The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/27/2012 S�'TYol�ane p Valle � Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Sept 27, 2012 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 13, 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. Public Hearing: Shoreline Environment Designations 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 Review Meeting Date: September 27, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business � public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Draft Shoreline Environment Designations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was held on August 23, 2012. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed the Draft Shoreline Environment Designations for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The following three Environment Designations were proposed: Urban-Conservancy—High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy(UC), and Shoreline Residential (SR). The UC and SR designations reflect the state recommended classification system, while the UC-HQ designation modified the state recommended designation to reflect local conditions. The Draft Environment Designations Report and map were circulated to the Technical Review Group. Written comments were received from DOE and Avista (see attached). As a result, the following changes are proposed to the Environment Designations Map and Report: 1. Two Shoreline Residential designations are proposed that recognize if the lot is a waterfront lot, or located in an upland area separated by other properties from the shoreline. This will allow the development regulations to more accurately relate to existing conditions such as setbacks from the water's edge versus a property line. The two designations proposed are: Shoreline Residential — Waterfront (SR-W) and Shoreline Residential — Upland (SR-U). The two designations will replace the Shoreline Residential designation. 2. The publicly owned land, including that owned by the Home Owner's Association, adjacent to the water in the eastern corporate limits and Shelley Lake, are designated as UC, while the residential areas that are separated from the water by the publicly owned land and/or privately owned land dedicated as open space, are designated as SR-U. This change clarifies the intent to preserve the public owned land and privately owned land as open space and is consistent with the guidelines. 3. The Mirabeau Trailhead is proposed as UC, rather than UC-HQ. This change takes into consideration further dialogue with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) that noted that the invertebrate records noted in the Priority Habitat Species date are in the river and not along the shoreline, and that the fish are likely located throughout the river, but only recorded near Mirabeau Park. Also, considering the popularity of the rock outcrop and significant public use, the area should be designated as UC not UC-HQ. 4. The area downstream from Barker, adjacent to the railroad tracks, is proposed as UC, rather than UC-HQ, to take into consideration the existing concrete structures associated with past railroad activities. The development makes it consistent with the UC designation criteria. 1 of 2 5. An aquatic environment is proposed for the areas waterward of the OHWM. DOE recommends this designation to address development that may occur below the OHWM. Development may include docks, public access and ecological restoration projects. 6. The last change reflects updating the OHWM on the Map in the area just east of the Coyote Rocks development. The Field Inventory was completed in 2009. Development was proposed in this area subsequent to that date, and resulted in DOE staff identifying the OHWM. 7. Numerous text additions and deletions have occurred to the Environment Designations Report that reflect the changes described above, as well as addressing the comments received by Avista regarding utility corridor maintenance. Attorney Tadas Kisielius has also reviewed the Draft Environment Designations Report and comments received to determine if the proposal is consistent with the state guidelines, as well as identify opportunities for policy choices (see attached). Mr. Kisielius is not expected to attend the Planning Commission deliberations unless issues warrant his attendance. Staff will discuss the proposed environment designations and recommended revisions to both the report and the Shoreline Environment Designation Map. Bear in mind during your review that an Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map has been created that reflects the changes noted above, while the Draft Environment Designation Map reflects the original designations discussed at the Study Session. At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the document, conducting a public hearing, considering public input, and finally providing a recommendation to the City Council. The revised draft Environment Designation Report, Map and comments are attached for your review. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on September 7, 2012. The notice was consistent with the applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80.150D. Additionally, all property owners with property located within shoreline jurisdiction were notified of the upcoming open house and public hearing by mail. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. 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: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTAC H M E NTS: 1. Revised Draft Shoreline Environment Designations Report 2. Draft Environment Designation Map 3. Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map 4. Jaime Short, DOE Comments—Sept. 10, 2012 5. Robin Bekkedahl—Avista Comments—Sept. 10,2012 6. Tadas Kisielius Memo—Sept. 20, 2012 7. Open House Mailing- Post Card 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Proposed Shoreline Environmental Designations Prepared by URS Corporation � July 9, 2012 Revised Se�tember 17, 2012 1.0 Introduction—Environmental Designations Shoreline Environmental Designations (SED) are analogous to zoning designations for areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. SEDs provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within each designation, if allowed by underlaying zoning requirements. SEDs are intended to encourage appropriate uses and activities while providing for protection and restoration of shoreline ecological functions. It is anticipated that reasonable standards, restrictions, and prohibitions on shoreline developments will be instituted as shoreline regulations. This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect e�sting uses and shoreline character so that the statewide goal for "No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions is achieved. SEDs are established based on e�sting use patterns, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans. For the City of Spokane Valley, the Inventory and Characterization Report, prepared by URS Corp, 2010 provided information on shoreline ecological functions; development patterns as represented by e�sting building lots, zoning and land use designations; and on current and projected uses that were used to determine appropriate SEDs. The shoreline designations are illustrated on the Shorelines Designations Map which is an integral part of the Shoreline Master Program. Characteristics and general management policies for each of the designations are given below. They provide the basis for development of regulations for each SED. 2.0 City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations The information provided for each SED generally follows the state classification guidelines (WAC 173-26-2ll (4) and (5)). The state guidelines provide a recommended classification system. Local governments may establish a different designation system or may retain their current environment designations(WAC 173-26-2ll(5), 2ll(4)(c)(i)). The e�sting Pastoral, Conservancy, and Urban SEDs are proposed to be changed to new SEDs that reflect the findings of the 2010 shoreline inventory and of current shoreline uses as well as to allow for management of the shorelines under the new state guidelines. The�proposed SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UGHQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), � Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR�, and Aquatic (AQl for those areas within the ordinary hi�h water mark _ Much of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, with conservation areas identified in the 2010 inventory as UGHQ. These designations closely reflect the e�sting Pastoral and � 1 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations � Conservancy designations. Two �4 shoreline residential (�} environments� have been a°�;��*;�„ '�� '�°°„ added along the Spokane River and at Shelley Lake to include those areas currently zoned Single Family Residential and that have existing single family residences. The Shoreline Residential designation provides a means to allow for appropriate residential uses for those areas directly adjacent to the water(SR-W) and for upland residential areas (SR-U). Each of the SEDs is described more fully below. Each SED includes a purpose statement, the designation criteria and basic management policies. Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment(UC-HQ) Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy - High Quality" environment is to protect e�sting ecological functions where they occur in high quality environments, while allowing very limited compatible uses. High quality environments are those that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions sensitive to human use. These areas require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain e�sting ecological functions. Desi�nation Criteria Assign an "Urban Conservancy — High Quality" environment designation to shoreline areas that were identified in the Inventory as hi�c�uality environments exhibitin��nificant habitat diversity and were noted on the Invento , as conservation� areas�i�.�`�' un o�.;,.,,�.,.o�� .,,.o �i� _These areas �e come close to meeting the State's "Natural" designation but due to e�sting development impacts do not meet all the criteria to classify them as "Natural". These areas are appropriate for limited low impact public uses and for restoration activities. This designation generally impacts public lands - Only three locations are located on private property. An "Urban Conservancy- High Quality" environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is ecologically intact and is performing important, shoreline functions or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity; (B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest or (C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety, with the exception of the Centennial Trail and other existing low impact public uses. Ecologically intact shorelines can include large reaches covering multiple properties to small areas located within a single property, and as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally,but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. Mana�ement Policies � 2 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations (A) Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area should not be allowed. (B) The following new uses should not be allowed: • Commercial uses. • Industrial uses. • Nonwater-oriented recreation. (Note: This does not preclude development associated with the Centennial Trail and other limited low impact public uses.) • Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of UGHQ designated shorelines. (C) Single family residential development shall be allowed within this environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited to protect ecological functions and be consistent with the purpose of the environment. (D) Scienti�c, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water-oriented recreational access uses may be allowed provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result. (E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. (F) Maintenance of existin� utility corridor-and infrastructure shall be allowed. If existin�hi�h c�uality ve�etated areas are disturbed by maintenance activities miti�ation shall be required. Urban Conservancy Environment (UC) Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing for compatible uses, including appropriate public access and recreational uses. Desi�nation Criteria Assign an "Urban Conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas appropriate and planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring the ecological functions of the area and that are not generally suitable for water-dependent uses if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses; (B) They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be intensively developed; (C) They have potential for ecological restoration; � 3 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations (D) They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or (E) They ha�e the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. (F) Areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and /or designated are automatically assigned as "urban conservancy" until the shoreline can be redesignated through a master program amendment. In the COSV, the Urban Conservancy Environment is located along much of the river with the exception of areas that are either designated as UGHQ or as Shoreline Residential. As shown in the inventory much of the near shoreline (riparian) areas are owned by the state and managed by State Parks. Many upland areas in this designation are privately owned large tracts. Management Policies (A) Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. (B) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation. These standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. (C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. (D) Water-oriented uses should be given priority over non-water oriented uses. Shoreline Residential—Waterfront Environment(SR-W) Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-waterfront" environment is to accommodate residential uses on lots within existin� residential areas where the lot is �immediately adjacent to the shoreline'��"� a:~��+ � �+� +'�� . �+�,. Desi�nation Criteria Assi�n a"shoreline residential-waterfront" environment desi�nation to shoreline areas if thev are predominantly 5in�le-familv or multifamilv residential develo�ment or are �lanned and �latted for residential development and where the lot is immediately adjacent to the shoreline . Within the Ci ,t��okane ValleY, areas that are included in this desi�nation include Orchard Avenue, and portions of the Coyote Rocks development. Management Policies (A� Standards for density or minimum fronta�e width, buffers and setbacks, lot covera�e limitations, shoreline stabilization, ve�etation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecolo�ical functions, takin� into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, existin�zonin� and other comprehensive plannin� considerations. � 4 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations (Bl Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational develo�ments should �rovide �ublic access and joint use for community recreational facilities unless a�ropriate public access is available as determined bv a Public Access Plan. (C) Access, utilities, and public services should be a�ailable and adequate to serve existin� needs and/or planned future development. (D) Mana e� ment �olicies for direct access to the water, docks, and shoreline stabiliaation techniques shall be included for this desi�nation. Shoreline Residential—Unland Environment(SR� Purpose � The purpose of the "shoreline residential-upland" environment is to accommodate residential uses within existin�residential areas that are separated from the shoreline by other properties- Desi�nation Criteria � Assign a "shoreline residential-upland" environment designation to shoreline areas if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development and that are separated from the shoreline by either state parks land and/or bv lots dedicated as o�en s�ace,for exam�le lots mana�ed b,��hborhood association. Within the City of Spokane Valley, areas � located within �r° ��'��a°a �� this desi�nation include �e�sting residential uses including �e��e��the Greenacres neighborhood and, Shelley Lake. Mana�ementPolicies �r'�*� r��p �,;�'�';,��°' (A) Standards that take into consideration that these �ro�erties are se�arated from the waterfront for density or minimum frontage width, buffers and setbacks, lot coverage limitations, � ��e-�i�°� °*�'��'��*��, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the � environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline upland areas, the level of infrastructure and services available, e�sting zoning and other comprehensive planning considerations. (B) Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public � access to the adjacent public lands �ra � �* � ° �� '� °�*��' ��'�*�°� unless appropriate public access is available as determined by a Public Access Plan. (C) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. Aquatic" Environment(AQ) Purpose The �ur�ose of the "aquatic" environment is to �rotect, restore, and mana�e the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary hi�h-water mark. Designation Criteria Assi�n an "aquatic" environment desi�nation to lands waterward of the ordinary hi�h-water mark. � 5 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations Mana e�policies (A) Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, sin�le family residential docks,�ublic access, or ecolo�ical restoration. � Permittin� for activities and structures within the aquatic environment shall com�lv with all state and federal laws,includin� coordination with a�licable a e� ncies. (C)The aquatic environment shall allow for public use on public waterwa�. � 6 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations 3.0 Background—Existing City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations Most of the Spokane River shorelines have an existing SED of Pastoral. There are four areas within the City that due to existing uses have been designated as Conservancy. Two of these areas are associated with railroads; the other two are Sullivan Park and Mirabeau Park. Shorelines in the Orchard Avenue area are designated as Urban. The shorelines around Shelley Lake are designated entirely as Conservancy. The gravel pits were not designated in the current Shoreline Master Program, though the Sullivan Road gra�e pit has a shoreline permit. The Pastoral and Conservancy designations are both protective of the natural environment and limit many uses. A description of each of the current environmental designations is provided below as well as a summary of some of the relevant Goals and Policies contained in Chapter 8 of the City Comprehensive Plan. The Pastoral Area Desi�nation The Pastoral area is intended to protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically been subject to limited human interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife habitat and places of scenic beauty. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and recreational uses. Areas most appropriate are: 1) open spaces used for livestock grazing and harvesting of non-cultivated crops; 2) shorelines which have physical limitations which would preclude permanent structures, such as floodplains, meandering stream ways, cliffs, and steep slope areas subject to landslides; and 3) wildlife habitats and areas of beauty whose ecological systems will only tolerate limited human interference. Because the areas are not suited for permanent structures, they are valued wildlife areas which provide for grazing and "wild hay" for dispersed-use outdoor recreation. Management of the area should be designed to prevent the loss or reduction of the wetland area and to restrict development from hazardous areas. The Conservancy Area Desi�nation The Conservancy Area is designated in Spokane Valley for the purpose of maintaining the existing character of shoreline resources while providing for non-intensive uses. Those uses that are preferred in the Conservancy Area are those which may utilize the natural resources on a sustained-yield basis. These uses include passive agricultural activity, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, and diffuse outdoor recreation. The Conservancy Area is designated to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban uses while providing for recreation wherever recreation will not interfere with agricultural practices. Nonpermanent kinds of structures and uses which will not reduce the quantity or quality of the physical and biological resources of the area are to be given priority in the Conservancy Area. The Conservancy Area is intended to prohibit intensive use of areas having physical hazards, severe biophysical limitations which would not be appropriate for rural or urban uses, areas prone to flooding, and areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal for intensive activities. The Urban Area Desi n� ation The Urban Area designation is intended to accommodate compatible water-dependent and water- oriented uses in shoreline areas. The Urban Area is to be managed so that shoreline developments will enhance and maintain the shoreline for a multiplicity of uses. The Urban Area is designated in Spokane Valley to encourage the redevelopment of e�sting urban areas and to control the expansion of urban uses in characteristically rural areas of the County. Those urban uses which � 7 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations are water-dependent and can provide visual and/or safe access to the waterfront are to be given priority for shoreline locations. � $ 7 ��'�j �p 11 �" # i� "�A*.-� ,�� g �� ,i � :, - �� .:��} ��i'.. �.�..+3�.�'�� a� (iaq�� ' a-� 'k7 �' r.. s ,i.*c 4 t7__ �. oR �� t � � �� 1 � � . . �a...!� ��1 I , �`. — _ , i� �`=' — , � � .:� . ...,� ..i i r � - - . � �� 7.�. "f G (- _ o - � � . , � '`� m ��"� - � � � I .:.d'.l�w� k—f i€,��, -. � I f � -' - a,�-s, .:�r�� -- ;�. ' �� ` ��,A � f P� r r= o �- �vt6 �•� _v.• s'+� - � t ,� .-� "'�, V � - L � . ( 1..�—� I� � - � - 1�'RE�"i' A � �.`-r' - I i1W9lYE�:r �i� . . � �� •. , �� _ . � . � �' �. .� ��I �1�� ; � ��; � u r - i � �� a=I ��" . . . "�� ,: ` � , O�� . �. I P 1 �6I . :� � ,I. . � �� '�� EUCLIDAV EUCLIDAV �y.-'.� �\,�.w ' � � �� ` . � .. .. ��I �'I _ � � _ � � . f �i'�1 I� 'i+�l I d.I�4�,•1 I I � I � �. �� . � �. i °� �: ` � ��q � _.r,i,� � -.`U I / f�� . ` � �r �� t r V �I � .. ,a � y.� .,Y i e I� � f ... � ._'_.__ .-.. ��.�� E44a� - �4"1�� `'�i � .. � �4�t��' f _ ;� �� ' • �� hA�. � � �.� � � I � �. ,�;':� �ubaaeor�NaN , 1 ��:. � � -• . :. .. .. . . - �.. -' - r ir �:�"i r�� . �� r�� V� r � 1 _ � '' _ , . — , , .,' . L- , ... .,, :_ .., �� i .. - -P--�. a.. �. t'-� r y- >?. \.�� . . f � �i= . T.- f �_ . - , -.. n.r. . �— _�. = . . .{_ _ J . , . 3 ; : �_:.. :, ._ _ ,� � � �: t ,, �- , �� :.T] �F �-'` � ��Clnaf�y , y �� '� '� N{ � � � � � ��i f--l.� "�a ��I � :I � �C J � \ \ � �:� � ��', a ,� �'r: �� .: ,� � , � _= `� _."�__�,� �. � . . \� , , t t . .-C M 'fi INDIANAA f � ' �7 a e � � � �i � �, . a e x F �' �1 3 i � �� i i re�seaeeso i�ee�sr��so �y��`��- )2 �`� �� , t 1 i'° 3z j � f� � :;x�"� � + .'^ 'r.��'��y y i�-T`ik, t ��,I�i�;. /�� ..� �� /'i/ �:. `� ( 1 i{,'.� 2 ' r, mtsS�iNaV p '' �.., '. � 't' ,�.� ` , �_� � ' - � /', �. s ^ � �,�, ,/ . i .�. , �� . S �. H' - 3 }v11SSl6Nky _� ,.�'�°q ��`� � - �E . ; � f t IE;� yr'n - �$� I _ `�"�A�/ . . � . . l . y 1 J x r � � '. �� - 1 k { � h �. �l� a h��f¢.�Y �},��3 f f k -�`j�� t I , t � ?�` i. ��r 'r z 'r � �/ f� � � ` ,. . � . : l v � , y �� r, c . . `S 1,� ..! . � :: 1 -�� Hf3DADWAYAV+ � , Y _ {. '4 , � �, . F Y..s� tIr �' '; � , L�1" . � . .`�- r�.�l�� .�� Y ' , ' f i �r • �... ;_ � � ,.._ ,__ : _. � . , , � - � „ . .-. �o ,,. -, . . 5 s�r-,�i � 3�� r � . . -,.. z �. , � . � : � � L .`� � !��,j r " � a VAL�EYWAYAV ' � � � .S".-�� i �I , e � � r. w . . .. o� r�,aiT�LEVWAVAY � .t�� Orchard Avenue � � "�a ;) � � � �i° �� .� �� '; j. 'PJ 's SEf i'; S �'` t � o � _ � � -.. �;'- � 3�`'-..`� t `r,9 �° � ." Q _- � ..- ' r� Shelley Lake .. � -i , S tl �� .. _ :�5:'. �y sa7-..'sr 'I � . _ . , .. _:�. _ y� �.---- � r;;i- .� T�fric�' _— ,, .,. ,.� , _ _ ; , . , • .� "_ ' _ _ � . ss�rtr i`: U F.._. _ . � � N Draft Euvironmeut Environment Designation Category Designation vTap -Shoreline Residential ----�CentennialTrail ---� �Urban Conservancy Parcels �Cit of S okane Valle Sho elne MasterProy u e r �Urban Conservancy-High Quality j„_„_ Y P Y 9ram p a es September19,2012 7 �� #3'�SY°3' 1 E�d'�R . �p �t �" At i� �*,-� ,. g .. ,' '' __ :, - ,,� i e .''� a�,,�.. [...,.�.y� � �.:a_ vaR, �r`�-� a �x7 ' C_ x � 4 or__ r ��R ~'� � -` s r ' �� ..i I � , `�.:,`. — ,. �, : �� „ i � , ,.,�s"°�/'� \ . . •fi+ '� (- i�"y' ;o- . _... .. . _ - � , m �� • I .�w� tk—f—� � .�ra� .� '.: t �,� �, ��,��- ` ''.... .. .. ��f i P� r=r � a �I ��' _ ,.'�J . . � REpya.'� .�' u� -. ,� � �+�r:� I� ,,�� r L � � � i `4. �'�� 1 �,I a�->. .� `: I ,* �s,°a�"�`� �' , ` �.�,:,ffi��.:� �r� , � �' °�.�'I d�.u+��.� � I � � ' �� „� ¢ v r�i 1 �41 � ��I x �` i � d'�-"ws•� �! �t�-v i I� -- � � EUCLIDAI��" I'4� EUCLIDAV 4�,y e ES� ��" .i.�. 1 -ry�' �I � . - � °t ��. � y � . �?-� i4 r�I'_.,..�fi�^p.�$� I I fuC�aJ +..`r� (�� . r � -" � . i ,Y _. m r., �.{i` �:�-�1 �\'f�f�.'_�r1 � � �.` s` t':-�. � . . . � . . . �.._. - . . . :w. . . .. '> 'S i e I� �,.�rF '� i.�-v �-�� ,.� '�� i��"� ��E�4a� _ � � �,� y � . �ubdaeor�NaN.��_,� j �� r.� r ',�" `Y�" � !.r „�,I,�I� a �,� ,�yt�;-�' � �: r � `"�' . 1 rr�� \ �� ,. _ � �i I. c4 � a�� wf , 1�"' 3 a " `� t -i '�° >� e '*�tc!��: f - - ��1,_. ��' ��G� ; eyuo�t . r ( \ fF: `:.:.� i 3� p � ��:� it�, i � �� '� � �;, i � �.,.� ��I ��fi"� p�/a. ��i i =�� " � � %' ''= 4� � ��, �� -_', '' �� \"'y��q�►''_ r � . � . I .' •� _ . '.1 _=y_:,'�if,,d, . INDIANAAV ` ;�� 1 . I � .: } f � � � r --��q p� � � f � . `"�,�t�� ] � _. .�I �� f,' . ..:at r��w e '�x, F M �t� 3 ` p t�.� - I II�� I I rerstae 90 I rerstat 90 'x �r.:4-:-, I �� { � l;;l ��y � �r R �H � 1 � �� .,k�"r' l� ", �.°� `.�-;�''°ta.s i�-T`�� . . j • ��"'��+� � ��•., .'�. .,,',�I: /.� �� rF�,: � ,� p ` i �';; i � p� i :TJ. c+ :�.; 3 1 MissibridY '�I ;,,� �,. 1 � '� ,��.. `�.� � � . i MtsS�itlaV � ''� /_' ; 4 t t' i i, � �`l ;��= - t . �� 4 ,P'� yr `��.��;� °`^ e�r �"-` _, _ � . ' i � r x r -- + I /, .++-� 6 1 �"" i V : � �`�� '�.)P�� f l,��s f ir �l ,r "� . .�` f�� • . ^ ��*�.�se�cs�'�� e�. . i�i v ' -�'",.� �"_�. [� r� r�.. �� ... .S� i�F_. F ,. R �RDADWAYAVt.is �.Ull� �• .�� 1 : �� /�� 3, t W I � 1 A52 � r - ! �� ` � � ' � � �� i '. , � = `; ..', _ z.�f'' . ,�0� S-.�y ) —v � �,♦ '� �'��E � � n : � .� 5 4 � '� �& I�,'• 'II+�. 7..Y2� � � y�. 1;,� q�+ !w r`M,�''L r.Fl �� i`��. VAL�EYWAYAV -, '.T�LEVW1lVAY �.t J _ `•�IIIIII�/y`�� .� •�.� „� �_ � -'� � .. . . >� OrchardAven e{ .� � '�e. '{) � .. �`s YP'6-��f�lr� ;1. .i' �tJ a;s SE� � S �'� � � � � o . J. �. r ` .. . � �a � 3�..--+y r � F" � a �-- ' r ,:y Shelley Lake , - � 3 � �. ,. •.� ..,. ..,� . . . . .. . � . � . _ . . . ..,:_ -� '-. " . ;� � � - : _.: _ , :�: - y �,��r � ::• _ �� . � �. �.�. _. ..,. � _,. , _- ,.� , . - ,- ,,. r s,s- .� _:.� � ,�� .,. ss�rr ,; U ;F.._. _ . _ �; _Shoreline Residential-Upland Aquatic Environment N �lternate -- � DRAFT Environment -Shoreline Residential-Waterfront �Centennial Trail --� "" Designation Map � Urban Conservancy Parcels � Crfyo/Spokane Valley �I Urban Conservancy HQ �.._.._�City of Spokane Valley ' � snore�ine Masreraroqram upeares September19,2012 From: Short.Jaime(ECY) To: Lori Barlow Cc: Sikes.Jeremv(ECYI; Patrouch.John Subject: Ecology comments on draft SMP Environment Designations Date: Monday,September 10,2012 8:35:42 AM Attachments: CR Annrox OHWM.ina Hi Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft environment designations for the Valley's SMP update project. As we shared during our meeting last Thursday, we recommend using a parallel designation for the areas where upland residential development abuts the State Park property along the Spokane River, currently identified as Shoreline Residential. Urban Conservancy (or a similar designation) appears to be appropriate for the State Park land while a Residential designation would fit the land use for the privately owned upland areas. This is a minor modification and will more closely align the designations with the results of your inventory and characterization work as provided for by WAC 173-26-211(4)(c)(ii). We also recommend you adjust your estimated ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in the area just east of the Centennial Trail bridge crossing near the Coyote Rocks development. As you know, our staff determined the location of the OHWM in that vicinity while evaluating a proposed short plat for the Trailside at Coyote Rocks project. While the precise location was never surveyed in by the project proponents, I have attached an aerial photo with the approximate OHWM identified. Using this line will more accurately reflect the upland limits of SMP jurisdiction which allows affected parties to participate at an appropriate level throughout this update process. Finally, we noticed after our meeting last week that the areas waterward of the OHWM have not been assigned an environment designation. We recommend using an Aquatic designation as you will need a specific set of policies and regulations for development occurring below the OHWM. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks! —Jaime Jaime Short Shoreline Planner WA State Dept of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Spokane,WA 99205 509.329.3411 6, • �� } �� .- ' ...� �_ . . _ . . . � . __—_. '_ .. '- !'�r�r�,. 1 Y� W ' . A�p�roximate aHWM . ,� , .-,� � . ,,_ , 'y. . _. ., } i �� a, ;�� r y �.��-1� � ..,f� . � •,. '� � � �' 4-T c'-.I`'� � � . � r � , - � .'�°�� ,�I�: ' �� ,. � '�� _ ,� �1r h' �rr jJ: �T ` +^ ...r .. .. . .. ' . .� . ,- . .. � , " ' - - �j � . - � ,� ". � 4. � '�y� �'�. d �. , - .. '�1" *,•y�� .��.'�C'l} ,� ''�' _ �' .,� � �• . - . .. , r,.. - , , +�' ��j. . ._ , ,_ ,. . . . _. - •. * Y e : � . •1�' � Y3,'3, , h;.� :� ,!„� a `��.y ^�' . �. ,�. ' ��'' ` � '��.� , r. . F. A7i{�'., Zi ��k �•, ,�� . �'�rr ��F. `r- . �. �,�.�``��:�A� .�,�. � - � �'" ri�ra. L+f,��,'��. ,'.'f ��..t' x +� i,�� "_y' .. • .y��M y.Y' � � k- �, x y'� _ �'�4�J �.Kr� .�� ,'4� � � !n,`. �'� K�?r r �- � �a�• _ �. ti , , . .. �� -` �.��±'e"} � 4� � .�� .. � �,y ' �n.�� N,.eF� � ��'� . :�,,'R ',,.�°'.�l,� �'► � _ , , a-^� , a,�,: �°� ,��`�''� C3 � � Gt -�'',� � ��„'. � `'" `-;�' K. { + I �- �:.e �- � J ` + � ?'/: " ' #� 1� � . �". �s ', yz .'I�`+ rr" t��-,-:'` ' �' �'�.�` . �,! � �' 4� �^f� #��,+��., � � �:` „,� . 4 '6 ' � �..`��.�� . �E _ � . . c � •. �J x4 ,' f '� Y n. *i' �� r .�.� �'/ �, »F�� %�rri ��' � '� . � s.� . , :��I � � � �^ " ��`1S111;IILi5��5f�.Si:�' �i�ii �F.IIG ��'1��I�IIF..T-�i From: Bekkedahl. Robin To: Lori Barlow Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update-Technical Review Group Date: Monday,September 10,2012 6:49:11 AM Attachments: citv of spokane vallev shoreline urban conservancv.pdf citv of snokane vallev shoreline urban conservancv ortho.ndf Hi Lori: Thank you for the following material on the shorelines plan. The GIS specialist tried to approximate our lines to the draft shoreline designations. I am attaching a copy of our locations of our crossings. I don't think these designations will work for our facilities since some of our existing crossings appear to be within the High Quality designation. Locating our utility lines out of the SED would be improbable because we need the shoreline crossing. I need some clarification regarding this management policy: • Nonwater-oriented recreation. (Note: This does not preclude development associated with the Centennial Trail.and other limited low impact public uses) • Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of UC-HQ designated shorelines. � (E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that,to achieve its intended purpose,will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. Much of our services is dependent upon the increase in density of the City of SV. Our business only increases capacity upon demand and not speculation. I have concerns where our existing crossings are classified as High Quality and we need to be located outside of these areas. What does this mean for the maintenance of our facilities and rights of way because we cannot relocate. To relocate Avista would need to secure different easements and still need to go through the shoreline permitting process. Avista wants to keep our utility corridors and maintenance of those corridors. Thank you for providing a draft of the SEDs for our review. Robin L. Bekkedahl Sr. Environmental Scientist Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, Project Permitting Avista Utilities P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Telephone: 509-495-8657 Fax: 509-495-4852 Email: robin.bekkedahlCa�avistacorp.com This message and any attached files or documents may contain information that is confidential and considered proprietary to Avista Corporation. Any unauthorized use, transfer, or disclosure of the information contained herein is strictly forbidden. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and delete the message. From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:54 PM To: 'jsho461@ecy.wa.gov'; 'RLindsay@spokanecounty.org'; 'divenkad@DFW.WA.GOV'; 'Jacob.McCann@dnr.wa.gov'; Mike Stone; Bekkedahl, Robin; 'Randy Abramson/Spokane Tribe'; 'dlamb@cdatribe.org'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District'; 'Chris Guidotti/ WA State Parks and Recreation/ Riverside State Park'; 'greg.griffith@dahp.wa.gov'; Steve Worley; 'kcooke@spokanecounry.org'; 'khall@landscouncil.org'; 'atainio@liberrylakewa.gov'; 'jwright@spokanecity.org'; 'Ray Oliger/City of Millwood'; 'jpederson@spokanecounty.org'; 'pknowles@spokanecounty.org'; 'roylene.rides-at-the-door@wa.usda.gov' Subject: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update - Technical Review Group The City of Spokane Valley is in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Program. At this time the Draft Environment Designations have been completed by our consultant, URS Corporation . Since you, or your agency, have jurisdiction or technical expertise in this area,the document is being submitted to you for review. The attachments contain the Draft Environment Designation Report and Environment Designation Map currently undergoing public review. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than September 11, 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow(c�spokanevalley.org. If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please let me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission review, public hearing and Council Review. It is our goal to identify and work through issues as each component is developed, rather than at the end of the process. If you have any questions about the materials, or process, I may be reached at the contact information below. Thank you for your participation! Lori B�rlow, AICP Senior Planner- Community Development City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5335, Direct 509-921-1008, FAX www.spokanevalley.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) +, '�n`�.�r 4£G� � A,.�.— � -ri�'*�" �J� I 9 � ('£� --� I �_ 3y � �tl t1. �. '�' .,� . � . . . . � R,ri� .. �-_:_.:.- � '�y J::Y � ,; �, '�7' ;1� _ . i �d i-�, i .f.�'.�'' �..� �� {. � t�t � m. 'E, , �_ -! E i ,r. �:, �r ��--�— ��1 �' � L,�� 8��-BO�ae� �:' �a � 4 �.�� _k _ �, .�� ,. , ��,, _ , y { _' � .r �, n Bo��e «� . _ — z . ��_ y � e � \ •�� '� — � , , 1 ,. ,� � _ � ! � . +- � � __. �� ' � �� ,�'�- --•� , _, � «t �; '� , .. _ ' 1_� " � �. � � �,> i � � � � , �f � �� m � t I ' _t—, � � �-,"—�-� �."� � , �� ! � ✓ . � �.'<ca��^ � � '� �_� ;� . � —.r. I ' . � �, :� �� . ..�:� � Ir '� 1�F�� - � � �� 1 � � a eo�sorcna'stta g �_, ,.:. �../ -�� \ - . . ar ��i .�,- ,E �� . �X � ..r . i� ' ,. ' � 6 �� .�.` �� '"� � � . � �� I �� "'�' %'� one e.az �"'� 1 � � I r x- �` a _� � 4 " . w �..�:.<.� t�: .' \\ i � ,r�..�� . 1 � � �^��'� � ��d ��. '� {�( $ea� , � � �� ' it � *'�' { , , , �„ � � " � ' � �" � ' ...��-�. � ' i �-' ' �� .i ,. � �� ,��, 1 b ; , � r�2� �' n d _ � i,� � � � :.... ':�� - -;^^-(j T� �g•y,e�'¢r' \ ..'�F`!4 ` ' r_� � � � � . ,� .: � ' �_ �, .. 1.F J... r Y",d A �� i-�.=�4°�� .` fi v. \� t f "''. . rl�� `\`\ '� �� ' I �� 4�s'`�` ��'. � ��'. ��——�� < r , ,� /i � � ',9 � 1 �� , ��, ,.�- �- � '=� �- ,� `� k _ a r 1 0 i ,� J.�_ ___x:: ,- t � —'�,�� .�:;. s„ ; �. !� '�;a ` �—°�-��4° �. I f �T¢y"� � � _��r 1 � �� = a ii �: • . —� - ,� .G � ' � 'i �1" -? � �zYe � .1'� z� .9 � . . �1 '�M1 i�'1� • -- , `r i, { �� '�� 1_. te ��\ J r �_ �;y a � ��. � - �, �� ,�,�.,� ;�* ��' '�� - � a..�'� , 4 -�---�-�'-;�a , . � ��,��"'" ��'.�"� ''�z ' ....; � - _�- - ��'��—� � � 1= �i t 7`�. �.. ., � , � ,. �;'_^' � „ � "s � ; „ ._. e��" Legend ,��e,� � ��`�� ,� r � � �,,;t�� . r f �-� � ii � �� . --Centennial_Treil `� � .� +a.�t� � � �� f . � � {;.�� # i , �P,' i�i1g _ <all other values> 'F r -'t� � � h � �� Tr �. y �.,� / �'t.�i � P � � , ! , 4 . —�, �.� �,i:: T e �,'{� -�'' q' �� .�.q N . 1., � ;y� ��,r� ��,--c��'�r.�'k .,�,t�:' , w, YP A 1 d -' � �k 'ir . n"+.E9� '4, a.�, �r .�iuea =.y 7_.�t,,i High Quality urban conservancy N Draft Environment Residen�ai Designation Map W E City of Spokane Ualley L .�Ciry_of_Spokane_Valley Shoreline MasterProgram Updates WATERBODIES 0 0.5 1Miles S Augusf 15,2012 Ew es y re i � I�,N� di� *R . g ^, � ; .__ � 1irc ',. �' —�-11 r�— I� I � '�� J � � � 1 t___� � —T _ � l •--"1•��.` L ' � �`` r I. i r_L_��--� � - _ . n F� � _ \ s��-so�ae� I��1�. ��ii'-.I_ _ 1_�I �.g 1 I�__.r� �� 280'e�om-so�beraa� � , (G_ � \ i'��/` \\\� .J -M I -� �I��}�° � _- - �8M I~{ A _` I � i �';,i�. .,�,� I o . L �`°F ,� �.� N 1;� C C �� y� ��/��: y� \ �&IA'�II Rd � . ' m w� _,.a�� .� �^� .� "�. i---� n � a "� ��,-,r ✓ y�.i,�Q'iM1��,li\ � m � d E 9i � L�-r . � � � . �1;� . .,.. 'ti'- /� � t w�� u : � ., � n .-�' i �t �� e ors o�ona s tt� i �.."' - -r F�n 'Y � ,� .. � ,..� z ��i'�� M, � � _ ! � �. _. ' u81111 � I ' � � �' \ .� Z . ..C/rd ./� �,..- U�e. _�i�� h ia4nau P..y � ( � I Ayp .. I 'i i � �:utke..A Y� °TM$° � � � - ,� $eac _— ��:: ~ \ .. 9 I / .p 1 � �'-�' : ��c � _ � M�� ' _ � C � IfaiserWorks .. C � Merien��j � -'��T � P f�„s�, � y �i .�, r_�„��r�c+��t/'� h t��`�r9au� ��;�� \ � ..i—,� -- ��_� o...� K�nta�//." 4 J � ...� ..%� � c�i �� `�N � '. �� / -� ' Nau^gamery t�M� ' b�_`�� '� �.� ., � � �' � E�a"� -�� --�� < � I �� n " .� .� n��ie�J Pvc �. J I I. � - r �-'7 \ � I r, �- � .�.1 ! , . �� — �� .� � _T_ y No �� l r— F;I Ni�`?�1 I� _�;;,�.--A`; � ' F lnddane Ad f _ "rPn�-1�i� � �� _ - � y �'\ �� k L i ae , ------�•r�- f�IVpra'kre E� .rurC{- � J i i y"� � V 1 fA� i�`.. . - _ . . -- --�- _-_ - - � 4�� ' J.,�� — e � I 1.. �f t�e� �� y1� '_ �' . �. I$ �„' \ \ � Z . I 0 f�I— r j 'j ,i Le end � -�� — � � , c�6�F- — � .- �r71 � g Mntwal u� c s ¢ - --- : �� _ a � ; �I'5_n;o aael � l --Centennial_Treil � � ` -� ` k—� " , • �.,�`�(: m . Ii�dB� <allothervalues> m � w � , E Been Ava ` F.flsam� �ve `m A m c LL� I E�e eidv Avn sqnec�es Acres Type m m � 9��--� � _ - - � I � - E flro¢d'ay y�Av2� z K L `��T:___ High Qualiry Z �+ Z � t r AiNi A¢ � Urban Conservancy Residen�ai N Oraft Environment L .�Ciry_of_Spokane_Valley Designafion Map W E City of Spokane Ualley WATERBODIES Shoreline MasterProgram Updates Wodd Street Map 0 0.5 1Miles S August 15,2012 l �anNess F�7 Millennium Tower l 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 GordanDerr Seattle,Washington 98104 ATTO R N E YS AT LAW 206-623-9372 P 206-623-4986 F SEATTLE, WA • WASHfNGTON, DC MEMORANDUM TO: John Hohman, Community Development Director CC: Cary Driskell, Lori Barlow, Scott Kuhta FROM: Tadas Kisielius DATE: September 20, 2012 RE: Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations This memorandum summarizes our review of the proposed shoreline environment designations ("SEDs") prepared by URS Corporation, dated September 17, 2012, and the two comments received to-date from members of the technical advisory group. We reviewed the SEDs for compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and accompanying state regulations.� Additionally, the purpose of our review was to identify strategies or approaches in the document where the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council, have flexibility to implement a range of policy choices. The memo highlights two specific approaches proposed in the SEDs where the City has a range of options available: (1) alternate shoreline environment designations and (2) the use of "parallel designations." These two approaches are an optional alternative to the default approach in the regulations. As described further below, they are designed to provide more flexibility in the City's shoreline environment designations than the default would otherwise allow. These two approaches are meant to better address unique local circumstances. The state regulations authorize these alternative options such that the approaches are within the range of discretion afforded to the City. A. Alternate SEDs. The regulations require designation of the shoreline into SEDs which act as an overlay zoning district in the shoreline jurisdiction. The City will later identify permitted uses and development standards for each designation. The designations are to be based on the characterization of the shoreline, including the existing use pattern and the biological and physical character of the shoreline. WAC 173-26-211(2)(a). The regulations include a default set of SEDs and associated management policies: Natural, Urban Conservancy, Aquatic, High � In this document, we have limited our review to the legal requirements governing the SEDs and the policy choices available to the City. We have not addressed URS's interpretation of the biological and physical character of the shoreline at any particular shoreline reach or the corresponding SED that has been proposed in light of that shoreline characterization. The Seattle Office of Van Ness Feldman,A Professional Corporation Memorandum - 2 - September 20, 2012 Intensity, and Shoreline Residential. See WAC 173-26-211. The regulations allow variation from these standards provided that the alternative system provides better or equal implementation of the SMA and the alternative approach is consistent with the purposes and policies of the default designations. The City's draft includes several of the default SEDs, including Urban Conservancy and Aquatic.2 The proposed SEDs do not implement the Natural or the High Intensity SED designation. In addition, the proposed SEDs include two variations from the default system of SEDs in chapter 173-26 WAC. Both variations are designed to provide some flexibility and capture unique local circumstances. First, the City is proposing an "Urban Conservancy— High Quality" ("UC-HQ") designation in addition to the "Urban Conservancy." UCHQ is designed to capture those areas in the City that have many of the characteristics of the "Natural" designation identified in the regulations (most notably, the intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions). However, the areas include low-intensity development or are near development that is low- intensity, but still more intense than what is typically found in the "Natural" designation. Accordingly, the proposed SEDs provide for an alternative that is more restrictive than Urban Conservancy, but still permits and facilitates low-impact public uses that would be more restricted in a Natural designation. In particular, the UCHQ seeks to recognize the Centennial Trail, other public uses, and utility corridors.3 These unique local circumstances are appropriate to justify the variation from the standard. Accordingly it is within the City's policy discretion to take this approach. Preliminary feedback from the Department of Ecology did not raise any concerns regarding this alternative SED. Second, the City has divided its Shoreline Residential designation into two separate residential designations: "Shoreline Residential —Waterfront" ("SR-W") and "Shoreline Residential — Upland" ("SR-U"). These distinctions were prompted by the use of"parallel" shoreline environment designations described in more detail in section B, below. The two residential SEDs offer a more flexible regulatory approach for residential properties that are separated from the water by publicly owned property or other lots. In light of the use of parallel designations, the two residential designations help address local circumstances and are within the discretion of the City. 2 The aquatic environment is designed to apply to the area waterward of the OHWM and would primarily address overwater development (for example, bridges and docks). Ecology's email comment dated September 10, 2012, indicates that the City's draft did not include an aquatic environment, but the draft presented to the Planning Commission concurrently with this memorandum includes revisions that establish an aquatic designation. 3 Avista has submitted comments by email dated September 10, 2012, regarding the impact of the UC- HQ designation and its potential impact on existing utility corridors. As a preliminary matter,the subject that Avista raises will be more fully addressed in the draft regulations which will spell out use restrictions and development standards. With respect to Avista's questions, the management policies for the UC-HQ designation do not require relocation of existing utility corridors. By its own terms, it applies to location of"new" corridors. Even new corridors are not entirely prohibited. The policy indicates that new utility corridors should not be allowed if they "can be located outside of UC-HQ designated shorelines." To further address Avista's comments, the current draft was revised to expressly recognize maintenance of existing corridors and infrastructure, though those same maintenance activities in the UC-HQ will be required to mitigate impacts of the maintenance activities on high quality vegetation areas. Memorandum - 3 - September 20, 2012 B. Parallel Shoreline Environment Desiqnations. Typically the boundaries between SEDs run perpendicular to the shoreline and extend from the water to the edge of the shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the OHWM. In addition to this common approach, the regulations also provide for an alternative approach of"parallel environments" that "divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right of way." WAC 173-26- 211(4)(c). The proposed SEDs implement this "parallel environment" approach. In particular, in many shoreline reaches, the property near the shoreline is in public ownership and shoreline environmental functions are relatively intact while immediately upland parcels have been developed, are altered, or are otherwise zoned for development and subject to development pressure. These upland parcels are distinct lots that do not front the water. They are often separated from the waterfront lots by physical features (e.g., bluffs) or the Centennial Trail. This parallel environment approach allows the City to regulate the property immediately on the shoreline (much of which is in public ownership) differently than the further upland property. To further implement this approach, the City has created two residential designations, one of which applies to areas with lots immediately adjacent to the shoreline while the other applies to those residential areas that are separated from the water by other properties. The approach provides flexibility and addresses Spokane Valley's unique local circumstances. As noted above, the regulations specifically authorize this approach. Accordingly, the approach is within the City's range of discretion and provides more flexibility than a more typical application of shoreline environment designations that would apply the same designation to waterfront properties and their adjacent upland parcels. In its comments, the Department of Ecology has recommended also using the parallel environment in other areas where upland residential lots abut State Parks property along the river. In the earlier draft SEDs Ecology was reviewing, the entire area, including the waterfront Park property and the upland residential lots had been designated "residential." Ecology raised concerns, noting that the Parks property at the water's edge would better be characterized as "Urban Conservancy." Ecology's recommended designating the Parks property as "Urban Conservancy" while maintaining the Residential designation of the upland lots. This approach addresses Ecology's concerns related to the designation of the Parks property while preserving the flexibility of the upland residential lot. The draft presented to the Planning Commission has incorporated changes to address Ecology's concerns. �a Sc�r�oe City of Spokane Valley pO�alle Community Development Department Standard V�le11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 U.S.Postage �� Spokane Valley,WA 99206 P`� Spokane WA Permit#4 ,x �� E�#� � 'r� .� � � , � � ��p, v�.. �,� �� c ��ti,_ � � � g'` � � � �" �`�s�� `� �F'�`� �",� �� ! ? i »�k _� VKc{ �:� '�'�} ��':, v{�,� . �s..� -g Shoreline Master Program OPEN HOUSE Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012 4:OOpm to 6:OOpm at City Hall _ Please join us for the ne� Stop by any time during the Shoreline Master Program Open House Open House to: and learn more about proposed changes to the . Examine maps of the affected shorelines. environmental designations afFecting shorelines . Discuss how the proposed changes affect of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. development near the shoreline. • Learn how the proposed changes meet Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012 from 4:OOpm to 6:OOpm requirements of the Shoreline Management S okane Valle CI Hall Act and the 2003 Shoreline Master ,�;� , p y � U Program Guidelines. 11707 E. Sprague Avenue � f ��'' ; . This is the fourth in a series of ineetings to � � �" "`� � 4}' help you stay informed and involved in the �' � s... �� "`�� Shoreline Master Program Update process. �, �`. � � A. b 'i�� n �� ;� ��, ��'� � � For more information or to be added to a � � �,�� x �: mailing list to receive information about the , �� , � i . � �, � � , � Shoreline Master Program update, contact �,, ��, �� ,�`�� °�-�� = _�`` � - � project coordinator Lori Barlow at 509-720- �� '��.�� i `�`x� " - � � � 5335 or Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org. E�� -��k:�,�� ; �� _�F��sure fo attend and —_ ° `�� " share,comments at the j r � y . � E . ^��'Y �i �$Y�-.. . . 4� X �� w'�� '�:� �� `��n Public Hearing �� >;��: � okane Valley Planning Commission ��. '� � ��h�rsday, Sept. 27,�2012 at 6:OOpm a. �" - � Spokane Valley City Hall ` ccnoF �� Spoka.ne �� i11707 E. Sprague Avenue �~ � �, "�� SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals planning to attend the Open House who require Va11e�� special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments may contact us at 509-720-5335 or Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org so arrangements may be made. coMMUr,�rvoeve�oPMer,roEPaRrMer,-r Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 13, 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 Mike Basinger, Senior Planner John G. Carroll Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rustin Hall Deanna Grif�th, Secretary � Rod Higgins Steven Neill Fred Beaulac Joe Stoy—Vice Chair t^, . �_ IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins moved to approve the September 13, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the August 23, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Neill stated he attended The Historical Auto Society of Spokane car show held Sept. 8, 2012 at Mirabeau Park He mentioned it was a good show and a good use of the City's facilities. Commissioner Higgins reported he attended the ground breaking for the new surgical center for Providence Medical Centers on Sept 4, 2012. Commissioner Hall apologized for his absence at the August 23, 2012 meeting. Commissioner Bates reported he also attended the ground breaking at the Providence Medical Center, which he explained will be a 24 hour surgery center. Mr. Bates also said he attended the Economic Development committee meeting on last Thursday, Sept. 6 at CenterPlace. Mr. Bates said the discussion was about the Use Matrix which the City has just updated and there was good input from the attendees. Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 1 of 4 VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Senior Planner Mike Basinger introduced and welcomed Eric Lamb, the City's new Deputy City Attorney. Staff also discussed with the Commission the Open House for the Shoreline Master Program to discuss Shoreline Designation changes. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: CTA-03-12 - Proposed amendments to setback standards for multifamily development when adjacent to single family residential developments. Mr. Basinger began the study session regarding multifamily development standards by explaining during the last three or four years at least one Comprehensive Plan amendment has come in requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Medium or High Density Residential. The major issue has been height limits in the developments. The neighborhoods have complained they do not want a 35-50 foot building five feet from their back fence looking down into their yards. Several of these amendments have resorted to a developer's agreement, changing the setbacks of the multifamily buildings, to appease both sides. This creates unpredictability in our Municipal Code for the development communiry. Mr. Basinger stated staff looked at the issues and proposes to change the setbacks for regarding multifamily Residential development when it is adjacent to single family residential. Mr. Basinger explained a previous director had made an administrative determination, when a commercial or multifamily building was built in any zone adjacent to single family residence, if the building had windows in the side it required a 10 foot setback, a five foot setback if there were no windows. Mr. Basinger further explained the Municipal Code requires a Type I Landscape Buffer, which is full screening, when multifamily development is located adjacent to single family. This would include a six foot, site obscuring fence and could include conifers, evergreens and deciduous trees. Mr. Basinger then explained the proposed text amendment would set a relational height limit when multifamily is next to single family residential. He said it would be a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum setback from single family residential �, being ten feet regardless of which side of the ! development it was, front, side or rear. ! Commissioner Stoy asked how the proposed relational ; setbacks would work Mr. Basinger explained he had ! written a fairly simple formula. The developer would � take the height of the proposed building(s), subtract 15 k feet from the height. The difference would be the ! setback from the property line(s) which would be � adjacent to the single family residential. One example f f give was: The building proposed is SO feet, subtract 1 S feet, (SO—I S = 35) the setback is 35 feet. Mr. Basinger shared that time and again the neighborhoods have complained the City will allow a 50-foot tall multifamily or commercial building to be five feet from the property line behind them and yet single family residential must have a 20 foot rear yard setback. Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Carroll asked Commissioner Hall if there could be two floors in a 25-foot building. Commissioner Hall, who is an architect, stated it could be done but with low ceilings. Commissioner Hall asked if the heights would be measured from existing grade and where would the heights be measured ta Mr. Basinger said it would be measured from existing grade and the building would be measured from ridge heights. Mr. Basinger shared he toured several multifamily developments and he reported very few of them actually had only a five foot setback Most have more due to needing room for landscaping and room to maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Bates asked if staff had shared this proposal with any of the developers who were known to work in the City. Mr. Basinger said standard noticing practices would be followed for the public hearing. Mr. Bates felt staff should reach out into the community, developers and neighbors who had been affected in the past, more for input. Mr. Basinger said he would discuss the suggestion with Planning Manager Kuhta. Commissioner Hall suggested changing the diagram to show a five foot setback on the multifamily building and a line straight up at five feet a line going 50 feet to show the way it would look if developed with the standards as they are currently written. Commissioner Stoy asked if the proposal was a commercial building next to the single family residential, Mr. Basinger said the formula would still apply. Commissioner Beaulac asked about lighting standards for multifamily developments. Mr. Basinger replied the developer is required to submit a plan showing how the light from the project will remain on site. The Commissioners asked about the supplemental regulations which were being proposed for zoning districts R-4, MF-1, MF-2, CMU and MCU. Commissioner Bates asked why R- 1, R-2 and R-3 were not included. Mr. Basinger explained, R-1, R-2 and R-3 do not allow multifamily development. However, multifamily development is a permitted use in R-4 but the height restriction is 35 feet. After discussion among the Commissioners it was decided to remove the supplemental regulations from R-4 zoning, because the height restrictions would not allow any kind of development of scale in which staff is trying to assist in avoiding. Mr. Basinger explained staff thought the developers would feel better if the standards were more predictable. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Basinger if he was aware of any development where this new regulation would not work Mr. Basinger stated at the corner of Dartmouth and Appleway there is a complex which would have struggled to accomplish this standard. Mr. Basinger said he had been in the neighborhood recently; this development is tight in the setback against the fence, approximately five feet. When he was there, a neighbor asked him who was responsible for allowing "them" to build so close to her house. Commissioner Hall asked if the developer's agreements are mostly related to this issue, - bulk and scale. Mr. Basinger stated it was and this amendment would be asking them to be a little more creative. Commissioner Bates stated the public hearing for this amendment is scheduled for October 11, 2012. He again asked staff about having discussions with the community ahead of the public hearing. Mr. Basinger replied he would have a discussion with Mr. Kuhta and the Director to determine the next step. Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 3 of 4 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Chair Bates requested an updated advanced agenda and expressed some concern over the length of time between the study sessions and the public hearings for some subjects. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson ,� Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary :�, _ Date signed � , _ _ Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 4 of 4