Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 07-11-13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. July 11, 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 I Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair i r Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Steven Neill i� Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Anderson l I- Mike Phillips Robert McCaslin Christina Carlsen Cari Hinshaw, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second was made and the motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill moved to approve the June 27, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was made and the motion was passed unanimously. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Kuhta provided an overview of the PC advance agenda. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Findings of Fact CTA-2013-0005, Outdoor Lighting Standards. Commissioner Stoy moved to approve and forward to City Council CTA-2013-0005 as presented. A second was made. Discussion: None Planning Commission vote was to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion was passed unanimously. B. New Business: Study Session: Shoreline Management Program Update. Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented an overview of the following supporting technical documents prepared by the SMP team. They are as follows: • No Net Loss Report: The report demonstrates how the updated City's SMP will meet the required no net loss of ecological functions (NNL) requirement within shoreline areas. The report is intended to summarize documents prepared throughout the current SMP update process to demonstrate how each supporting element combines to achieve NNL. • Shoreline Buffers Report: The report provides background information and the rationale used to establish shoreline buffers sufficient to achieve the "No Net Loss of Ecological Functions" requirement. Shoreline buffers protect the shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources and are an important regulatory tool that help the City comply with the "No Net Loss" standard. • Cumulative Impacts Analysis: The Cumulative Impacts Analysis is intended to be a model of cumulative impacts on shoreline ecological functions within the City and is based on a variety of inputs filtered through the draft environmental designations and their applicable level of land use restrictions. The analysis ensures that shoreline environmental designations and proposed SMP regulations will be protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions. Findings of this model may result in modifications to the draft SMP regulations if it is determined that cumulative impacts could result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions over time. Commissioner Carlsen had a question about undeveloped parcels. She quoted from the document that"the maintenance of existing yards or gardens except that pruning and thinning activities within the buffer areas must comply with all of the section". She wanted to know what is laid out for the new development. Ms. Barlow stated that everything in the buffer would be intended to remain undisturbed, and that they may be able to do some pruning or thinning if they are able to meet the requirements. New yard would occur outside of the buffer area. Ms. Carlsen then asked about the diagram showing the relationship between a house and the shoreline buffer setbacks. Ms. Barlow stated that in Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 the Coyote Rock area it's possible to have a house placed 95 feet from the water's edge. In an area west of Millwood it's most likely a house could be placed 70 feet from the water's edge, because in that area it is only a 50 foot buffer. Shelly Lake would also be less than 95 feet because it is a 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Carlsen stated that it does not address new yards because it's specific to maintenance of existing yards. Ms. Barlow stated that land within the buffer area is intended to remain in a natural state. Should somebody propose a subdivision or a building permit, the buffer would remain undisturbed. Commissioner Bates asked if there are very many current residents that the setbacks and buffers are going to be a problem. Ms. Barlow responded there are areas based on the new regulations that the existing structures will be non-conforming. They have been addressed in the development regulations and the Shoreline Management Act itself provides the opportunity for jurisdictions to make the determination that those single-family structures are not considered non-conforming. Commissioner Anderson asked if Planning Commission input was appropriate on this Shoreline Master Program Update packet. Ms. Barlow stated this is an informative Study Session and that these documents are the technical support documents linking the science based resources to the development regulations and other required elements. A public hearing will not be conducted for the review of these documents since they are informational only. Commissioner Anderson discussed the legal definition of non- conforming as far as property value in the future for financing or resale and how somebody changes the rules for the property after the property was established. Commissioner Anderson stated he had never seen it addressed. Eric Lamb Deputy City Attorney stated that in the draft development regulations there is a section on non-conforming uses. Planning Manager Kuhta stated, if you have a property and the entire property is in a buffer area and the house burns down, we couldn't prohibit a new house from being built. You have to have an allowable use on that property. Ms. Barlow noted that the regulations provide options for all foreseeable conditions associated with a non-conforming structure and whenever possible mimics the existing nonconforming regulations implemented citywide. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There were no comments. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 , 7../X6c-r /7/ Cad Hinshaw, PC Secretary r Date signed ,�'�,�` ..9 , Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4