Loading...
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