011; Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
6. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin�
a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1)
i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-familv
use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more
than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the
applicable propertv line (creatin� a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin�
sin�le-family use or zone.
b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line.
Figure 1
I1 .-.�1�.-r LI�,C —
� �:���F?�'`5 r � I
I -�. I�' ' T
I ,
I
;
. . .. � I
I
.
I
I
I
�
I
I
� i
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Multifamil Develo ment
Y p
Standards
September 13, 2012
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
19 .40 . 020 Residential Standards
Front & Flanking 15' 15'
Rear Yard 10' 10'
Side Yard 5' S'
Garage Setback 20' 20'
Height 40' S0'
Open Space 10% gross area
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
22 . 70-2 Buffers re uired b T e
q Y Yp
, , , . . . ; . ,
MF- 1 & MF-2 Type 1
CMU & MUC Type 1
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
2 2 . 7 0 . 0 3 0 S cre enin & Bufferin
g g
• Type 1 — Full Screening & Buffering
— Min 6 ' high site-obscuring fence
— Min 5 ' buffer strip with a mix of conifers and
deciduous trees
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Pro osed Code Text Amendment
p
• A relational height limit to SF residential use or
zone
— 1 : 1 height to setback ratio to abutting SF use or zone
• 10' Minimum setback from SF residential use or
zone
�����. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Relational Hei ht Limit
g
I��'I;()�'I I�IY I INI / I f.�
I'I �N /�l;I {1 �
I �n���na��r � .��'
I f�?ir.��lt �ir7ljf. � ' ;:,1 y
� d�,
I -.1.��:._ .
�etk��7cb; I leit_)I�t 15` � �"^��' _ -
�
t;'�
� �_ - -
�
� l.
�
����
Sir,gl�° fa���il�.� �� 20� 30'
�l�° ,�i- ZOriF � '=) r°in��.
s��iho�,.-; setback setback
�����_ " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
S etb ack F ormul a
Example 1 : Setback = Height — 15 feet
Setback = 50 feet — 15 feet
Setback = 35 feet
Example 2: Setback = Height — 15 feet
Setback = 35 feet — 15 feet
Setback = 20 feet
������.. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
uestions
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
August 23, 2012
Shoreline Master Program — Study Session
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
Bill Bates — Chair John Hohman, CD Director
John G. Carroll Scott Kuhta, Planning Mgr, AICP
Rustin Hall — Absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Rod Higgins Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner
Steven Neill Mary Swank, Secretary
Joy Stoy — Vice Chair
Fred Beaulac
Commissioner Stoy moved to excuse Commissioner Hall from the August 23, 2012 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Bates moved to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 1 of 7
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Bates moved to approve the July 12, 2012; July 26, 2012; and August 9, 2012 minutes as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Community Development Director Hohman explained that Council approved the Goals and
Policies by resolution. He said it t was a reflection of all the hard work the commission did; that
Council made some minor changes and added a policy that included the Centennial Trail into
the economic development element. Mr. Hohman said that we are ready to move forward with
the remaining Shoreline Elements. Staff will bring information explaining how many more
elements are left to consider and the Council approval process. Chair Bates thanked Senior
Planner Barlow for her presentation to Council.
ADVANCE AGENDA
Chair Bates indicated that although there is no public hearing tonight, a hearing is scheduled for
September 27th, 2012.
Commissioner Carroll asked Director Hohman about getting an update on the status of the
Community Development, Planning Division permit processing, including number of permits
processed and the average processing time. Mr. Hohman explained that he and City Attorney
Driskell are working through a snag with the new permitting software, and that a program has
been instituted to rectify the situation, which will take about two or three months to get resolved.
He has no way to provide that data until the problem is corrected. Mr. Hohman further explained
that the software is being serviced by ciry IT staff, as opposed to being serviced by the vendor
and rypically a very large IT staff to maintain the setup. Mr. Hohman said this is a very
complicated system and it takes a lot more than our three IT staff inembers. Ideally we would
have at least one dedicated full time IT person just for that program. Director Hohman also
noted the vendor has an excellent support system but it is very hard for them to diagnose issues
that may be occurring in house.
The topic of the City Council's Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee was discussed and
Mr. Hohman reported that Ben Small from the Central Valley School District gave a presentation
on the new Spokane Valley Tech Building. Mr. Hohman said the committee is still in the
informational gathering stage with three more information meetings scheduled. The next two
will focus on land development activities including the city zoning and development code. He
said the committee also wants to hear from developers about what they need to be successful.
Both commercial and residential developers will present to the committee. Mr. Hohman said
afterwards, they will coordinate with our Public Works Department and Senior Engineer Steve
Worley who handles a lot of the grant applications, and see what kind of economic development
plans are associated with grant opportunities, since we know that if you have an economic
Page 2 of 7
development plan, grant applications score higher. Mr. Hohman explained that the committee
will ultimately develop a list of topics that they recommend be pursued by City CounciL Mr.
Hohman indicated once the final report is complete, they will also bring that to the Planning
Commission.
Chair Bates stated that once the Permitted Use Matrix is finalized, he would like copies furnished
to the Planning Commission, and would also like the Planning Commission to have copies of the
new rules and regulations once approved by Council.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Bates stated that tonight's Study Session includes the Shoreline Master Program update
and the Shoreline Environment Designations.
Senior Planner Barlow introduced John Patrouch from URS, our consultant hired to assist with
this process and noted that he will be assisting in the discussion. Ms. Barlow explained that URS
was the lead in the development of the Environment Designations. Ms. Barlow said September
20th is the tentative date for the open house on the designations, but that the date could change
depending on schedules;
Ms. Barlow started her presentation by defining Environment Designations as the classification
of shoreline areas that reflect local shoreline conditions, including ecological functions and
shoreline development. She said we are trying to develop a way to establish regulations for the
different areas of the shoreline. We want to make sure that our regulations address the uses we
want to allow in those areas, as well as protect the functions that are happening in those areas.
She explained that the system is based on the existing land use pattern and zoning, the biological
and physical character of the shoreline, as noted in the Inventory and Characterization Report,
and the goals of the community. We are also required to develop an environment designation
map. The WAC's require that the shoreline designations are consistent with other zoning and
comprehensive plan goals and policies affecting a single piece of property, and we need to
ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan do not prevent water oriented uses along the
shoreline or allow adjacent uses that may compete or conflict with preferred shoreline uses. She
said the WAC has specific guidelines for creating the Environment Designation system and
identifies specific required components. Each designation must have a purpose statement,
designation criteria, management policies and regulations.
the purpose statement describes the objective of the designation;. the criteria describes the basis
for assigning the designations; the policies guide the development of the regulations; and the
regulations are specific rules that dictate what the development can be and where it can be
placed. She explained that the regulations can be broken into two segments: Rules that apply to
the shoreline area in general, and rules that are specific to the environment designations.
Page 3 of 7
Ms. Barlow explained that the guidelines provide a list of state recommended designations that
include High Intensiry, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy, Rural Conservancy, Natural
and an Aquatic designation. Jurisdictions can come up with alternative environments if they find
that the recommended environments don't fit the local circumstances. If unique environments are
created they must be consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
Ms. Barlow explained the state recommended designations and noted if they were applicable in
Spokane Valley. The High Intensity environment purpose is to accommodate water-oriented
commercial transportation and industrial uses, i.e. ports; the Shoreline Residential environment
accommodates residential development and provides for public access and recreational uses; the
Rural Conservancy environment is intended to be applied to land outside of UGA's ; the Aquatic
environment's purpose is to protect,restore and manage the water area, below the ordinary high
water mark and is generally applied to unique water recreational features, or aqua farming; And
the Natural environment protects areas that are relatively free of human influence and includes
intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions.
Ms. Barlow said the three Designations that are proposed on the shorelines of the Spokane River
and Shelley Lake include Shoreline Residential (SR), Urban Conservancy—High Quality (UC-
HQ); and Urban Conservancy (UC).
The UC-HQ designation was developed by staff to reflect unique conditions along the Spokane
River. This designation resembles the natural designation, but the purpose was modified to
acknowledge the human impacts to the area from development, which is primarily due to the
presence of the Centennial Trail. The purpose of UC-HQ is to protect the existing ecological
functions where they occur in high quality environments, while allowing very limited compatible
uses.
Ms. Barlow also explained that parallel environments were proposed in areas adjacent to UC-
HQ. The parallel designation acknowledges the presence of physical features and differences in
environmental conditions, and it allows development opportunities in the upland area of
shoreline jurisdiction while protecting the riparian area near the water.
Ms. Barlow showed the commissioners the Environment Designation Map and reviewed the
areas proposed to be designated as SR. He SR area includes all areas currently zoned and
developed with residential development and Shelley Lake. Ms. Barlow noted that the SR
Management Policies generally direct standards to be developed that deal with performance and
bulk issues and ultimately result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Ms. Barlow reviewed the areas proposed to be designated as UC—HQ. The areas are
predominantly publicly owned, or areas that include steep slopes. The Mirabeau Trail Head and
public access were discussed. The parking lot is outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, and many
foot trails lead to the shoreline. Mr. Patrouch added that the Mirabeau Trailhead is a listed by the
state as important habitat area.
Page 4 of 7
Ms. Barlow explained that the Centennial Trail was specifically called out in the purpose
statement of the UC—HQ in order to consider the impacts of the Centennial Trail and make
provisions for it in our development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that the UC—HQ
designation is intended to only allow uses that have minimal impacts, such as low intensity
public access type uses —no commercial or industrial uses in that area. As proposed development
within the UC—HQ area will be severely restricted.
Ms. Barlow also noted that in cases where the property is privately owned, parallel designations
are applied, so that UC-HQ is proposed at the shoreline edge, and UC is proposed at the top of
the slope which does allow for some development.
Director Hohman stated that when a property owner comes in with a development plan, or a site
plan, staff would work with them to identify the approximate boundary of the UC-HQ
designation is on the properry. It would be the same on any steep slopes. When the developer
prepares the toprography map, those items will be located and surveyed, and then used in
planning the structure. The owners we have talked to are not interested in doing anything with
the sloped areas. There is very limited opportunity in those areas.
Chair Bates stated that the property owners need to be notified that major changes may affect
their property. Ms. Barlow said we have tried to maintain contact with the major property owners
throughout the update process, but I have not had specific conversations about the environment
designations. Director Hohman stated that we would complete a direct mailing to property
owners within the shoreline jurisdiction inviting them to the open house and public meeting.
Ms. Barlow noted that the last designation to be utilized along the shoreline is UC. She
explained that the SR designation is applied to all the residential areas, the UC-HQ designation is
applied to all areas that are essentially ecologically intact, and the UC designation is applied to
the remainder of the shoreline within our corporate limits. The UC designation criteria requires
that the land be designated as open space, has the potential for ecological restoration, retains
important ecological functions even though it is partially developed, has the potential for
development and is compatible with ecological restoration. These lands meet the criteria.
Ms. Barlow explained that the management policies for the UC—HQ generally note that any use
that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline
area should not be allowed, while the management policies for UC allow uses that preserve the
natural character of the area, or promote preservation of open space, so long as new development
does not result in a net loss of ecological functions. This designation is the most flexible of the
three designations.
Commissioner Carroll questioned why the wetlands adjacent to Shelley Lake are not designated
as UC-HQ. Mr. Patrouch responded that the high quality area is generally located in the western
portion of the city, and it's primarily applied to the very steep highly wooded banks which have a
lot of good wilderness value. Most of the high quality area is more or less below the Centennial
Page 5 of 7
Trail with a few exceptions like Mirabeau Point, the area around Sullivan, and the area out near
Flora Road where the trail crosses through. Many of these areas meet the natural criteria except
for the Centennial Trial and other human impacts. The State also looks at the natural criteria,
which prohibits most uses except those with very little impact. That is another reason to go with
the UC-HQ. It does allow the city more flexibility to allow limited development in there. A trail
surrounds Shelley Lake resulting in considerable human impact to the area. It doesn't fit the
criteria of "intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions." The other aspect with the high
qualiry area is that the majority of the areas are public lands. The community, as expressed
through the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation, indicates open space public land should
be preserved. Shelley Lake is privately owned and the land use designation is residential. The
other consideration is that Shelley Lake is a shoreline of the state, not a shoreline of state-wide
significance like the Spokane River. All this is factored into determining the designation.
Commissioner Carroll was concerned that the Centennial Trail and the topography had more to
do with the selection of UC-HQ than the impacts of the trail around the wetland. John Patrouch
added the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Autobon Society, and user groups have identified
these areas as having high wildlife characteristics. In the slope areas it provides a good habitat
for birding. These groups don't get out to Shelley Lake because it is private so they didn't note
those characteristics - that is what the inventory shows.
Chair Bates requested that the UC-HQ designation be explained again. Ms. Barlow explained
that it is an alternative designation that staff created because the Natural designation didn't fit
our circumstances mostly because of the human impact from the Centennial Trail. Staff
modified the Natural designation to develop the UC-HQ designation to reflect our specific
conditions, while retaining a lot of the language that was applicable to the state recommended
Natural designation.
Commissioner Neill requested a copy of the presentation.. Ms. Barlow will provide a copy. .
Commissioner Carroll noted that an entire parcel of property in the easterly portion has been put
in the high quality designation. Ms. Barlow responded that is public land.
Ms. Barlow noted that staff will conduct an open house, tentatively set for September. 19th. We
will advise you of the date once it is set. Following the open house the Planning Commission
will conduct a public hearing and send a recommendation to the Council. The Council will take
public comment and then accept the designations by resolution. Once all the pieces are
completed, a formal public review and adoption process will begin. At this time the inventory
and analysis and goals and policies have been completed; we are in the process of reviewing the
environment designations; and the next steps are to draft the development regulations, prepare a
restoration plan,public access plan, and cumulative impacts report.
Commissioner Stoy asked if it was possible to complete by Dec. 2013. Ms. Barlow said we have
fallen behind, but we feel we are in good shape moving forward. It is still possible to have the
Page 6 of 7
plan locally adopted by that date, but unlikely that the state adoption process would be
completed. We have every intention of ineeting that deadline, but so long as we continue to
move forward, I am confident that DOE will work with the City to the best of their ability to help
us achieve the goal of having our plan adopted by the state.
Chair Bates asked how DOE knows what we are doing? Can we get it approved as we complete
sections? Ms. Barlow explained that DOE participates in the required technical review group.
As the pieces are completed, they are sent first to our legal counsel for review and then to the
technical review group for comment. The environment designations will be reviewed by the
technical review group prior to the public hearing. The Inventory and Analysis Report and the
goals and policies went through this process. The goals and policies received very little feedback
from the TRG because it reflected our communiry's preference on how we proposed to handle
our shoreline areas. But, the inventory and analysis report received a lot of comment from
agencies such as Dept. of Fish and wildlife, WA Parks and Recreation, and DOE just to name a
few.
There were no additional items for the good of the order.
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Page 7 of 7