Loading...
Agenda 01/24/2013 sookane Valle Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2013 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 7, 2013 and January 10, 2013 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. NEW BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing- Shoreline Master Program Update-Draft Public Access Plan 2. STUDY SESSION: a. Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13 X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR KEVIN ANDERSON SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP CHRISTINA CARLSEN LORI BARLOW, SENIOR PLANNER ROD HIGGINS ROBERT MCCASLIN STEVEN NEILL CART HINSHAW,SECRETARY JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR W W W.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: January 24, 2013 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Shoreline Master Program Update - Draft Public Access Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A Study session was held on January 10, 2013. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed a Draft Public Access Plan for the SMP Update. The Public Access Plan is the fifth phase of the Shoreline Update process, and is an elective component of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)) identifies the principals and standards that must be addressed in SMPs. But, WAC 173-26-221(4)(c) also notes that a jurisdiction may develop master program provisions for an effective public access system, rather than addressing public access on a site- by-site basis. The Public Access Plan provides an evaluation of the existing public accesses to the City of Spokane Valley's (COSV) shorelines, a description of existing recreational uses, and recommendations to improve both public access and public recreational uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. It will be incorporated into the SMP and is supported by other SMP elements. This plan is intended to be a coordinated planning document that can be used to support planning efforts of other agencies responsible for recreational opportunities in the shoreline, including the City Parks Department and Washington State Parks. Staff will discuss the Draft Public Access Plan, and the WAC guidelines applicable to the Plan. The Draft Public Access Plan was routed to the Technical Review Group, and several minor comments were received (see attached). Slight changes were made to the document to address the comments, prior to the release of the public review draft. At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the document, conducting a public hearing, considering public input, and finally providing a recommendation to the City Council. The draft Plan is attached for your review. Attorney Tadas Kisielius has completed a review of the Draft Public Access Plan to identify areas where the draft plan may exceed, meet, or fall below the state guidelines. His input was incorporated in to the draft during document development. Mr. Kisielius will attend the Planning Commission public hearing to discuss his review of the document and answer questions. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on January 4, 2013. The notice was provided consistent with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented, recommend approval with modifications, recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. 1 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the Draft Public Access Plan be accepted as presented. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Public Access Plan—Provided with January 10, 2013 packet 2. Chris Guidotti,WA State Parks, email dated December 13, 2012 3. Jamie Short, DOE, email dated December 12, 2012 4. Randy Abrahamson, Spokane Tribe of Indians, December 4, 2012 5. Chris Guidotti,WA State Parks, email dated November 30, 2012 6. Paul Knowles,Spokane County Parks, email dated November 29,2012 7. Michael Stone,City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation,email dated November 29, 2012 2 of 2 Cari Hinshaw From: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) [Chris.Guidotti©PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:14 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Shoreline Master Program - Public Access Plan Lori, Thank you for providing a copy of the draft public access plan for our review. After thorough review I would like to say that I believe the plan does a good job of balancing public recreational needs with resource protection. The inventory seems to be thorough and accurate and does a good job of identifying public access opportunities in Spokane Valley. You have Washington State Park support for the public access plan as drafted. On a side note, Riverside is now somewhere around 14,000 acres since we now manage the northern half of the Columbia Plateau Trail as well as a bunch of land for DNR and Avista on Lake Spokane. Chris Guidotti Riverside Area Manager 9711 W Charles Rd. Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026 (509) 465-5064 1 Cari Hinshaw From: Short, Jaime (ECY) [JSH0461 @ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:28 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Sikes, Jeremy (ECY) Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update - Technical Review Group Hi Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft Public Access Plan. Overall, I think your team did an excellent job cataloging existing access opportunities as well as future needs along the river corridor. One recommendation I have is in regards to the Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements in section five. It would be helpful to link the recommendations in table 5-1 to the applicable goals/policies by adding a paragraph that describes the proposed improvements within the policy framework. I'm thinking specifically of the following: • 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access • 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use • 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities • 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers • 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements • 10.6 Design of Access Measures • 12.25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions • 12.45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities • 12.47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities I also suggest the following edit on page 25 to maintain consistency with WAC 173-26: However, if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access (physical or visual), then the City con typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. As always, feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks! —Jaime Jaime Short Shoreline Planner WA State Dept of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Spokane, WA 99205 509.329.3411 From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow @spokanevalley.org] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: Short, Jaime (ECY); Lindsay, Robert (DOHi); Divens, Karin A (DFW); McCann, Jacob (DNR); Mike Stone; 'Bekkedahl, Robin'; 'randya @spokanetribe.com'; 'Dave Lamb'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District; Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); Griffith, Greg (DAHP); Steve Worley; 'kcooke @spokanecounty.org'; 'khall @landscouncil.org'; 'jwright @spokanecity.org'; 'Ray.Oligher @cityofmillwood.org'; 'jpederson @spokanecounty.org'; 'pknowles @spokanecounty.org'; 'roylene.rides-at-the-door @wa.usda.gov' 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 Public Access 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 Public Access Plan and Figures. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than December 13, 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow @spokanevalley.org. If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please let me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission review, public hearing and Council Review. It is our goal to identify and work through issues as each component is developed, rather than at the end of the process. If you have any questions about the materials, or process, I may be reached at the contact information below. Thank you for your participation Lori Barlow, 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.spokaneval ley.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 2 December 4, 2012 Lori Barlow Senior Planner RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master program update Ms. Barlow: Pursuant to RCW 27.53.060 It's hard to believe that cultural resources wasn't even mention once in this shoreline plan. As you already know the Spokane Tribal use of this area was extensive in years prior to arrival of euro-Americans, clearly this area was a place of great cultural and economic importance to our tribe. The Spokane Tribe of Indians does express interest in projects that impacts cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP). There are archaeology sites that have been gathered and sent to the SHPO office that may be eligible for the National Register. While surface evidence or artifacts and human remains may be sparse after years of non- Indian occupation and development, evidence below the surface may still be in place and artifact and human remains may be entering the site through hydrological processes, and other means. The Spokane Tribe recommends a cultural survey and sub-surface testing and that an archaeologist monitor all earth moving activity and construction & staging areas, This project must cautiously be planned with the following qualifying provisions. 1. That an Inadvertent disturbance plan be implemented into the scope of work. 2. An archeologist monitoring all excavation activity. 3. Redesign the site to avoid further impacts to all archaeology sites. 4. You will need to consult with the Spokane Tribe to resolve issues to protect the sites. If question arise, contact my office at(509) 258 —4315. Sincerely, Randy Abrahamson Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Spokane Tribe of Indians Cari Hinshaw From: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) [Chris.Guidotti©PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:28 AM To: Patrouch, John Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: RE: Spokane Valley Public Access John, Sorry for the tardy response, I have been out of the office. You did indeed clearly, concisely, and accurately capture State Park's stance on trail access points. Chris Guidotti Riverside Area Manager 9711 W Charles Rd. Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026 (509) 465-5064 From: Patrouch, John [mailto:john.patrouch @urs.com] Sent: Tue 11/13/2012 9:56 AM To: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) Cc: Lori Barlow (Ibarlow(aspokanevalley.org) Subject: Spokane Valley Public Access Good Morning Chris, I wanted to check the validity of the following paragraph that we have included in the draft Public Access plan. I received most of the information from Kaye and wanted to check with you to confirm that this is the position of state parks. Thanks for your help. In addition to the policies articulated in the CAMP, we understand that Washington State Parks discourages uncoordinated, multiple trail access points, both formal and informal. State Parks prefers to limit access points to planned locations in order to maintain the integrity of the trail and of the natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the trail. Parks has articulated this goal in conversations with COSV staff and has taken this position in response to specific development projects that have requested access to parks property or the Centennial Traillill . John C. Patrouch, PE URS Corporation 920 N.Argonne Road, Suite 300 Spokane Valley,WA 99212 Direct 509-944-3819 office 509-928-4413 iohn.patrouch @urs.com 1111CONFIRM This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient,you should not retain,distribute,disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 1 Cari Hinshaw From: Knowles, Paul [PKNOWLES@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:11 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Bottelli, John Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update - Technical Review Group Hi Lori! Thanks for the email! I have a few initial comments: 1. Figure 5-1 "Public Access Plan": I'm assuming that "Boat Launch" means non-motorized?The wording is a little misleading and could be changed to specify type of launch. 2. All figures:Your maps (figures) end at the eastern boundary of Millwood, but exclude the portion of the CoSV's shoreline west of Millwood.Any reason why? Otherwise, looks good! Best, Paul Knowles Park Planner Spokane County Parks (509) 477-2188 From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow @spokanevalley.org] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: 'Short, Jaime (ECY)'; Lindsay, Robert; 'divenkad @DFW.WA.GOV'; 'Jacob.McCann @dnr.wa.gov'; Mike Stone; 'Bekkedahl, Robin'; 'randya @spokanetribe.com'; 'Dave Lamb'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District'; Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); 'greg.griffith @dahp.wa.gov'; Steve Worley; Cooke, Kevin; 'khall @landscouncil.org'; Wright, Jo Anne; 'Ray.Oligher @cityofmillwood.org'; Pederson, John; Knowles, Paul; 'roylene.rides-at-the-door @wa.usda.gov' 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 Public Access 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 Public Access Plan and Figures. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than December 13, 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow @spokanevalley.org. If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please let me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission i 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 Loti Baalow, 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.spokaneval ley.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 2 Cari Hinshaw From: Mike Stone Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 1:38 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Public Access Element of the SMP Hi Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Public Access Plan. In general, it seems accurate and I have no issues or concerns with it. I do have a couple of edits or suggestions that you may wish to consider. 1. The table of contents refers to the "Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan" It really should read Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. On Page 3 the second paragraph, it acknowledges discussions with user groups and property owners. The Valley Parks and Recreation Department is not listed and I believe that they should be. 3. On Page 6 under Section 2.1, again, the Parks Plan is referred to as "comprehensive" and it should read "master". 4. On Page 8 under the footnotes, again the word comprehensive should be replaced with master. 5. On Page 9 in the table at the top of the page, under Plantes Ferry description the letters SC are used. Yet the key does not include SC. Perhaps they were meant to be CS instead. That is all my edits. Thanks again. Michael D. Stone, CPRP Director of Parks and Recreation City of Spokane Valley 2426 N. Discovery Place Spokane Valley, Washington 99216 509-720-5400 509-688-0188 Fax mstone @spokanevalley.org ce Z W 0 < J O Ci- J ce < o_ v) ce W W U � Q V) Q � 0 a) Q Z u � o � w m Q '� cn Z D _ •� o LL J O. O 0 ILI I- U U N ce LL = CD L. ›- 0 < CO *g 0 1 i ce V v D � � a I. I � a+Fd 4 , s s, `d d �Je c eie/' 4*, it dt o a s ? 4,1filib ill rte .,/, od�Jd q-,F heirilo.�di Th JF ° .J 1 i if , ' / '1.144/4'''4./44,4 111:4711/4/1' '`off !d � ,! =d ro = � � •a r / ilia, I o Y rosy/f I!,` a O In 11 T N C tp O f �, M 0 do ^ N C � � �s CD ,,/A�� � � '- s 0 �` ///�� Q� m ^ 4 C r' N r ^ VI .. f6 N O !I 1 IV U] C fi 13 f m 4.'. p N o f � & _ V W m V D 3 u u O .O V N O f } 41 = N N E D CD CD Oa O c� �a •.� LT t,,, D N a Q 0 v I E •.• �O O O V - a ).� } O N 0∎ CD C a = N �> a ., O ' a) U a ~ � — U Lu Q O o v 0 OE _ 0 o c) Ov c� = Z V 0- C3 0 I— J u 1.1 1..1 u 0 H u El . `,,, 0 •v IN.• % . Z wo,4 ,c‘zt ilit's% ti caci � cp • t ) �w • w i . .1100ik tij Z WellZ Ilea ON w � �ti w MI• Zi % Z ' . R a N• O a y 40 CD L_ O 4 imic ;� s s ∎ •■ V a O ..... 0 C 16 Q . . 0 s a 0 a N. � s Q- V y am o o 0, O o V CL O � •O 0 4� a 1 .0 Q ftCftC E -( a• o a� = 3 0 � 0- o ,� a) V o = O •� � � � s o f E3 } a a _ �, N CIO 0 s V V > O ' V N - - = a .40.. ►a3 o 0 ini_ a a a 01 , oa, 2 a 0 0 _.. 0_ 0 a y to = �� Q 0 ._ = V V _ y V y .i y ' V •- a0 a ;= � 00 ai CLi a72 = s CD w= •uH D y 0 _ N � y � iH � O N I > i H �° •, y y y y a a� w 'v) so 1100, a i y i V a V 0 , >(N a10 MI ._ o z 4- 0 u _ •`-' � — 4.1 0 — N a — M , - 0 °' sZI = ' s a D N -a � o0a. � • ■ O i� } cn CD } u N en N' -0 •V V L t_ a) i } tn O a) } O -0 V O 2 8_ 3 E o -0 O } a E au E . 0 O N O } •� �„ '� t„ C c i 0 .O E 1 O a •— O -0 O N p 'V v 6 p 0 Q D CT n 0 a ul N# ' E •3 D N 'E 0 a) -0 •Y c CD U) a� } o 73 ao C o •S Ce c N -Q = to O } s = i O C N N .N O) O O -C2 .cn g k.) 4- N D V V c L D N Q> Q .N CD 0 _Q V V C vi .� V �' t .� O a -Q Q w to O s V -0 0 0 0 ETC 073 N ci C V O D s V i a) 0 0 i El w N O Ce 0- N O 0_ v> .= O Z •5. 1 14 Alo S r r / pi. M rr I l y P n . i . . °-{ Y! el Y! 0 C U1 w E - f y f E r o 2 LL 0- CO CO CO 0 1 1 1 I I v � = ....,. ^� rl] C. . r c . , d, ti,0 >,.:.J H : 13) I- 1Dm 1 " iä _w _ • V — I 1 1 c> =° U tr ? t• 2 +a, 41' . ., 1j! a.. i: a. .4' S* co .g: 4:- .,... . Q. co .... . ',, - 4- 0 .■.6 0 0. -4 iry ,+r, •,' 4 14 0 V .7: • •- -a <3 -t' •-t. --,-, ."-'i z. a:.? * ,N ••1''''.'.4,, ..,;"k'G' ,,.. 4:1 c4 2-4 t-4,,...R.& ■0 0:PA e 04.1:4.1 (•-)‘. .7... a) tn _c c •- o c o -o •4- _c tn c _ •_ a •_ 3 0 tn c o tn •_ tn o tn 4- c 0_ o c a) kJ a) a •_ o >...., t.) tn t.) 4- i■ • t.) a) t.) C a) •■ 4CC tr) C 4CC a) p C.3 C •■_ D >,.... 73 1 o D 0 _ E tho) E •_ _ c.) 1_ •_ ■ a) ja •■ 4- 4- E D -C D E 0 o in_ D V) 0- 1- I I U I 0- I I ■ .I I 0 Ill■ CN CO t• I 0. o 4- V w = V •_ = O a a Aa •= � _ -a 6- O a i. 0 = H t O H V a V = V 0 p O a a as 4 U ~ D c o O N N a a } Q C N - V V O Q i a D s 0 o O V U' Q } a O 1- N - o Q - , to O L -1_ s N V O V N - • V O 'tn S- > �N N t„ N , • v 0 a O Q •0 0 D O • } O 0 s } N O } a N Q o tn O _ Q� O Q w w 0 a) a) D C C •— N a E Cl) 4- V V v -0 0) -I— N V O } x = O 2 2 O N O t� a Q a Q t) Q a) Q V ei C w 0 ce c 0_ 0 o_ o ._ m ce n D O a s E * a N s o0 0 > T � � a = � n �o o, • •s.. 73 a) Wn.iod Jan!d auadodS 0 a s 0 to -I— C 0 a) E� . 4g a) H cal 6 -4s 0 o •• - • •l -a _ _a� o = 14 • HoJi io!uualueD j.o spueuj . ° 0 — •in L Er 3 O •(n V 46 4,: -� O a W V = c •_ � � O O v a • G -CI 7:1 a X a Q v� O u,C C V N ce = a_ 0 N 2 • 11.1F N a I ow luawa6ouoW uo!4DD!}!ssoo ms 's da pd aIpIS a p!sa an! c 3 *- 0 I— c- C0 _ D . O u) •_0 0 . 6 " ,V LL � ace s 0 0 A • V) VIII uold Ja4sDW uo!1baJDad/s1a Dd ASOD ct +-) .R cl.) 0 O ;64 ,c >%.': ? cu e v1 a .� O v1 t t > cu u ct � F c ' 5)) 7J) `8_, 8 7J) 's 1 -5 r. a 3 a) 4 o .it dtusJ uMQ o ,-.• 0 o a V L V tg n Q u _ 0 V upi.J1d e o w > 0 — •— s -2 Iraq JaA T Cl) n •- . v) 2 0. �, auulods V I V a SS OOV cA N C'7 •H JOAIII o C "' SSaOO V1 0 a� _ O M �, °C 0 ZMS V a o 'y O w &o H V) _ 0 L ssaaav c O 'R.II\ ..... ilki tl 4 �G � `) + - ,7 L J at°o . ti rI, e a9 Q7 r x q, h1 F�A} Ill k C r li Or,.�d 'n...4,Y bra "� rIT ,t-;° . :� N V ,, - :� _ Y Q d : . U ;$ • .0 �' ', m D Z:3 - 0. W _ 'r A. - •r . Q} ji RUC It CID r c a) - lail, - .-: __ 01141 . W _ 1 •� L - 1. r....... a,) w ,- tviii*v ti ,/ fr, (� i I rrii r 11F.) ` CI} C3 'kt ^ lit L1 O 1 + 6 I h • 12 KJ' 4. L1 rd rd } 0 i-2, -z: t . } > O > > O.— v v (/) O ■`If F 1 -L U 'L/ - D OL CI rd •— � � N •- . v N . N C U 0 ,� �, } 0 O 0 F —8 .L■ =. D A. s mce � • � v) a N " 41 N a a Kj . (L) Li4 , 0 — a �. " 0 U LI V .5 121 Q V cio -� -a -La- .-� v 1) '9 D � OL �1 —. : I ) --1 ■ 4d] H •— M • 0 0-); •— •— m '_ 0) V a) u) 7.-2., bll a) .1.; t, .L.:... V) V s v) ii■ u_ M- 7 El El u +,a W dzi r 1 O V Y v) r a R 1r .-.yl S W y as c 'w Lti .a Mil■ I 11 ? ^' lb'� i 4. " ` M • N I/ , ' t F '_ ..• zN r i L V Q ' l •∎ - ■ 4 6 cam 'I= _--- O • Rs 1 3: 7.1 1 #. W y •■ N F -I- dR LA °A 0 V M. 6y a) u) ,...., 1., .... . .. _, .... ,g2 15 Z cc ,y _ C J _.'l 4 N 0 4_ c� •> a •= � O N •_ -0 N _0 D a Q a o l U p a 0 -0 2 '— O .. a a •_ 0_ O C N O N '} N o 6 •N 0 I ow (pa) 0 V > o N _ •— ,> V N V 5 - u O 0 .O 0 '� a •C Q V) 0 .- C w0- 0- C0 • • • • • H } . i w N _ 0 O 7 O N V 0 -0 O O 0 N V o V N > N 0 Nce D V a °' •– — • 0 i 0 s - � a t/1 } �° a) O I C IL- 2 4) vo w � > � � � E c oQ > a)_ • a o a) 4( } 12 O • N 4 0 N E O V O u D = LQ IL- V OQ I `i } N -c N' t cn Q V y .2 E v O 4-a Q a N 0 Q 0 i N N } S . a'CI O O C a }y D Q V 0 ' c O N Q a _ Q ._ 0 — c O N c N ti) a 0 a CD O 1— } u O N O } C O 3 a) •7) • . y N } • } c N c V a •E N o o o V a V " c -- 0 00a� O N E a >Q y N N N } O s " s a � C } W } 4- ,} 4- N 0 N a O } 1_ N a •� O ? 0 y N N (1) .0 - 0 > O Nw 0s Q i O N c cL Q a O o 3 —s O } > = O CD s -0Q Ow � UQ Qs _ c N v O s - Q y — O O to O O t y V N c Q\ -o -0 Q 6 r ED-o 0 0 'a } c am N y y i 0 } 4 Q O a) N .E .5 O O O c o •y o Q m 0 J Q O v, O 0 •y 0 CL tn 4- wEv) o_ QoQ O = i O L c" E I w , . . (i) > -,, 0 . 0 1 0 1 Oa) 4- 0 4-ii. 4- i_ i.L o 1- o L t = " 4- _, H i O a O H ° •; w c E E _ E ° • C " ° uE�∎ a > = > = = = Eo • a a O - O ._ i - i i - = O V � Q Q.y O Q.y > O O O CD N D ~ WN uiCt MU ti) LU 0 u I a Elm _ • = h ma H _� �o W h •- ri a V V CD -a a_ a = Q < 0' a > w im i 45 _> o V a p 0 i. a. ) a O u .H a° Q DQ CL CL tn swooJgio to a) V V Q Ssa»b vay 73 4uaua4aaall a a) L o a) edasspuo --7 s -12 N v I tn 1111 _c tn u. a > a an et c°e Q c a > a° o •— o a °' Q a) ,C C •H - a = i V ••— a a o .y i >% w W co co Z to N a a) i .= Q ,i IL _ a •- a - a _ DE a a -0 to _ •- a am Q gt ma V 15 CL Q o = V r Q i. a a m u Q �i �° o Q = i W H O .0 0 O 72 a to a s o a •— i a w ..... a ° Q o a a to co V w a. sse y N 0 a) bab -a _ O 1) tin aaw!� II o - � > a = �L a Q a •- O et _ = a° _ > i. 0 a W O O as •- > — .- L u - H .- i a i H — >, V a p � O t 02 Z H ° i } •N CI � ° -0 } • E E .43 0 43 a v) � a) 0 .— c CD O } _ -5 - _ ._ 0 3 O } .— I- v) c r O 0- O O s -0 N O O s O • - s O 0 s a) 3a) a a) 0a) W } a) E N } N cn — 0 a. 'DUO 'D v) } O s 4� C vi s 4- t/) O v) t/1 D D i vi c N D vi LL ma O - ti) i O 0 CL M^ n_ N a. c } a w 0 N J L I a \ w 0 •- Q 0 UL a a 1- 4o w O a) O Q Q a)C .N L- W C v -3 e- O v N D Q CS CL • i a . . . . N ... .. . N 0 111 V Q . !It 1 — z Al.— CL L Ro ti) ,. 4 .- N . .[1.m V I '` LL If ti' - U .r �t i I I ` r V .. 1. - r n a. a 10 s gyp§ ��.. }J • • E ', 1 r m �4;' " ILO :rJ I , M ' - • 0 . m •■ I mi .... ' — _ - a 41 l' 1V C i - . a) g i ..i. . ,,_,,,„ . ,,„:„. I , - � r, ' - V I + S I . 4 - ' ... � � i � w a O 0 CL _ .2 h 43) 411 • O = y = w O u O -0 ,42 -014 O O O O Q u ,_ a 1- 1- E o o) u O O O O H = O O L a N O Q O •- w .- u •O } uy use o_ - V) O = O O EL -- O -- Q > c O > _ - O .Q ∎ O -0 s 0 _ t � � • H ,v O 0_ = .E u .= O 4— . O ^ 73 D -a a a O O -a > = O _Q >` = Q•— o O a D = D O = o E •= •- O 'I' > ' CL V U. s u V u ._ H O E N N L .N a) E O } V D L C N O O I �u 4.4- cNi� N 0 . u %_ _ 0•_ a i } u O v) c V) O } N O . N %_ � V N . C II v' N O N 6 O -Q 0 E V a , •— N -0 0- N0 c O N O •— c� O -0 V O - N O E u . ' a a) ❑ L • 0 •O .- c I 0 —,i1 N 4) o D a) vi) •> o a) N E V a) . >. DC o Q_0 o a) o _ V CI— Q •— a) N a) a) tn 0 0 • ce E . c c E •. V E 0 C 0 C o 0. 0 U D u -I- 0 N D U N a) k.) c •. U N 0 C o � -0 — Q N 0 ."iii a " a) cn = 0 E0 a o U U _ a o0 O cn ° v C o L C — J D O 3 O ; aoa ; i � � a 0 > 4— 0 0 N 0 0 N /o o D 0 0 a) N V Q L 4) L:1— I) II Ce o 0 oC CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: January 24, 2013 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-01-13 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) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Chapter 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, was amended by City Council on September 25,2012 (Ordinance No. 12-022). BACKGROUND: On September 25,2012,City Council adopted a significant amendment to Chapter 19.120,Permitted Use Matrix,making a number of changes,mostly to the office and mixed use zones. Most of the changes expanded the uses allowed in these zones. One change recommended to the Planning Commission and Council was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)zone. This proposal would restore Townhouses as a permitted use in the NC zone. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendment on February 14,2013. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-01-13 CTA-04-12 RPCA for Study Session ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PLANNING DIVISION Spokane alle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-01-13 STAFF REPORT DATE: January 17,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 14, 2013,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. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone as a permitted use. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: 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 amendment as put forth. STAFF PLANNER: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.120 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 Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/1/2013 and 2/8/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 1/22/13 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.120,Permitted Use Matrix,to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. On September 25,2012, City Council adopted significant changes to the Permitted Use Matrix,mostly by expanding permitted uses in office and mixed use zones. One change was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the NC zone. This was the only residential use permitted in any of the commercial zones and it appeared to staff to be a mistake when the original Permitted Use Matrix was adopted. Staff has re-evaluated this change and now recommends adding Townhouses back as a permitted use in the NC zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use residential and commercial in neighborhood centers and adding Townhouses as a permitted use would allow some flexibility for NC zoned properties to have a residential component. 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 in neighborhood centers,maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Goal -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. 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. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill 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): Public noticing has not been initiated for CTA-1-13 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 Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zones. Page 3 of 3 O N ✓ m � O d y w O O •pul i(neeH Z-I •pul 416!1 aoedS uadOm.ied Iel3.1eww00 Ieuo!6aZI le!3.1aww03 A}Iuniuwoo le!3.1ewwo3 pooyaogg6iaN al e3!j4O ao!}}O uap.ieO esil pawl.iopp.io3 .ia;ua3 asN paxq a N a) N N Q rn E a) •- d C 0 Q • a o V a) C o U o S3IVN Z-dW a I,-dW a -N £ 21 Z21 s w I- I Spokane Valley Planning Commission Special Meeting Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 7, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 4:00 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 4,4 John Hohman, Community Development Director Kevin Anderson 4,4 E Cary Driskell, City Attorney Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins r Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steven Neill Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin Mary Swank,Office Assistant Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Can Hinshaw, secretary IV. PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING Commissioner Chair Bates called the special meeting to order at approximately 4:00 p.m. Mr. Bates explained how the training meeting would proceed and stated the purpose was to go over the Planning Commissions Policies and Procedures. Commissioner Bates welcomed the new Planning Commissioners: Kevin Anderson, Christina Carlsen, and Robert McCaslin, as well as thanked staff for all their hard work. Planning Manager John Hohman opened the training by introducing the City employees to the new Planning Commissioners. Staff provided a broad overview on a number of topics in order as follows: John Hohman: City Organizational Structure Cary Driskell: Planning Commission Authority/Duties and Conflict of Interest Cary Driskell: Open Public Meetings Act/Appearance of Fairness Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT 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 r John Hohman, Community Development Director Joy Stoy—Vice-chair x Cary Driskell-Attorney Robert McCaslin x Lori Barlow— Senior Planner Rod Higgins Steven Neill Christina Carlsen Kevin Anderson r ary 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 Stoy 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 Chair Bates made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Bates made a motion to approve the 12-13-2012 miI ` " 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 M i ay 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 an 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 ye j Swimming access issues were discuss nd 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 i .would coordinate with the SMP, and it is a 20 year period. The Chair declared a ten minute break which begaa WOpm Use Manufactured Home Discussion: Community Development Director John Hohman discussed issues rela - ®''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 wi h 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, Chairper Mary Swank, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Chair Bates: Planning Commission Meeting Procedures Cary Driskell: Roberts Rules of Order Erik Lamb: Public Records and Email Usage Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Zoning and Comp Plan Review Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: City Website Navigation. Staff and PC Commission agreed to move the website navigation training to the next Planning Commission Meeting this Thursday January 10, 2013. Senior Planner Lori Barlow: Shoreline Management Act Overview In closing Commissioner Bates complimented and told the staff how much he appreciates everything they do. V. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. VI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2