The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/25/2012 S�'TYol�ane p Valle � Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 25, 2012 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11, 2012 VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS l. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. There is no Unfinished Business. 2. NEW BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing— Shoreline Master Program— Shoreline Restoration Plan. b. Study Session—CTA-04-12 Batch code amendments to Title 19. Standards for Home Occupations, Accessory Dwelling Units, Recreational Vehicles, and residential development in commercial and mixed use zones, and Manufactured Homes in MH subdivisions. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP 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: October 25, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business � public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.repoi�t ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act(SMA)under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was held on October 11, 2012. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed a Draft Restoration Plan for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Restoration Plan is the fourth phase of the Shoreline Update Process, and is required by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-201(2)(�)identifies the required elements for the plan. The Restoration Plan establishes overall goals and objectives for citywide shoreline restoration efforts. It addresses degraded areas and impaired ecological functions identified in the inventory and analysis report, identifies and prioritizes restoration opportunities, and prescribes generalized treatment options for various restoration scenarios. The Plan also identifies current and ongoing programs that contribute to achieving these goals, as well as additional projects or programs necessary for success. Lastly, this plan seeks to develop a draft implementation strategy,including funding options,proposed timelines, and adaptive management strategy, and benchmarks. The plan is based on the inventory and analysis report and a review of other plans and assessments aimed at improving the ecological health of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The Draft Restoration Plan was routed to the Technical Review Group, and two brief comments were received (see attached). DOE staff commented positively on the plan, and an Avista staff person requested that utility crossings be considered when selecting vegetation. No changes were suggested to the plan as a result of those comments. At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with conducting a public hearing, considering public input, and providing a recommendation to the City Council. The draft Plan is attached for your review. Attorney Tadas Kisielius reviewed the Draft Restoration Plan prior to the Technical Review Group. His input was incorporated in to the draft at that time. Since no substantial comments have been received, he has not provided written comments. Mr. Kisielius is not expected to attend Planning Commission deliberations. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on October 5, 2012. The notice was consistent with the applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80150D. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 de�ne 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 modi�cations,recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. 1 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the Draft Restoration Plan be accepted as presented. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Restoration Plan—Previously provided. 2. Jeremy Sikes,DOE, email dated October 1,2012 3. Robin Bekkedahl,Avista email dated September 28,2012 2 of 2 Cari Hinshaw From: Sikes, Jeremy (ECY) [JSIK461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 11:40 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Short, Jaime (ECY); Hunt, Sara (ECY) Subject: Restoration Plan Review Hello Lori, We have complete our review of the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan dated September 17. We have found the document to be very well-crafted and thorough. We especially appreciate the well- thought-out Restoration Priority Scoring Criteria described in Section 4 and Table 3, and the clear illustrative figures. Please forward our congratulations to URS and Mr. Herlocker on an excellent restoration plan. .jerer�t�.Silces Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Department of Ecology- Eastern Region 4601 N Monroe Spokane, Washington 99205 (509) 329-3426 Flex Schedule: 7am-4:30pm; 2nd and 4th Mondays off. http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pro�rams/sea/wetlands/index.html `� Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail i Cari Hinshaw From: Bekkedahl, Robin [Robin.Bekkedahl@avistacorp.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 9:51 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Bekkedahl, Robin Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update-Technical Review Group Attachments: fig_2C_city of spokane valley shoreline urban conservancy.pdf; Fig_2A_city of spokane valley shoreline urban conservancy.pdf; fig_2B_city of spokane valley shoreline urban conservancy.pdf Hi Lori: Thank you for the opportunity to review the materials. I am attaching the maps with our utility facilities and only request when the City does restoration within these utility crossing areas that the vegetation is compatible with our utility facilities and Avista would be able to review those plans that could potentially impact our rights of way. We need to be able to maintain our existing rights of way as a utility right of way for our facilities. Thank you for your assistance. 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.bekkedahl(a�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:IbarlowCa�spokanevalley.orq] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:24 PM To: 'jsho461@ecy.wa.gov'; 'RLindsay@spokanecounty.org'; 'divenkad@DFW.WA.GOV'; 'Jacob.McCann@dnr.wa.gov'; Mike Stone; Bekkedahl, Robin; 'randya@spokanetribe.com'; 'dlamb@cdatribe.org'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District'; Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); 'greg.griffith@dahp.wa.gov'; Steve Worley; 'kcooke@spokanecounty.org'; 'khall@landscouncil.org'; 'atainio@libertylakewa.gov'; 'jwright@spokanecity.org'; 'Ray.0ligher@cityofmillwood.org'; 'jpederson@spokanecounty.org' Cc: Patrouch, John 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 Restoration Plan has 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 Restoration Plan, Appendix and Figures. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than October 1. 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow@spokanevalley.or�. 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 i 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 Bar[ow, 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.spokanevallev.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 2 ��# �- r �� , .� k� � i : , �, �' .,'. #.�,�T4 k' ',�'"�,a''� � xl L`Ci• `^ i �N��:'k�c`'dt'° �� , ti . ;� "� ' _ `� a-� ,,,,'�•��t,�l�*�Sq x �,�°��'° 1 �, i�f�'y� _ ' � � �' � , � • �`,, t .�. � �� ,�t�� r'`� �,;.�S�K � � p�y , 1. 1� ».�� _ �.„4� a s " �� !�F"Y � �.,' � "f . . � fi K� x � � � �`�. ..w.x ``4Yy� +,� •5u�'' �. ,$. � y[ �� y� . 'T. �� ¢,�y�P.:i.�,�h �yII li'K�) :� I 9 .. ' x � � ��,� �.� � .. "� , �� W t i - ' ��F 8 .� �� .� L .P . �R�Y� ✓� S.� .�- . . .�, , _,_f .�i � c �e�,. ,�.? 7'k�` J �, _ ".� .. - �i...�4 - .� # " i � . � i ° p � �� r —�� ai°, �+7o-" � q b, ♦��, �: .i—�"r.�.. a� �.` �r \•��; � ra��,:' ,� , '°'=.ti, � oac tts � ` � I ' • ' . � �.�..�� . , _ ,, �' �: , � ,.�"` � L �� « ,�/ �\6, � - — - '- — .. -.. '��, . . ,y�b� rf`j�f � / .�� pp�? � a� � j �` � opp.`,a� _ �_�- � �� , a �°s i '?= �g . � � ,� .�; ,�r- ,e _�� .,, . sF,. p�/ .� . �.'� •� � >>, - /��\1��' - � � � �� ... � �pp'��2:1�� . ��` � Opp�8 $;°� � � .. i � A, �'\ �� ` � � /� ' .��' � ,- R , ��` / .�`.s� ; � I`, _ ` �` �'r�' c , •. �y. �—`� Jl��,�k�,,,,,� , , ., _.. — �' .� � , � ` , �` , ' / i i i t i'r F i r i. � � �,�J�,��I '� �� , ;,�., _ _ �,� ° �F ,'�' - .. . .... , ��,� `�. �p,�'„� `?c.�:_ „'. 1., � � ,� . '- ' + -- ' . _ ., , ,N y _3` '�.� � `.; < I . �`r''� > '� �Opp.��9 " � I I .Lk� ��i�� Opp Y�0 I\ ...., k . . ` � � {75 `�� Legend � � � t�'i-��,� �-r`� P� opa:#i�i L ��CityofSpokaneValley � °� ��-�- �f"1 `��"� .y, 4`^''�� '�` ' PP� � . . �� I k� wa�"��y,� ��' y9�� O # �+��^r ��'e � ��. ...u,., -� . : r.n — ,,._°+,,. c�__. �.. . .. � _=CentennialTreil N � � Ty �Parcels at nverinside ciry limits Dreft Environment Designafion Map W�E 0 02 0.4 City of Spokane Valley � Miles Shoreline Masler Progrem Updates 5 Figure 2-A SepL 19,2012 � -, ' �..� ' f{ . .�"-. — �.-� � � � + �'�`--...�.r.�– . .. ... � , , o f . -�_ _. Z ,{ , , , � � y i� '" r � (;1: .�� .. . 8 m � I i �. � .. I. ' : �� . . ' - .. � �p:.. . ' `� , �.: � . - �y': r` 8 � 4 'i:' � ' 4 x !� - a oaa.� ��' � s �� /'�- ' i � - . � � �� - , i _ � �� _ _ - . �- a� � � �_ � ' ` � ` A,� „ � L. .� "��Yi y;-�-,.. 'i �i ._ _ � � `.� ' il .� � � 6�,� � � � � l I �"'�� f _ `i � � '��, , y � �I� ui� �'4 ' i 9 7�� er�{ �r.. � P u ° � �� ' � �: !f ,� ��j�� p . n �� y �a��id E w � �� - ,- � � � 1 ��t�3, ��q#�.� � ' ` �' ��" ` Opp.#9 � .. � �!' �� '�°5?'��1, � ..� %y '': .. ..3_.o»:i -�•�' .. ..' �� _,. � .. . � , ; � 1\ t � � �� opp�,o opp�„ , �� _� � ,; i $`;,_- � ;=--� _ � — �. t .. � „� �� n,��-- � w� ..:� . ' � � ei.t+.:� �. - �, � �� cpp.�iz � '"�� .�� ' ��> � � � ^.. . . :..1� �� , . . ,.._.., �pp.K29 � i o ��3°na.�ra `� , .,-� „�. , o'pi��za 'r�l i/+; �_ , aa . onn��:s �` r ' a .�'�.�r�J � ,, � �. v , �� . o � l �• � �.. oap Nze � � � '��'�N �f �_ _...,_ � , ., �s s _ ,. � ',.: r�� ,— �� . _- — .,._�� • pp Y ,,. .a i�¢ . .. ,�� O�� //��'� �I ' . -��'l o.'�+°'r" � � . . � . . � �� .. A. �:�; N� � , /� -� ,� :� .�� B ..,,. ..� . d�aei �� .A // � !/ '� `* Op`p�17 Opp ',24. " �-- .^� �� 1 u �5�, : .d�' t. `. ...., , � /7 �p�- �„ � r b � ��» opp.#18 � H . � .�, r t t�, �/ -- \'_ , " -r•s. , t`i^� . � . - � � �� ,_SJ ',a Opp.k19 j'` -c -.-. • .. ' �. . � — _f _ p / Legend �; � ; �� ""�. ,� opp.uzo o zz°an.�,za�� , L .�QtyofSpokane Valley z� a rI ',�: �� .� � �'*� �� P�� . f^ -=`Opp-"'23 / ,, . , � � f , • �,.� Opp.# r� , , �.o�'T""Rc4�.�e�;� v ` � g . . _' ,., ,�::, �... ` . . ;,.. . . . r :, . . � � ... _..._ . ..::, _=CentennialTreil N � � �Parcels at nverinside ciry limits Dreft Environment Designafion Map W�E 0 02 0.4 City of Spokane Valley � Miles Shoreline Masler Progrem Updates 5 Figure 2-B SepL 19,2012 � . � �— - <, . . � Bi '.' , .. �. � .�� - '�� . '�.- � �l f .. �`. :�, — - � _'. ".,.; , .� � ..�� —_ . . �3, ' � .. � j� �. �1 '_ O � � -� � '_ _ � � p �- �� +�"� +,�� ^"� � � l ' � � � a , i } a�� ` 1 � "_' r 4 � 1...... � �`� �'� -' .� I -- �� i�� . �i��d 'T«'� �-�''�� 1� .. . sowae�ods o�n bs tta i '. ..- . � !- �- � ` ' , ' . �� a � �� ,i„�. �°� .� �� .� �"� � � f ` � � Opp,',32 3-� � �P,� �fl f.3�"�r� �. �`�a�, � .� �'` � ►'i" i� i �,. -, � '� �tx'� ��'�� '��•' a e� L� y { I,,. �.�.,� �� .,�� - opp°�37� � �� _. � r° �-�� , � r . ,� �� , � �� -��T` '��'��.. � €�- r �� C \ �?� tq�r(q'� I�"A� lI I7 �.�. T lll � � � � t " �°�� {I `1 � � ��'�� R��`�Q..�... �� V I.. �� r �_— 4�',� � `?.;;�' � � ! �^ - 'e,, �r�opp�ss � �� n .i 9�f Opp:x30 . � �s � ' _ �', �� npp�37�'iZ � �� /, '\.��i A� � �� " �� - � ��pp x33� Opp..�35 ��.�\ il� � - Opp°,Tr'34 �� °�s ..�.,ro�ppp�8 oppr,�z9=; Y�;•:, i� �{ �' �.� I �` 15 "'' - --1— � s I�.�� _.J 0 '' y 1 }� ...� �� ` � '�r r � j _ ; i � — la �. 5v'. I I � � � � �I I�Ylllj` � : �� ' � � . � � T.a, � �� ' / .. �.� ; !� � k�C_ � r' . hJ �,v1:i4 ��° �"� �`'I�,`'�1 y I � f .��@v"�.� Ta.,�+r�E��1 ' � � I 1 7 w L � .� ,{.i. I ,q,,� 1 I' Op�fi q F l .��j' � '�'��SPI[,� '�{ ��' ��k'1 �« �I j C',�+��.,�7tl •� \�.�..„,q� 1 � �� 111"�IK M ( �as�' #�`°°'� id,��. �� a ��{� ��{,��` �:Y :.tkf�u��S�.f ..� ��p �.:TI � . .-,��`�i+ a �i 4� f'' �°la 1 ,� ' `li ��?�' � �. � ti r ;r.S opp.»zs � �r � i f �: r � � 4�� ,� .y�Is "�a i ��'� ��a �� r�� a��.0 �;F��. � �"�'a�,. �4:� �li��`Y .f� � �31' � s �� r ��: - opp Nza � 3�.� r w �,f� � '�I c i �h�..r��r � tow I`�,�f-�' r�,� � �N � �� b. �; � �� o c "?'I�� ,. '� ��; i�q � „ , a _ �� ,� �a i °, �' „�C°t ,, #6�r�� "�" A - � di � � , .. .. �� 4 _� f f��E�� 1t..., ✓ ( Y � R 1� Y � �� 1 - --�-� � . ��9 �� , �: Legend � `F �� . ,R� :� �' �`� r,�ju� � �, k ��'.�ae�'_a r�i r�� ° �- � {��'`+ I L dQty of Spokane Valley �iy ��i'� �.� I �, �w" .�^' , � 'vr"i4 �� u�J.� . �PP�� AI � �; �R y �� .:` �r+ �:,�'�{ ��?�� 1 /� ' .�•�.�' ��.. :��y i1= � i� _=CentennialTreil N , �� Parcels at nverinside ciry limits Dreft Environment Designafion Map W�E 0 02 0.4 City of Spokane Valley Miles Shoreline Masler Progrem Updales 5 Figure 2-C SepL 19,2012 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Meeting October 25, 2012 What is a Restoration Plan? ��._ -� .�� , �v � � - �� `I a ,�� r I,,rr ' �v «�;" Provides the framework for � �;; �� : �}�a ��;; -.::��r i �:�I�'�,".��' restoration based on the �r.4, �� ,�.� - a � �� t +�� t,; � �°"� �'j—i"... � ^ � . shoreline inventory and �� ? �^ �� t�:�i�,�,:,; ..��: �.�.��. characterization � � �� `�°� s a�.�� : �� .Y�� .. ;. � � t .� �,.. _ . - ..�, Identifies potential sites and ` � � � ,:. .� � ,- �:. . . . � � ��,��-��`�� opportunities for restoration � �_ ��: � - # .� � �� -�"`� � � . .�; .�. ;f .� , .�. �� r and protection. � - -' � , � � ��4�-��e +`�� 4 '� � r ��r`.y.�' ' '��'�, .. --� = � , . �� ;� � ;' Provides guidance for carrying ,�� ;,, = � � � ��; "J -�'�'_"� � � out restoration in a � '- � �y' _ � � � � �. � �� comprehensive manner. °R� ��- . �- �fi:�� ,,��,, �.�" '�I�� _ . 'fi�� ,�.:k,_,_� ` � ` - 4�,�: �'��-..: �_ �,.. � . ti . . .:� . Restoration Plan Overview � Introduction � Restoration Goals and Policies � • � Existing and Ongoing Projects a nd P rog ra ms � � Prioritization Methodology � Restoration Opportunities • Implementation Plan � Monitoring Plan Restoration Defined WAC 173 -26-020�31 � �i - . �: - "Restore," "restoration" or "ecological ` �� : � ��` `f �. � restoration" means the reestablishment or � �k,�R:� �� ,�.� upgrading of impaired ecological � ' '` '� shoreline rocesses or functions. This ma � �� ,;, ��=��_�� p Y �� ......��_. ��.:��i be accomplished through measures _ __ _ including, but not limited to, revegetation, �_ _ �.� y removal of intrusive shoreline structures ;.�„-,�-�- '�� - � and removal or treatment of toxic � ;�,'�. � ; �� . , materials. Restoration does not imply a �'�' �� s�� -�'�� requirement for returnin_q the shoreline , .�� area to abori inal or re-Euro ean �F. . �: �` =� -� p p ��` �.�.� w, .., settlement conditions. r -f.� �- ��- �� _ �``- � �� s ,C � k .. .� ��. _�. "� Section 3- Existing and ongoing projects and programs . � � � . . . - • Dissolved Metals�past industrial practices • High Summer Water Temps�lack of riparian cover • Lack of Riparian Cover�adjacent land management - • • • '� . i • • `' • ° :�" i � • Spokane Subbasin Plan • Spokane River Hazardous Metals Cleanup Efforts • Riverside State Park�Centennial Trail Management Activities ' �i � . �r i _ ,_• = . � .. � � , � � �-� ,,,: . 0 ._ � __ � ,� • Work w� DOE to include vegetation in hazardous materials cleanup proj. • Support volunteer groups engaged in shoreline restoration activities • COSV project managers should incorporate restoration into projects near shoreline Section Four — Prioritization Methodology Ease of property Public Ownership Public �5� or acquisition Private �1 � Shade Benefit Aspect along stream corridor Scale of restoration Size activity Role w/in surrounding Habitat Connectivity habitat matrix Consistency w/other Supports at least one SMP Goals other SMP Goal Section Five — Restoration Opportunities � Pro rammatic Site S ecific g p , _ Public Education Sites Identified in the ` Inventory Shoreline Regulation � and Enforcement Voluntary and Subject Shoreline Maintenance to Available Funding Conservation Futures City not obligated to Stormwater implement PIan�Development opportunities directly �Standards � ' � � ..� �� Re s t o ra t i o n Table�i. 51�oreline Restoratio� Dpportu�ities Sire Sire Priorih� ID ��i-atenra3� Impsirment ConceptualResrorsuon.�pproaeh 5care O p p o r t u n i t i e s __ �ea oFbankerc+uon dueto high �combinationof�lope bioen�neexing �Q 5pohane �5interflo� ener��directedagainst combinedRithpotentialupstreamflu��ial Ri�er 6ank.Heav il�np-rapped modification�to decrease floa ener� ` S�4anage d a c c e ss and noxious�s e e d • ?0 31 ��adedhabitatnithlarge contxol. IfoFf-roaddri��ingiscunailed, � Ta b l e of Re sto ra t i o n - �pokane concentxationofnoziousaeeds and sez•exalpine�aplings aill de�elopinto Ri�er off-road�ehicletraffic producti�eriparianfoxestha6itat � � 18 11 Sp°kane Fenccalong accessroadcreatcs Create�ildlife undercrossing beneath O p p o r t u n i t i e s �z'�r impasse fornildlife fencedroadc�a3� 1� _� 5pokane Remnantpatckvesofnati��eprauie «'eedcontrolandseedingnithnati��e Conceptual Restoration ,,. , . � r � - �. , F: } � - , . � , '- ,. A ,�...,,, , -� �,�r� , � �� L '� t'k1f F ew w :�': � y� �(t �� .�r�f"� L�° - •t.. d��'"'�' �- h � �'S�gt� Fd• � `� � Approaches �_ � � � ��. +� __ � t.�, h M1 A . 3 \:. .' yb'.Ms�tns� B p Y '. ,��/r ' � � ! k 4'1/ '' �° N-:., � f�y�7�$�:� � ��. • • • •' rf C��}p,�31� ,ti �'`�i �"�'"•�p� #�8 �., i �°` . Riparian Plantings ��g t , i� ' ,�;`��P*s� T�� ,r��` .��.�� p ' .`r �,�*' .,.C� '�}�;.�� 1''i,� � 7 ��'""�■ Strea m ba n k cA�#*'� . J 3'�� , ��; �y� C�pp��34 r Opp#35�4, a `��', , v#`.^� ..;��a � � � � � � �.� `� 'r, •r'�- ��i.f;it��. �� .2S Fa�,. ��w i 3� �,,� .w� . t��`'i. '� '�l�'�i i� . .� a:. Stabilization '�`�� a ` .��; �'` "� �f - ,�?'�'�� r �fl w fJp� fi '�' � .Ir, 1 �,''f�'I � E � .�e �s 7�r.�1 g.�'-` ,;}�ctt St 'M.� '. ' -. t - -- CynP-�33�� __� '�`�`il��`l i:��i �37? Noxio eed Control Maps and : � �*; � _ � � � � representative photos � � ��.-�� .�� `.� �, �rt,` +`, �._ . :� . � � � �� ,�,I� k�F R q,� Y� ��. - . A:A;. Table 4 Restoration O ortunities pp . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . Area of bank erosion due to A combination of slope bioengineering high winter flow energy combined with potential upstream directed against bank. fluvial modifications to decrease flow Heavily rip-rapped energy .��j�_. ��F • � n� � :. �. .� �"� f± : �, � ��s r,r�r �;��ai4 5 � �'sf:�0� } ,� } ��_ � �� .�, � � - - � � —�r- �r��+c�c ��xy�tF f�i'�S P ..� Y� � , , '` � , `� " � f7�oa �� f]��'3•S� L7aS�`- ' ' 4, . `�'`d . . .o:,_ a, ` 3 3 c� F � a . , . .� � _ ��:�:�S;:`� � 4 �� ` '� ° a"� _ �� -� ��r� . _,�- 7 ?4. �� ~ �aFi'�{- . . € .,� . , '0: y� " ,� v . �'.� ?I �� ♦ w�,+ '��k�"; A `.�� ' � . ��1 Fq.�.� . .� ��,� �_'�"� , .�,, � -- o '.:.� _�' , ,� s..., . ._ '�,yp� .,��• f � � t �Pt7�[7��i�� , .' ,v,�... °+T .:�.�'t:�'.'4, I � � - IWAlllkt �P,�k ��.- ,.. ' .�,��,. . #--�� - � , �u.ry�t.u*�•rRi� .�� - , ,� ls�.� �y; _ � �1�J. �. r� ��r1n��a. . .."�s� f , , , - . .= 'r5r',y � �..�_�.�,. � . � ..._. �� _ .^ 4. .. . �� R° � '�'�,� _. �,i,}.�n� rEtaa�xy��PaV1�� a�"f.. " . rM �� 4� '^s.Y.(r.�lMi�i � _ ( _ _.��_..._ .+�.. �' ��- --- � � . .. .. �,�,�, .e.• I�+�- �S � � f� 1 Section Six — Im lementation Plan p Potential ' Trouts Unlimited � • Lands Council Restoration Partners ' Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club • E PA Potential Sources • DOE of Funding • DNR Timeline and Benchmarks for � 5 Steps for Implementation Implementation Timeline and Benchmarks for Implementing Restoration Plan � �� 2 - Meet with Potential ' 1 - Establish a Restoration Partners� Steps � Restoration Identify Opportunities � • Program and Pro�ects 2013 2p14 � 5 - Monitor 4 - Support . 3 - Apply in progress of Funded Restoration partnership for program and pro�ects as able restoration • • � Desi n ublic � • opportunities � g � p funding 2020 outreach etc.,) 2pl 6 2018 Section 7 — Monitoring Maintenance and Adaptive Management � Plan � ' Restoration Site � Monitorin Monitorin g g � Monitorin Method 5-step program � g Contingency � �r� • ' 1 Settin oals and ob'ectives �� Adaptive J J I ' Management 2 Developing monitoring p rotoco I 3 Data collection 4 Analyzing monitoring data 5 Assessing restoration efforts � � � � � �r: Benchmark # 3 — Apply For Funding with Pa rtners � 2016� � Monitoring Document Method Application � � � Document why Document how to Contingency no action was ensure future made action � Adaptive Unable to partner for funding Management for any reason, develop programmatic opportunities. N ext Ste s p � Public Hearing Planning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation Council Review and Resolution CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business � new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information � admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-04-12 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40, 19.60, and 19.70 to clarify home occupations in nonresidential zones; clarify Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify Recreational Vehicle (RV) use in nonresidential zones; establish residential development standards in nonresidential zones; allow "used" manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 1930.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the following areas in the SVMC: 1. Home occupations in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones; 2. Accessory Dwelling Units in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones; 3. Recreational Vehicles in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones; 4. Residential development standards in the Mixed Use Center and Corridor Mixed Use zones; 5. Manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. Draft amendment language to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70 has been included in Attachment A of the Request for Planning Commission Action(RPCA). RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendment on November 8, 2012. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-04-12 CTA-04-12 RPCA for Study Session ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION �`pok,arle �T�Il�� STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-04-12 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17, 2012 HEAx�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: November 8, 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. PxorosaL DESCxirTioN: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.60 to clarify home occupations in nonresidential zones; clarify Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify Recreational Vehicle (RV) use in nonresidential zones; establish residential development standards in nonresidential zones; establish standards for manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. PxoPOlvE1vT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPxovAL C�uTEx�A: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY oF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments as put forth. STAFF PLANNER Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Community Development Department REVIEwED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70 Exhibit 2: SVMC Table 19.40-1 Exhibit 3: Community Development Director Interpretation Exhibit 4: Manufactured Housing Legislation Overview A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12 Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: 10/19/2012 and 10/26/2012 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 10/24/2012 2. PxoPOSAL BACxGxoulvn: The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60, District Purpose and Supplemental Use Regulations—Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Zones, and SVMC Chapter 19.70, District Purpose and Supplemental Use Regulations—Industrial Zones. The following areas have not been fully addressed in the SVMC and require clarification. A brief description of the issue together with the intent of the proposed amendment is provided below: Manufactured Homes in Manufactured Home Subdivisions Issue: The code requires all manufactured homes placed on individual lots to be "new". SVMC defines "new" as not previously titled or set on a property. Manufactured home subdivisions contain individual lots but are designed specifically to accommodate a manufactured home community. In most cases all the homes within the subdivision are manufactured homes. As written,the SVMC would not permit placing a"used"manufactured home within a manufactured home subdivision. Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a"used"manufactured home to be placed within a manufactured home subdivision. The amendment would require double-wide manufactured homes be placed in subdivisions with predominantly double-wide homes and would allow single- wide or double-wide manufactured homes in subdivisions with predominantly single-wide homes. Home Occupations Issue: It is unclear whether a home occupation is permitted in a residence established in a nonresidential zone. Home occupations are a permitted accessory use allowed in all residential zones. The code provisions addressing home occupation is contained in the residential section of Title 19 but is not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections. CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings. Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones. Intent of Code Text Amendment Clarify the status of home occupations in the nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing a home occupation to occur in any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone. Residential Development in MUC and CMU zones Issue: Mixed use zones permit single-family and multi-family development. The mixed use section of the SVMC does not contain development standards for residential development. These standards include density, lot width, lot depth,building height, lot coverage, setback and open space requirements. In the absence of any standard the MF-2 zone standard for density has been applied in the past together with a Community Development Director Interpretation with respect to setbacks. (See attachment) Intent of Code Text Amendment: Provide a residential development standard for residential development in the MUC and CMU zone. The proposed amendment will refer to the MF-2 standard contained in SVMC 19.40 as the standard for residential development in the MUC and CMU zones. The standards contained in the Interpretation are added for consistency with past development. Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12 Accessory Dwelling Units Issue: It is unclear whether an accessory dwelling unit is permitted accessory to a residence established in a nonresidential zone. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) are permitted in all the residential zoning districts. Accessory dwelling units are addressed in the residential section of Title 19 but they are not addressed in the commercial,mixed use or industrial sections. CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings. Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones. Intent of Code Text Amendment Clarify the status of accessory dwelling units in the nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing an accessory dwelling unit to occur at any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone. Recreational Vehicles Issue: The use of Recreational Vehicles in association with residential uses is addressed in the residential section of the SVMC. Residential uses are permitted in mixed use zones and also occur as legal uses in other nonresidential zones. The SVMC does not address RV use outside of the residential section. Intent of Code Text Amendment: Address the use of RVs at legally permitted residences in nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment establishes that an RV can be parked at a residence in a noncommercial zone consistent with residences found in residential zones. Staff's recommended draft code text language to SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70 has been included in Attachment B of the Request for Planning Commission Action(RPCA). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses, providing affordable housing options, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Goal LUG-9: Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. Land Use Policy LUP-9.2: The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include: • A full range of retail goods and services including grocery stores, theaters/entertainment,restaurants,personal services and specialty shops; • Public/quasi-public uses Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12 • Commercial uses that require large land uses but ha�e low employment density and are auto-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries, warehouses and auto dealerships, should be prohibited from either Mixed-use category. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. Housing Policy HP-12: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses. Housing 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. Housing Policy HP-1.4: Encourage mixed-use residentiaUcommercial development in designated areas throughout the City with the use of developer incentives and design standards. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.L Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and j oint planning. Neighborhood Policy NP-22: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and fle�bility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-�ll development. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide increased affordable housing options, expand home occupations, and establish a more consistent regulatory environment. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-04-12 Public noticing has not been initiated for CTA-04-12 as of this date. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends the proposal to allow home occupations and temporary RV use in all zoning districts with a legally permitted residence; to allow accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings; to establish residential development standards in the CMU and MUC zones; and to allow "used" manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions. Allowing used manufactured homes to be placed in manufactured home subdivisions will increase affordable housing options. Consistency with the type and size of predominant homes found in the subdivision would be preferred in an effort to maintain property value. Home occupations are permitted in any legally established dwelling in all residential zones. Allowing a home occupation to occur in legally permitted residence regardless of zone provides residents with fle�bility in housing decisions and provides a use normally associated with a dwelling. MUC and CMU zones permit residential development. Establishing residential development standards for these zones will provide regulatory consistency and certainty for future development. Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted in any legally permitted single-family residence. Allowing ADUs in any zone permitting a single-family residence will provide property owners with increased housing options and may result in more affordable housing. Temporary RV use is permitted in all residential zones. RVs are typically used in residential areas when visiting family or friends. Allowing temporary RV use at any residence regardless of zone will provide fle�bility and consistency to residents. Page 5 of 5 Chapter 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS—RESIDENTIAL ZONES SVMC 19.40120 Manufactured housing. E. Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the predominant manufactured home type within a manufactured home subdivision mav be placed in the manufactured home subdivision without re�ard to the a�e of the manufactured home. CTA-04-12 Proposed Text Amendment Page � 1 Chapter 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS—RESIDENTIAL ZONES I19.40.140 Home occupations. A. Applicability. Any person, group or entity conducting a"for profit" enterprise from a location whose � primary use is a residence must obtain a home occupation permit. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le�all�permitted. Businesses may be exempt from the home occupation permit fee, as established by the master fee schedule,if all of the following criteria are met CTA-04-12 Proposed Text Amendment Page � 2 Chapter 19.60 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MIXED USE ZONES 19.60.010 General requirements. A.Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maYimum height requirements shown in Table 19.60-1. B. Residential development shall meet the minimum residential development standards for the MF-2 aone shown in Table 19.40-1 with the exception that the followin� setbacks shall a�lv: Front yard setback: 20 feet Rear vard setback: 10 feet Side vard setback: 5 feet Side yard—Flankin�street setback: 20 feet Residential use adjacent to a nonresidential use Side yard(without livin� space window): 5 feet Side yard(with livin� space window): 10 feet C. A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been le�all�permitted excludin� caretaker dwellin�s. D. Attached and detached Accessory Dwellin�Units (ADU) are permitted in all zonin� districts that permit sin�le-family dwellin�s and shall adhere to the a�earance of sin�le-familv residences. An attached ADU is an accessorv dwellin�unit that has one or more vertical and/or horiaontal walls in common with, or attached to, the principal dwellin�unit. A detached ADU is a freestandin� accessory dwellin�unit that is not attached or�hvsicallv connected to the�rinci�al dwellin�unit. AccessorX dwellin�units shall meet all provisions contained in SVMC 19.40.100, E. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as�ermanent or tem�orary dwellin�units in anv mixed use or commercial zone eXCept in manufactured home parks. Guests ma�park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin�the occu�ants of a dwellin�unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 da� in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visitin��uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin�unit. CTA-04-12 Proposed Text Amendment Page � 3 Chapter 19.70 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS—INDUSTRIAL ZONES 19.70.010 I-1,Light Industrial district. B. Supplemental Regulations. 10. A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been le�all�permitted excludin� caretaker dwellin�s. ll. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwellin�units. Guests ma�park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin�the occu�ants of a dwellin�unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visitin� �uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin�unit. 19.70.020 I-2,Heavy Industrial district. B. Supplemental Regulations. 8. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le a�ll�permitted excluding caretaker dwellin�s. 9. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as�ermanent or tem�orary dwellin�units. Guests ma�park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin�the occupants of a dwellin�unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month�eriod. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin�unit. CTA-04-12 Proposed Text Amendment Page � 4 Table 19.40-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Single-Family Lot Underlying 40,000 10,000 7,500 6,000 3,600 2,000 Area/Dwelling Unit zone Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling 6,000 5,000 Unit Lot W idth 80 80 65�°� 50 45 20 30 Lot Depth 100 90 90 80 80 80 50 Minimum Front and Flanking Street 35 15 15 15 15 15 15 Yard Setback'�"3' Garage Setback�z��3� 35 20 20 20 20 20 20 Rear Yard Setback�"�3� 20 20 20 20 10 10 15 Side Yard Setback""3' 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Open Space 10%gross area Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 60.0% Maximum Underlying Building Height(In Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50 zone ��, No accessory structure shall be located in the front or flanking street yard, and shall be set back not less than five feet from any side or rear yard. «� Attached garages,where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the principal structure. Setbacks,when adjacent to a private road or driveway easement, are established from the inner �3� edges of the road or driveway and are the same as noted above except the flanking road which would be five feet. �'� Duplex lots in R-3 zones may be a minimum of 60 feet in width. � ; , � � ( . Memorandum i TO: Commiulity Develapment Depaitment I FRO�vI: ICathy McClung,Directar �� DATE: December 4.2403 RE: �etbaelcs far resid.ential developnler�t izi Mited use Centex(MUC) a�id Corridor Mi�.ed Use(CMU}Zones �.`.�,r,.�.�....,�.,.r.�,,.,,.,,..,._..�,�...,.....,.,,....,�..�.,..�.,....,..�.:..Y...,........,,.....,.....NNr.�...�.,�,.,�.�..,,.,... i i Oii August 5,200$I n�.ade ar�admii�zsfxative deternunation rega�c3izzg setbacks foi s�ngle � fanuly residential development in tlle Mixed Use Center(MUC)zoning district. This dcterniixiation updatcs the August St�'deternzulatian tio include residential development in the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU}Lo�lin�dist�zc;l. 'Table 19.60-1 in the Spokane Vailey ' Muizicipal Code addresses setbacics in the MUC and CMU zoiiing districts that apply to conli�xercial uses;l�owe��er Table 19.64-1 does not adclress setbacics fo�•residential tises - that are allowed 'zi�the disfricts. Therefoxe the followine setbacl:s shall ap�ly t� residential itses ia�the I��UC aild CIvIU zoning districts; i I � Front yard setbacic: 20 feet � Rear yard setbacic: 1 Q feet Side yard-�la�lkin�stz�eet setback: 20 feet Side yard (v��itl�.out living space rvindow): 5 feet Side yard(witli Iiving space windaw): 10 feet No accessory structure shall be in fl�e honfi or tlankiilg street yar•d. Oil�erwzse they sliall be setbacIc a n�inin�utlz o�'S feet fi�orn ti�e propei�ty 1ine. ( �� Tlus decisioil zs made uiider t1Ze atifil�.ority of Sectioi�.17,50.41 Q of flie 5pakane Valley I��Iunicip�tl Code. � � I �, - i P:1Comniuiiity Deve(opment\Current PlanninelR4UC-CMU set�ack lvfemorandum.doc I2/4/2�D8 . ` I �i I I � � �C 1�� jc� i � � Memorandum TO: Community Development Department FROM: Kathy McClung, Director DATE: August 5, 2008 RE: Setbacks for single family residential in Mixed Use Center(MUC) Zone Recently the Development Regulations were altered to allow single and multi-family units in the MUC. Table 19.60-1 addresses setbacks in the MUC for commercial uses but does not address residential uses. Therefore, the following setback will apply: Front yard setback 20 feet Rear Yard setback 10 feet Side Yard Flanking street: 20 feet Side Yard: 5 feet w/out living space window; 10 feet with living space window. No accessory structure shall be in the front or flanking street yard. Otherwise, they may be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. This decision is made under the authority of Section 17.50.010 of the Spokane Valley City Code. Fina19/22/08 Introduction and Overview of Manufactured Housing Legislation 2004 Legislation Sets New Direction for Manufactured Housing Regulation The 20041egislature significantly changed the landscape of local land use regulation of manufactured homes by the passage of SB 6593 (Laws of 2004, ch. 256),which became effective on July 1, 2005. This law requires that, to protect"consumers' choices in housing," cities and counties must regulate manufactured homes built to federal manufactured housing construction standards no differently than they regulate other types of homes. A second impetus for the 2004 legislation was, according to the legislative intent expressed in Section 1 of SB 6593,to provide for"affordable homeownership and rental housing." Whatever one's views regarding manufactured housing, it cannot be disputed that manufactured housing today is quite different from the mobile homes of twenty or thirty years ago or more. "Mobile homes," as they are commonly thought of, are no longer being built, and "manufactured housing" has taken their place. Manufactured housing is much more like traditional site-built housing than was the traditional mobile home. The manufactured housing industry contends that there is no appreciable difference between the two. Being generally less expensive than site-built housing, manufactured housing can provide viable housing opportunities for low income families. Prior to SB 6593,Washington cities and counties seemingly had the authority to regulate the location of manufactured homes through zoning and even to ban them entirely. While local governments were (and still are) "preempted" by federal law(the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974) from enacting construction, safety, and energy standards that are stricter than those established by federal regulations adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD had acknowledged that the federal legislation did not limit the authority of local governments to regulate the location of manufactured housing, as long as they do not do so based on compliance or noncompliance with stricter construction, safety, and energy standards. And, in WashingtonManufacturedHousingAssn. v. Public UtilityDistrictNo. 3, 124 Wn.2d 381, 385 (1994), the state supreme court,in dicta,noted that it is "clear that zoning laws that ban manufactured housing or limit them to certain areas are not preempted if they are silent as to construction or safety standards." SB 6593,however, eliminated any previous ability of local governments in the state to restrict where manufactured housing - at least certain manufactured housing - could locate. See RCW 35.21.684; RCW 35A21312, and RCW 36.01225 Nevertheless, cities and counties may under this legislation require that that these manufactured homes: (1)be new manufactured homes (but see below); (2)be set on a permanent foundation; (3) comply with any local design standards that may apply to all other homes in the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located; (4) are thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and/or(5) otherwise meet requirements for a"designated manufactured home" in RCW 35.63160. (Because a "designated manufactured home" under that definition is one that includes at least two sections, cities and counties may still regulate "single-wide" manufactured homes differently than other types of homes.) 2008 Legislation Further Restricts Local Regulation This legislation was amended by the 2008 legislature to provide that cities and counties may not prohibit a mobile or manufactured home from locating in an existing mobile home park or manufactured housing community(existing before June 12, 2008)based on the age or size of that mobile or manufactured home. See RCW 3521.684; RCW 35A.21.312, and RCW 36.01225. Local jurisdictions are still permitted to place age and dimension criteria on manufactured housing that is sited outside of mobile and manufactured housing communities, or on housing to be sited in new mobile home parks or manufactured housing communities (SSB 5524). 2009 Legislation Permits Recreational Vehicles as Housing The 2009 legislature added a further limitation on the authority of cities and counties regarding manufactured/mobile home communities.Under EHB 1227 (Laws of 2009, ch. 79),which became effective on July 26, 2009, cities and counties may not have an ordinance that prevents the entry or requires the removal of a recreational vehicle used as a primary residence in manufactured/mobile home communities.However, cities and counties may enact requirements that utility hookups in manufactured/mobile home communities meet state and federal building code standards for these communities and that a recreational vehicle contain both an internal toilet and an internal shower(unless the manufactured/mobile home community provides toilets and showers). See RCW 3521.684(3), RCW 35A21312(3), and RCW 36.01225(3). Many local manufactured housing ordinances in this state have been on the books for a number of years and do not necessarily reflect the current state of the law or of the industry. The Washington Manufacured Housing Association has developed "model" regulations for local governments to adopt for the purpose of complying with SB 6593. See Documents below. The model regulations do not,however, address the 2008 legislation, SSB 5524, or the 2009 legislation, EHB 1227. Revised Code of Washin�ton (RCW) Definitions "Mobile home" means a factory-built dwelling built prior to June 15, 1976, to standards other than the United States department of housing and urban development code, and acceptable under applicable state codes in effect at the time of construction or introduction of the home into the state. Mobile homes have not been built since the introduction of the United States department of housing and urban development manufactured home construction and safety act "Used mobile home" means a mobile home which has been previously sold at retail and has been subjected to t�under chapter 82.08 RCW, or which has been previously used and has been subjected to tax under chapter 82.12 RCW, and which has substantially lost its identity as a mobile unit at the time of sale by virtue of its being �xed in location upon land owned or leased by the owner of the mobile home and placed on a foundation(posts or blocks)with�xed pipe connections with sewer,water, and other utilities. "Mobile home lot"means a portion of a mobile home park or manufactured housing community designated as the location of one mobile home,manufactured home, or park model and its accessory buildings, and intended for the exclusive use as a primary residence by the occupants of that mobile home,manufactured home, or park model; "Mobile home park," "manufactured housing community," or "manufactured/mobile home community" means any real property which is rented or held out for rent to others for the placement of two or more mobile homes, manufactured homes, or park models for the primary purpose of production of income, except where such real property is rented or held out for rent for seasonal recreational purpose only and is not intended for year-round occupancy; "Mobile home park cooperative" or"manufactured housing cooperative" means real property consisting of common areas and two or more lots held out for placement of mobile homes,manufactured homes, or park models in which both the individual lots and the common areas are owned by an association of shareholders which leases or otherwise extends the right to occupy individual lots to its own members; "Mobile home park subdivision" or"manufactured housing subdivision" means real property,whether it is called a subdivision, condominium, or planned unit development, consisting of common areas and two or more lots held for placement of mobile homes,manufactured homes, or park models in which there is private ownership of the individual lots and common,undivided ownership of the common areas by owners of the individual lots; "Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling built according to the United States department of housing and urban development manufactured home construction and safety standards act,which is a national preemptive building code. A manufactured home also: (a) Includes plumbing,heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems; (b)is built on a permanent chassis; and(c) can be transported in one or more sections with each section at least eight feet wide and forty feet long when transported, or when installed on the site is three hundred twenty square feet or greater; "New manufactured home" means any manufactured home required to be titled under Title 46 RCW, which has not been previously titled to a retail purchaser, and is not a"used mobile home" as defined in RCW 82.45.032(2). "Designated manufactured home" is a manufactured home constructed after June 15, 1976,in accordance with state and federal requirements for manufactured homes,which: (a) Is comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve feet wide by thirty-six feet long; (b) Was originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nomina13:12 pitch; and (c) Has exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site- built uniform building code single-family residences. �'L Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. Plannin Commission g Stud Session Y October 25, 2012 Code Text Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40, 19.60, and 19.70 (CTA-04- 12) �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. B ack round g Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) does not address placing "used" manufactured home in manufactured home subdivisions SVMC does not fully address the following in non-residential zones: • Home Occupations • Accessory Dwelling Units • RV Usage • Residential Development Standards �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. Manufactured Homes in Manufactured Home Subdivisions Issue: SVMC does not permit placing a "used" manufactured home within a manufactured home subdivision. • SVMC requires all manufactured homes placed on individual lots to be "new" • SVMC defines "new" as not previously titled or set on a property • Manufactured home subdivisions contain lots held in individual private ownership and designed specifically to accommodate manufactured homes • In most cases all the homes within the subdivision are manufactured homes Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a "used" manufactured home to be placed within a manufactured home subdivision. �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. P�o osed Amendment � Chapter 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL ZONES SVMC 19.40.120 Manufactured housing. E. Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the predominant manufactured home txpe within a manufactured home subdivision may be placed in the manufactured home subdivision without re�ard to the a�e of the manufactured home. �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. Home Occupations Issue: It is unclear whether a home occupation is permitted in a residence established in a nonresidential zone. • Permitted use in all residential zones. • Not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections. • CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings. • Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones. Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow a home occupation to occur in any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone. �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. P�o osed Amendment � Chapter 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — RESIDENTIAL ZONES 19.40.140 Home occupations. A. Applicability. Any person, group or entity conducting a "for profit" enterprise from a location whose primary use is a residence must obtain a home occupation permit. A home occu�ation mav be established in a residence that has been legallv �ermitted. Businesses may be exempt from the home occupation permit fee, as established by the master fee schedule, if all of the following criteria are met: �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. Residential Development in MUC and CMU zones Issue: The mixed use section of SVMC allows residential uses but does not provide any standards for development. • Standards include density, lot width, lot depth, building height, lot coverage, setback and open space requirements • In the absence of any standard the MF-2 zone standard for density has been applied • Community Development Director Interpretation with respect to setbacks was applied Intent of Code TextAmendment: Provide residential development standards for residential development in the MUC and CMU zones. �� Department of Community Development Spokane � - �'�v. , � . . j`�alley Planning Division , ;�,, P�o osed Amendment p Chapter 19.60 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MIXED USE ZONES 19.60.010 General requirements. A. Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maximum height requirements shown in Table 19.60-1. B. Residential development shall meet the minimum residential development standards for the MF-2 zone shown in Table 19.40-1 with the exception that the followin� setbacks shall apply: Front vard setback: 20 feet Rear yard setback: 10 feet Side vard setback: 5 feet Side vard—Flankin� street setback: 20 feet Residential use adiacent to a nonresidential use Side vard (without livin� space window): 5 feet Side vard (with livin� space window): 10 feet �� Department of Community Development Spokane � - �'�v. , � . . j`�alley Planning Division , ;�,, P�o osed Amendment p Chapter 19.60 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MIXED USE ZONES 19.60.010 General requirements. A. Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maximum height requirements shown in Table 19.60-1. C. A home occupation mav be established in a residence that has been le�ally pennitted excludin� caretaker dwellin�s. �� Department of Community Development Spokane � - � �;v � ` � j`�alley Planning Division ,, ,�;, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Issue: It is unclear whether an ADU is permitted in a residence established in a nonresidential zone. • Permitted in all residential zoning districts. • Not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections. • CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings. • Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones. Intent of Code Text Amendment: Allow an ADU to occur in any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone. �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. Recreational Vehicles (RV) Issue: The standard for RV use in nonresidential zones outside of Mobile Home Parks is unclear. • Permitted in all residential zoning districts. • Not addressed in the commercial, mixed use or industrial sections. • CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings. • Legally established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones. Intent of Code Text Amendment: Provide temporary RV use to occur in any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone. , , �� Department of Community Development "� - Spokane � - � °V;� . j`�alley Planning Division ;-��, P�o osed Amendment p Chapter 19.60 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MIXED USE ZONES 19.60.010 General requirements. D. Attached and detached Accessorv Dwellin� Units (ADU) are permitted in all zonin� districts that pennit sin�le-family dwellin�s and shall adhere to the appearance of sin�le-family residences. An attached ADU is an accessorv dwellin� unit that has one or more vertical and/or horizontal walls in common with, or attached to, the principal dwellin� unit. A detached ADU is a freestandin� accessorv dwellin� unit that is not attached or�hvsicallv connected to the �rinci�al dwellin� unit. Accessorv dwellin� units shall meet all provisions contained in SVMC 19.40.100. E. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwellin� units in any mixed use or commercial zone except in manufactured home parks. Guests mav park and/or occupv a recreational vehicle while visitin� the occupants of a dwellin� unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visitin� �uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin� unit. �� Department of Community Development Spokane � - � ��. , � . . j`�alley Planning Division , - ;�:, P�o osed Amendment p Chapter 19.70 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — INDUSTRIAL ZONES 19.70.010 I-1, Light Industrial district. B. Supplemental Regulations. 10. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le�ally permitted excludin� caretaker dwellings. ll. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwelling units. Guests may park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin� the occu�ants of a dwellin� unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in one consecutive 12-month�eriod. The intent is to accommodate visitin��uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin� unit. �� Department of Community Development Spokane � - � ��. , � . . j`�alley Planning Division , - ;�:, P�o osed Amendment p Chapter 19.70 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS — INDUSTRIAL ZONES 19.70.020 I-1, Heavy Industrial district. B. Supplemental Regulations. 10. A home occu�ation may be established in a residence that has been le�ally permitted excludin� caretaker dwellings. ll. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as �ermanent or tem�orary dwelling units. Guests may park and/or occu�v a recreational vehicle while visitin� the occu�ants of a dwellin� unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 davs in one consecutive 12-month�eriod. The intent is to accommodate visitin��uests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwellin� unit. �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. • � ues lons . �� Department of Community Development Spokane ``' - � ,: # ; , }. j`�alley Planning Division , i�;. . lscusslon se anu acture omes Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 11, 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 Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair � � Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager John G. Carroll � �— Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rustin Hall � �— Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Rod Higgins � � Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Steven Neill �� -- Fred Beaulac � � Joe Stoy—Vice Chair � � Deanna Grif�th, Secretary The Chair hearing no objection declared Mr. Stoy's absence was excused. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the October 1l, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the September 27, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners Bates and Higgins reported they had attended a Planning Short Course offered by the Dept. of Commerce October 5, 2012. Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 1 of 8 VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported the advanced agenda would be updated by the next meeting. He also reported during next meeting Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb would be conducting a short training regarding Planning Commission members using City email addresses. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Deliberations Shoreline Master Program, Shoreline Environment Designations. Sr. Planner Barlow recapped the events to date following the public hearing held September 27, 2012. Ms. Barlow stated during the public hearing the Commission had received verbal and written testimony and requested staff ask the City's outside legal counsel to review it and comment on it. Ms. Barlow reported Mr. Kisielius reviewed the comments and generally felt the City had addressed all of the points which had been raised by Futurewise and their partners. However, staff did feel there were two changes which could be made based on the comments received. In the introduction the suggested change would be to add the words, "and assure". Futurewise requested to change the reference to `no net loss' from a goal to a requirement. Mr. Kisielius felt the reference should be consistent with the WAC. New Text: This is necessary so that the Citv °'""•°';"° ''°T,°'"'�"'°"+will reasonably protect existing uses and shoreline character and assure �� ±��+�� +�+��-,;a� o��, ��r "No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions �� °��°�. Ms. Barlow stated the other change requested was to include all of the state required policies in the aquatic environment section of the report. Staff reviewed the request, conferred with Mr. Kisielius. Mr. Kisielius has recommended the Planning Commission include any extra general policies to cover situations the City did not anticipate. In the aquatic environment this would affect a few structures, primarily docks, piers, bridges, utility corridors. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission during the public hearing she had included two maps for discussion. The first map had three designations reflected the original draft. The second map, identified as the Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map, had the staff recommendations with the suggested expanded environmental designations, Shoreline Residential — Upland, Shoreline Residential — Waterfront, Urban Conservancy, Urban Conservancy—High Quality, and Aquatic, and the defined Ordinary High Water Mark near Coyote Rock. The Commissioners thanked Sr. Planner Barlow for her work and diligence and then discussed a point of order regarding information and the handling the motion on the floor. The Commissioners agreed the Alternative Map and the draft of the Environment Designations presented with the two minor changes was what they wanted moved forward. Commissioner Carroll commented he was concerned the Urban Conservancy — High Qualiry would be confusing for people and felt it should be changed to Natural. However, he would go along with the Commission vote. Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 2 of 8 The original motion was "to accept the Shoreline Designations as proposed". T�ote is 0 in favor, 6 against, the motion fails. Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Draft Environment Designations and the draft Alternative Designation map as presented. The vote on this motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passes. B. New Business: 1. Public hearing on CTA-03-12 proposed amendment regarding setbacks for multifamily development when adjacent to single family development. Chair Bates declared the public hearing opened at 6:38 p.m. Commissioner Carroll read the rules for a public hearing. Sr. Planner Mike Basinger recapped for the Commissioners CTA-03-12, a City initiated code text amendment regarding the setbacks for multifamily development when it is adjacent to single family residential development. Mr. Basinger stated concerns in the past have been of the bulk and scale of multifamily development when it has been adjacent to single family development. As a result council asked staff to look into possible mitigation options. Commissioners, at the study session, asked to have notice sent to the development community. Staff did send a notice to the Spokane Home Builders Association, who in turn sent the message to membership. Mr. Basinger said he did receive some information from one developer and would share it with the Commission in his presentation. The proposed amendment would set a 1:1 relational height setback Mr. Basinger explained it would be predictable for development and easy for staff to administer. However, a concern had been raised that it could create a hardship for some smaller properties to develop. Mr. Basinger then explained the new proposal which would allow a 35 foot building height at the 10 foot minimum setback The setbacks would increase from there. A 50 foot tall building would have be set back 25 feet. There were no further questions or discussion. The Chair called for anyone from the public to testify. Dennis Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Rd.: Mr. Crapo stated he was a developer and he was not opposed to the change. Mr. Crapo also stated he did not feel there was anything wrong with the current regulations and that City struggled to apply the standards consistently. Mr. Cra�o recapped his request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment on property located on 4t near Sullivan. When he made his request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment the Shelley Lake Homeowners became upset. The Shelley Lake Home Owners Association (HOA) gathered together and came to the Commission and to the Council and complained, therefore causing the creation of a developer agreement in the Municipal Code in order to mitigate the impacts. Mr. Crapo stated it delayed his project, did not feel it was fair when he had tried to accommodate reasonable development with the neighbors, cost him money in attorney fees and the standards at the time were adequate. Mr. Crapo then reminded the Commission during the last year's Comprehensive Plan amendment process Mr. Arger came in for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, very similar to his, and citizens became upset, but they are not as organized as the Shelly Lake HOA and Mr. Arger was not required to have a developer agreement. Mr. Crapo stated he felt the rules should apply to Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 3 of 8 everyone fairly or the City would continue to get resistance against development and there would be no certainty for developers. Mr. Crapo said whether the City stayed with the current rules, or had new rules, citizens were going to complain when they did not like new development next to them, and a developer will never know with certainty what rules he will be using if the rules are allowed to change every time development is met with resistance. Mr. Crapo said he felt staff had done a good job preparing a reasonable compromise. Mr. Crapo said when a developer buys properry for high densiry development they pay more for it, they expect be able to get more out it. When asked by a Commissioner, Mr. Crapo said of the two options he would prefer the second one. It would allow a 35-foot building at a 10-foot setback He said, of course he would prefer not to change the regulation at all. He also said he did not feel it would change the resistance in the community. This option would allow latitude to the builder and the developer. Mr. Crapo again, stated, regardless of the change, he still would like to see the standards applied evenly and fairly to everyone and predictability in the regulations is key to developers. Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. Commissioner Neill then requested to ask Mr. Crapo a question. Commissioner Carroll moved to reopen the public hearing. This motion was seconded and the vote was unanimously passed. The public hearing was reopened at 6:56 p.m. Mr. Crapo returned to the podium. Commissioner Neill asked if there could be a third option for smaller parcels which would be difficult to develop under the new standard. Mr. Crapo responded that he felt there is nothing wrong with current standard. The third option would be current regulations. Mr. Crapo said, again, he feels the problem is that regardless the standards single family homeowners are not going to be happy when multifamily development happens next to them. Mr. Crapo said he would like to be cooperative with staff, and will go along with which ever option is proposed. When asked if he had spoken with other developers regarding the proposal, he indicated he had. When asked about those responses he had received from them Mr. Crapo stated he would not speak for any other developers. Mr. Crapo said after discussion he hoped the Commission would look at the proposal from different angles. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Basinger if the Developer Agreements were in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger answered yes there are policies in the Comprehensive Plan which support it, but the Municipal Code is where the guidance for the developer agreements are located. Mr. Basinger also said he had mentioned at the study session this proposal (15 foot option) would not work for all properties, especially the smaller ones. The purpose of the proposal is to add some confidence in our regulations which would mitigate the impacts of multifamily development when it is adjacent to single family development. He reminded the Commission the City would like to try and not enter into developer agreements. Staff would support either option. Both proposals have a relational setback, but Option 2 would allow smaller properties to develop a little easier. Commissioner Hall stated the point Mr. Crapo is making is this type of regulation would make developing more predictable. Mr. Hall asked staff's opinion if this change would make developing more predictable? Would it resolve the problem? Mr. Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 4 of 8 Basinger replied when in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan amendments it should do that. Commissioner Higgins stated this change also makes the City's position, in subsequent Comprehensive Plan hearings, defensible. Mr. Higgins pointed out dependability is gone with developer agreements. He said if this change helps avoid that, he supports it. Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Carroll asked Commissioner Hall if, as an architect, the proposals have any issues he can see. Mr. Hall stated he does not have a problem with either option. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of CTA-03-12, clarify relational setback as modified to 25 foot formula to the City Council. Commissioner Neill stated he supported this amendment. He said he believed it would help with smaller properties and with the City's responsibility to the citizens. He said he thought it would help to alleviate some of the flashback to some of the issues the Ciry has had regarding development in the past. He felt it had good balance. Commissioner Carroll shared he was part of the Planning Commission when Mr. Crapo's Comprehensive Plan was in submitted for approval Mr. Carroll said he thought the Commission did not have the tools to help mitigate the issues. He said he felt this would proposal was a more even way to deal with these issues. Commissioner Hall said it would be nice if people would realize when they buy property next to an open space it is possible development will be coming eventually, but they don't. However, he felt the amendment was a good compromise. Commissioner Higgins thanked Mr. Crapo for his comments, finding them very educational. Commissioner Bates also thanked Mr. Crapo. Commissioner Bates continued saying he felt this would not solve all of the Ciry's problems. We need the tools to make good decisions. We still have a ways to ga Mr. Bates did not want to take anything away from the current proposal; he felt it was a good regulation change. Mr. Bates stated he felt the City needed to improve in the communications area. He said he felt the communication, when it came to Comprehensive Plan amendments, between the City, developers and the neighborhoods needs to be improved in order to try and mitigate the problems we are continually dealing with. Mr. Bates stated he intended to support the proposed The vote on the motion was 6 in favor, the motion passed unanimously. Commission took a break at 7:30 and returned at 7:40 2. Study session Shoreline Master Program—Restoration Plan. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation regarding the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that the SMP Restoration Plan provides a framework for restoration based on the inventory and characterization report, identifies potential sites and opportunities for restoration and protection and provides guidance for carrying out restoration in a comprehensive manner. Ms. Barlow stated the Restoration Plan is a required element of the WAC. Jurisdictions which ha�e impaired shorelines must prepare a plan. Based on the City's inventory we Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 5 of 8 know we have impaired sites. Some examples are bank erosion, degraded habitat with large concentrations of noxious weeds, cleared and disturbed areas, eroding gully slopes, erosion from heavy foot traffic, DOE metals clean-up sites. Ms. Barlow said the WAC identifies items the Restoration Plan must address, which include the following. Identify degraded areas, impaired functions and sites with potential for ecological restoration. Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecological functions. Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs. Identify additional projects and programs to meet restoration goals. Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals. Provide for mechanisms or strategies Ms. Barlow then went on to explain each of the elements of the Plan. Section 1 —Introduction: It is an overview of the requirements and how the plan is intended to work in the SMP update process. It provides the City context for the plan which includes collaborative planning, regulation, preservation of high quality shoreline areas, and aiding community efforts to restore degraded portions of the Ciry's shorelines. The City and restoration partners are intended to work together on securing funding to implement the plan and attain the timelines and benchmarks in the plan as funding allows. In this section there is also an overview of the requirements, and how the plan is intended to work. Section 2 Restoration Goals and Su�ortin� Policies: This section identifies the restoration goals and policies and refers back to the goals and policies in the overall SMP. It summarizes degraded shoreline areas and functions, prioritizes restoration opportunities, prioritizes restoration possibilities with the greatest benefit, establishes a implementation strategy, helps to identify opportunities which contribute towards shoreline restoration efforts, and monitor restoration activities. Section 3, Existin� and On-�oin�Projects and Pro�rams: Summarizes existing factors limiting the functionality of the shoreline ecosystem. Limiting Factors are things which impair the ecosystem processes and limit the capacity of the functions. They are environmental variables whose presence, absence or abundance restricts the conditions. They could be things present like noxious weeds, or adding shade trees. This section identifies the limiting factors and causes and highlights e�sting and ongoing projects and programs that may address those issues. Last, it identifies additional projects and programs needed to achieve shoreline restoration goals. It addresses where the gaps are and what can the City do about them. For example, even though we know there is a program to clean up the toxic metals sites, often the projects do not include vegetation. This will allow us to�gure out where the gaps are and how we fill them. Section 4 Prioritization Methodolo�v: This strategy was put in place to address how to prioritize projects for restoration when it became possible to complete them. The scoring factors are: Ease of property acquisition, shade benefit, scale of restoration Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 6 of 8 activity, role within the context of surrounding habitat matrix and consistency with other SMP goals. Section 5 Restoration O�ortunities: There are two types of restoration opportunities. One is programmatic opportunities (which are not site specific) such as public education programs, shoreline regulations and enforcement, shoreline maintenance, conservation futures and stormwater standards. The second opportunity is site specific opportunities: Where the site could be restored to a properly functioning condition. The opportunities are voluntary. Neither of the opportunities are a requirement. The city is not obligated to fund any of the restoration opportunities. However, the city is required to proactively identify restoration partners and pursue funding opportunities — this requires staff involvement. Ms. Barlow gave an example of how the program could work The City is currently working with State Parks Dept. to stabilize the river bank east of Flora Road. The City would look at what is impaired based on the plan and then look a� what is possible in some of the conceptual approaches. The City has partnered with the State and has designed the repair project for the state to implement. Section 6 Im�lementation Plan: This section address an implementation plan which identifies partners,potential funding sources, timelines and benchmarks. This section has a list of organizations who have in the past demonstrated an interest in protecting the City's shorelines. There is also a list of possible funding sources which are possible if a project should become available for restoration. Timeline and benchmarks for implementing restoration plan are also in this section. Section 7 Monitoring, Maintenance and Ada�tive Mana_eg ment: The purpose of this section is to provide steps for monitoring the successful implementation of this plan and to have a process for monitoring site specific projects. This section also identifies an alternative strategy if restoration benchmarks are not met. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing for the Restoration Plan is scheduled for October 25th 2012. She told the Commissioners the next elements of the SMP to come before them would be the Public Access Plan, then the regulations. Commissioner Beaulac asked how successful could a restoration plan be in an urban jurisdiction, especially when surrounding jurisdictions do not take care of their issues as the City is doing. Ms. Barlow responded each jurisdiction in the state of Washington who have shorelines of the state are required to have a restoration plan, and each of the other jurisdictions are sharing a piece of the river. The City can only assume they are sharing similar issues. Mr. Kuhta also indicated the City's situation provides more opportunity for restoration because most of the shoreline along the river is publically owned land, so partnership is easier. Private groups also help out, for instance there is a group who just helped around the Mirabeau Park area, helping to define foot paths and cleaning up the area. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Kuhta named examples of other cities where shoreline restoration has occurred in highly industrialized, urban areas. Mr. John Patrouch, with URS Corporation shared with the Commission the City has good shoreline here, but it still needs to track no net loss of ecological functions. Mr. Patrouch said the base line is the inventory, if nothing changed the simple wear and tear along the trail would require restoration efforts. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 7 of 8 Ciry can't get the funding, would we would revert to public education. Mr. Patrouch responded the City would do the site specific restoration at same time as programmatic opportunities. Both efforts would be done at the same time. Commissioner Neill asked if a benchmark were approaching and the City was not going to achieve it would it put the city in a position to have to fund a shoreline project over another dedicated project, like street preservation. Ms. Barlow said no, the city would not be required to fund shoreline restoration. She further commented the biologist, Noah Herlocker, who wrote the Ciry's restoration plan, has been recognized as having written some of the best restoration plans around the state. The Plan as written does not obligate funds above and beyond another priority project. The restoration plan will not force the city to hire someone to keep track of the shoreline restoration projects. Staff will keep track and document projects and incorporate when possible restoration concepts identified in the plan. Commissioner Hall asked if staff could foresee any possible conflicts in potential partners. Staff responded there could be some — every group has an agenda and there could be a conflict, in that case they may not be a good partner for that particular project. However, with most potential partners there are commonalities. Staff discussed how projects would come into the City and be reviewed to determine if it requires an environmental review and if these would be a potential for restoration in the project and parmering possibilities. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioners Carroll and Higgins will not be able to attend the October 25, 2012 meeting. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. .� � .�.� Bill Bates, Chairperson �. J Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 10-ll-12 Page 8 of 8