Loading...
2013, 06-18 Minutes Jt with PC MINUTE S Special Meeting Spokane Valley City Council Spokane Valley Planning Commission Tuesday,June 18,2013 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,Wa. 99216 Attendance: City Councihnembers Staff Planning Commissioners Torn Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Bill Bates,Chair Gary Schirnmels,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Kevin Anderson Dean Grafos,Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Christina Carlsen Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Michael Phillips Rod Higgins,Councilmember John Holunan, Comm.Dev Director Robert McCaslin Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Steven Neill Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Absent: Special Guests: Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Joe Stoy,Vice Chair Tadas Kisielius,Attorney with Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager VanNess Feldman Gordon Derr Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Noah Herlocker, Sr Ecologist,URS Corp John Patrouch,URS Corp,Engineer Mayor Towey call the meeting to order, welcomed everyone, and expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commissioners for attending. After self-introductions of those seated at the tables, including Messers Kisielius and Herlocker, Mayor Towey asked if there were any questions about tonight's agenda item. No questions were posed and Mayor Towey turned the meeting over to the Shoreline Management Program Team. Community Development Director Hohman explained that the team is here to talk about the Shoreline Master Program and give an overview of where we are and where we're going, and to look at some of the development regulations. Mr. Hohman said staff and the team have been spending a lot of time to get the very best draft while still complying with all the regulations. Mr. Hohman encouraged Councilmembers and Commissioners to ask questions, and said staff views this meeting as the official kickoff as they move forward in the public participation process and ultimate adoption; adding that the public hearing will be held in July, and the process moves to Council thereafter. Director Hohman explained that the shoreline regulations only apply to the shorelines and that jurisdiction; that the focus is on the Spokane River, and of note is the properties along the River; that this presentation is a review of a presentation given to Council about one and a half years ago, and is a means to re-boost the effort to move this forward. Director Hohman said the tonight's information will show where the regulations apply so everyone will get a feel for the context they are working on and how little property is impacted by these regulations; and as shown on slide 3 of the PowerPoint, that 62% of the land is public compared with 38% private land. Mr. Hohman also noted that slide 5 indicates the five property owners with whom they interact, and that although slide 12 indicates 6 property owners, Mr. Holunan said he feels the more correct number is five. In continuing through the presentation, Mr. Hohman said that slide 15 gives a good example of what the property looks like and the steepness of the slopes, which steepness he said would make it difficult to develop. Special Meeting Minutes 06-18-2013 Page of 3 Approved by Council:07-09-2013 Senior Planner Barlow then gave an overview of the development regulations beginning with slide 19; she said the team is looking at the drafts of the development and critical areas regulations; she said for tonight's explanation purposes, they have separated development regulations from critical areas regulations, but they actually are one piece as the critical areas are one section of the entire development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that they have not yet started the public review process so changes could still occur in terms of formatting or modifying the language. As explained previously, Ms. Barlow said that eventually Council will be asked to accept this piece by resolution, as was done on previous sections; adding that one of the benefits of tonight's joint meeting is it will satisfy the need for a study session for the Planning Commission. She also noted that the open house is scheduled for July 18 with the public hearing tentatively set for July 25 before the Commission; and once the Commission has completed their review, she said the materials will be forwarded to Council, Ms. Barlow also noted that all the boxes are checked on slide 20 indicating the large amount of work already done; she said cumulative impacts and "no net loss analysis" will come before council later, then all the pieces will be packaged together and sent to the State for them to start their own process. Beginning with slide 21, Attorney Kisielius went over the regulatory framework and state guidelines, explained the minimum requirements for the SMP (Shoreline Master Program) as noted in the WAC (Washington Administrative Code), and further explained the "no-net-loss"which he said is the guideline for the shoreline ecological standards; he stated no net loss is not preservation of pre-development conditions, but more of using the shoreline ecological standards as the guideline. • Mr. Herlocker explained that his role is to gather the assets and summarize the environmental data available, and collect additional data to fill in gaps and start to establish the picture of the shoreline conditions in order to provide the baseline; and said that overall the hope is to establish something that will be protected so the shoreline conditions twenty years from now will be similar to those we currently have; again, so there will be no net loss, and said in particular that refers to water quality functions and habitat loss,river cleanup, and TMDL(total maximum daily load); he said some areas are appropriate for growth and others for conservation while other areas are good contenders for improved functions; they then look at what kind of regulations are needed to protect what we have in order to prevent any widespread or uncontrolled losses. The team continued by going through the PowerPoint, which included showing the critical areas, the process used to develop the draft regulations while not replicating regulations already in place but more to address those situations unique to the shoreline master program. The question came up to clarify the meaning of the "gap" and Mr. Kisielius explained that there are regulations in the WAC and regulations in the City's municipal code, and if regulations are already in place, they don't replicate them but the "gap" takes care of what those regulations don't address in situations in the shoreline area. He said that within the shoreline jurisdiction,the SMP has specific things that the City must do and doesn't have to do anywhere else in the City, which is to protect shoreline ecological functions; so the gap he said is to add the regulations needed, without duplicating regulations, in order to satisfy the shoreline management act. The tables were also explained, including that P stands for permitted process, C for conditional use which involves the DOE (Department of Ecology) as a final decision maker, and X for prohibited use. During the discussion it was stressed repeatedly that there will be uses and development on the shoreline, and the idea is not to stop those but rather to ensure what occurs will not create a net loss. The team also disused the mitigation sequencing. Commissioner Anderson asked who is the "we" who determines the rules and how they are processed. Mr. Kisielius explained that concerning the rules, we want to be flexible and give the public the opportunity to address their desires in various ways, and that there are differing approaches one can take in different sections; that the current baseline is generally the point to start measuring; and that the "we" references is the staff, URS and Mr. Kisielius, but most predominantly, is the Community Development Director. Mr. Hohman referenced page 20, section 2 item A mentions to the director's satisfaction and said staff will be examining that and if needed will consult and coordinate issues with the DOE; adding that there are many steps such as conditional uses and variances that would also be reviewed by the DOE, Special Meeting Minutes 06-18-2013 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: 07-09-2013 Ms. Barlow continued the presentation by explaining buffers and building setbacks, with Mr. Hohman stating that we have a very detailed inventory of what we have and that we realize this approach will take more effort to determine the buffer and where it lies on the property. Other areas discussed included the need to have consistent development regulations while being aware that regulations will differ depending if the project is public or private, as there are many private projects protected by the Constitution. Nonconforming structures, or "grandfathering" was also discussed, which Mr. Kisielius explained is the police power which authorizes cities to change the zoning; but said that caution must be used because a forced change might be construed as a "taking," He explained that the City has a lot of discretion in choosing how to deal with nonconforming structures; he said they are generally disfavored but in some cases can even expand provided it remains consistent with the SMP; he further explained that with nonconforming structures or uses, we are always talking about some changes in the rules; and that they examined that issue and feel it is not likely to be a problem. Primary versus accessory structures were also discussed. Mr. Kisielius explained slide 39 and the overlap in the regulatory relationship between recreational facilities, boating facilities, and docks, which prompted a very brief discussion concerning dock construction cost. Senior Planner Barlow explained that the deadline to have the program adopted is the end of this year; that there have been some delays as they have moved through the process, but the goal is to push for completion by June 30 in order to comply with grant requirements and receive reimbursement; she said they are working closely with the DOE and the DOE is very supporting; that the goal is to go through each element, and package that up as quickly as possible as the legislative deadline for this process is the end of this year. It was also noted that we are obligated to review the plan every seven years. There was brief discussion concerning qualified professionals as noted on pages 11 and 22, with Commissioner Carlsen mentioning that biologists are generally not licensed professionals. Mayor Towey thanked everyone for attending the session for the information supplied by the team. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. _,.2 _ _ ATTEST: I•mas E. T. vey, favor �T (14,.. & .. . / Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Meeting Minutes 06-18-2013 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: 07-09-2013