PC APPROVED Minutes 01-10-13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 10, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates -Chair x 1- John Hohman, Community Development Director
Joy Stoy—Vice-chair x Cary Driskell -Attorney
Robert McCaslin x Lori Barlow—Senior Planner
Rod Higgins x 1—
Steven Neill x
Christina Carlsen x �-
Kevin Anderson x Mary Swank, secretary
Chair Bates introduced and welcomed the new commissioners, Christina Carlsen, Robert
McCaslin and Kevin Anderson. Chair Bates stated the rules and procedures for the
election of officers 2013.
Chair Bates opened for planning commission chair.
Commissioner Stay nominated Commissioner Bates for Chair.
Nominations were closed. Vote was unanimous.
Chair Bates opened for planning commission vice-chair.
Commissioner Higgins nominated Commissioner Stoy for Vice-Chair.
Nominations were closed. Vote was unanimous.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was
passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the 12-13-2012 minutes as presented. The
motion was passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner McCaslin- no reports.
Commissioner Carlsen—attended meeting on Monday for orientation.
Commissioner Higgins —attended the bridge presentation last evening and orientation.
Commissioner Stoy—attended orientation.
Commissioner Neill—no reports
Commissioner Anderson—attended orientation.
Chair Bates—no reports.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Mr. Hohman welcomed the new Commissioners, and thanked them for attending the orientation.
He stated that the Community Development Dept. is in the midst of staffing changes. City
Council approved the 2013 Business Plan and that resulted in moving two planners from the
Planning Division to the permit center. It additionally created two permit facilitator jobs that will
replace the permit specialists with more knowledge to do over the counter plan reviews. He
mentioned that City's marketing campaign and the article in the latest copy of the "Inlander."
The article was favorable. We continue our efforts to build on momentum to be the best permit
center and the best staff in the region.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. New Business:
Study session: Shoreline Master Program
Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided an overview of the Draft Public Access Plan, the
requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the guidelines, and covered the content of
the Draft Plan. She highlighted the public access definition, SMA and WAC regulations, and
following points of the Plan:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
• Public access offers the general public the opportunity to reach, touch and enjoy the
water's edge,to travel and view the water from shoreline and adjacent locations.
• SMA requirements in RCW 90.58.100(2) (b) (c) and the WAC requirements (173-26-
221-4)which explain how we are to meet the goals and policies of the SMA.
• Section One — The Introduction identifies the purpose of the plan and the context for
development which is that the city currently has adequate access due mostly to public
land ownership and the Centennial Trail.
• Section Two — Integration with other Community Plans, highlights the other relevant
community plans that were considered in the development of this plan.
• Section Three — Public Access and Public Uses, provides an inventory of the existing
public access and uses, and describes ownership, river and trail access, and parking lot
conditions and the typical locations of uses
• Section Four—Shoreline Conditions, describes shoreline conditions by breaking the river
corridor into 4 segments and discusses the character of land use and vegetation, access
and use of the corridor, and the key use area. This section also introduces future use
areas.
• Section Five — Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements, describes proposed
improvements to existing and future access and use areas
• Section Six — Implementation Strategy identifies that access and improvements can be
voluntary if proposed by a developer and consistent with the Public Access Plan, or
required of a development if the development impairs an existing public access or creates
a demand for public access that doesn't currently exist. Improvements are designated on
publicly owned lands, and assumed to be provided for within the capital improvement
budgets of the state and/or local agencies.
It was noted that the access being discussed as part of the Sullivan Bridge replacement project is
identified in the plan as a proposed improvement.
Commissioner Stoy asked whether or not the City met the SMA requirement for public access.
Ms. Barlow responded that — we are taking advantage of the alternative approach, which is to
develop a public access plan which looks at public access along our whole corridor rather than at
a project by project basis. We believe this plan meets that requirement.
Commissioner McCaslin asked about the acquisition of property for parking.
Ms. Barlow noted that the plan identifies a deficiency in parking at The North Barker Road
access site and recommends that additional parking be contemplated. Because these
improvements would be on public property, funding would be part of the state or city budgeting
process. This plan does not bind the city to acquire land.
Mr. Hohman said the Public Works Dept frequently purchases properties for right of way
projects. I would assume if there was parking to be acquired it would be done by the Public
Works Department. We handle it with a consultant who handles appraisal and negotiations on
fair market value. If there is an opportunity for us to buy, it is presented to the property owner;
we are prohibited from paying anything less than fair market value.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
Discussion followed regarding the type of boat ramp proposed at Sullivan Park. John Patrouch,
URS Corp noted that the bank at Sullivan Park is very steep, and that the access would be for
kayaks and canoes etc...
Chair Bates asked if parking lot paving would trigger ADA requirements.
Mr. Patrouch responded that part of the parking areas are supposed to be ADA compliant.
However, the one at Barker Road south looks too steep to be ADA compliant. I don't think it is
a state requirement for river access improvements, unless you get state or federal money. The
Shoreline Advisory Group expressed an interest in being able to put disabled vets .in the boats. If
it can be implemented, it is desired by the community.
Ms. Barlow mentioned that on Wed. Jan 16, an open house was scheduled. The public hearing
will follow on January 24, and Tadas Kisielius will be present for questions. At that time the
Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to Council.
Other items discussed included a clarification as to whether future trails would be required to be
paved. Ms. Barlow noted that a trail can be as informal as a foot path, and that nothing in the
Plan requires trails to be paved.
Mr. Patrouch noted that motor boats are launched at a boat ramp at State Line and at the airport;
during the spring, Millwood and Orchard Avenue area boats are put in at Felts Field once a year
and taken out once a year. The City does not have any formal boat ramps.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the shoreline management rules would apply to State Parks if
they want to do something to the shoreline.
Ms. Barlow explained that anytime there is any project or development proposed within 200 feet
of the ordinary high water mark, then it is within shoreline jurisdiction, and it is regulated by the
Shoreline Master Program. It doesn't make a difference if the property is publicly owned or the
project is publicly funded. It is still subject to the Shoreline Master Program rules.
Commissioner Anderson asked if somebody wanted to access the trail would you have to get
permission from State Parks to put a trail off of their trail onto the river for access.
Ms. Barlow responded yes.
Swimming access issues were discussed and Cary Driskell, City Attorney clarified that the city
has water safety regulations that require floatation devices when entering the river. If the
Planning Commission is interested I will look at that and get back to you. I don't think the city
would put up signs for a swimming hole.
Ms. Barlow noted that the Plan doesn't recommend a swimming area, but rather notes it as a
typical use occurring along the river corridor.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there is any way we can coordinate the use of the Harvard
Road Access as part of this program when you know Myrtle Point someday will have a boat
ramp. That way you would have ramps at both ends that could handle kayaks, raft, drift boats
and you don't have a fight in the middle of never having it work.
Mr. Patrouch responded that we are working with the Spokane River Forum and talking about
Harvard Road as a river trail spot for drift boats, kayaks etc. The Spokane River Forum is
working on funding to replace the old access at Myrtle Point. The best recreational run is from
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
Barker to Sullivan Rd. We need access at those areas. We will never be able to bring in big
motor or drift boats.
Commissioner Bates asked how much of the shorelines are city owned, state owned and private
owned. Ms. Barlow responded.that over 60 percent of the shoreline is publicly owned. It is
predominately state owned. I will bring information back to you.
Discussion on motor boats followed noting that they are prohibited in most of the reaches of the
river. They are only allowed from the westerly city limits to Centennial Trail Bridge; regulations
and speed limits apply. Mr. Driskell noted that the speed limits and wake zones eliminate motor
boat use in most areas of the river.
Ms. Barlow noted that the timeline for the public access plan would coordinate with the SMP,
and it is a 20 year period.
The Chair declared a ten minute break which began at 7:20pm
Use Manufactured Home Discussion:
Community Development Director John Hohman discussed issues related to manufactured home
regulations. He noted that on November 8, 2012 staff proposed a change to the zoning
regulations that would allow used manufactured homes to be placed in manufactured home
subdivisions. This discussion is intended to be a follow-up to determine if the Planning
Commission believes that staff should approach City Council to discuss if used manufactured
homes should be allowed city wide. The current regulations allow a manufactured home to be
placed on any residential lot, but require the home to be new. This is applied across the board to
individual lots and to manufactured home subdivisions. When we discussed manufactured homes
on individual lots throughout the city, the Commission was deadlocked. The consensus was to
wait until the new members came on board to have the discussion. We have had a few
individuals over the last few years request the code be amended to allow used manufactured
homes throughout the city. Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan discusses affordable housing,
inventories and other elements that help guide housing decisions, and Chapter 10 discusses
protecting and preserving the character of neighborhoods. Affordable housing is an issue
throughout the city. However, you also need to consider if this action would impact established
neighborhoods. The City has not requirements relating to manufactured home condition. The
home may be in good repair, or not. How would the surrounding residents feel about that?
Manufacturing housing legislation was also discussed, and it was noted that the city code is in
compliance with state law as it is currently written. Legislation allows cities to regulate the age
of manufactured homes.
Mr. Hohman clarified that a manufactured home in a subdivision would typically involve a
privately owned lot. A manufactured home park would be a single underlying property owner
and the properties leased to the person owning the manufactured home. We do have several
subdivisions throughout the city that were anticipated to be manufactured home subdivisions.
The Commissioners discussed potential impacts of placing an older used manufactured home in
an established neighborhood, the difference between a mobile home, constructed prior to 1976,
and a manufactured home constructed to a different standard subsequent to 1976, and the fact
that the code does not regulate aesthetics or manufactured home condition.
Commissioner Neill noted that he supported allowing used manufactured homes and establishing
an age limit.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
Commissioner McCaslin stated his concern about limiting the homes due to age and supported
allowing homes newer than 1976. I support manufactured homes in communities to allow
affordable housing.
Commissioner Higgins indicated he did not think this was a major issue. The fear is someone
putting an older home in a new development. That's not likely to happen since they have HOA's.
Mr. Hohman stated that more than 90 percent of manufactured homes are never moved after
placement.He suggested that the Code consider condition, rather than age.
The Commission agreed unanimously that staff should discuss a code text amendment with City
Council to allow used manufactured homes to be placed on all residential lots?
Commissioner Anderson also noted that the 1976 date should be the baseline, but aesthetics
should be considered
Commissioner Stoy noted that lots that are going to be affordable are not going to be in major
developments. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is newer that 1976. But upkeep is
suggestive. Commissioner Higgins stated that the— 1976 date "Fits quite well."
Chair Bates noted that the Comprehensive Plan mentions affordable housing.We have an
obligation to look at these things.
Mr. Hohman indicated that staff will move forward with the discussion.
Password and email address discussion.
Ms. Barlow explained how to access email for the Commissioners. If you need any assistance
contact Greg Bingamen.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Mary Swank, PC Secretary
Date signed r /2 iel3
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6